Provable Lies Of The Warren Commission - #18 - Just For Cowards Corbutt & Huckster Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

The Paraffin Test: "...Conversely, a person who has recently fired a
weapon may not show a positive reaction to the paraffin test,
particularly if the weapon was a rifle."

Unfortunately for the honesty of the Warren Commission, they decided
to completely bury the NAA testing (which is far more sensitive than a
diphenylamine test of the paraffin casting) conducted by Dr. Guinn...
and reported to Gallagher (who was not questioned on NAA the test
results, even though he'd been in charge of them!)

"At the end of February 1964 Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, head of the NAA
Section of General Atomic Division, of the General Dynamics
Corporation, called Gallagher about the research his division was
undertaking for the Atomic Energy Commission. For the past few years,
Guinn reported, he and his colleagues had been using NAA to test the
powder residues from discharged firearms. He sought out Gallagher to
report the results of their tests on a "rifle similar to the one
reportedly owned by Lee Harvey Oswald." The triple firing of the
rifle, Guinn advised, "leaves unambiguous positive tests every time on
the paraffin casts." Because of the inferior construction of the
Mannlicher-Carcano, the Italian army's World War II assault rifle,
Guinn noted that the blowback from one or three shots deposited powder
residue "on both cheeks" of the shooter." (Breach of Trust - Gerald
McKnight, pg 211)

These comparison tests were in direct contradiction to the tests that
the Warren Commission reported on by the FBI. It's a near certainty,
however, that the Warren Commission was referring to *spectrographic*
testing of paraffin casts by the FBI. The far more sensitive NAA tests
*always* came back positive, according to Dr. Guinn. Because this was
exculpatory, these results were buried by the WC, and indeed, they
lied by omission.

THEY LIED BY OMISSION...

Gallagher was nearly the last witness called to testify, despite the
fact that he'd been in charge of the NAA testing... as McKnight puts
it: "If Gallagher could have testified that NAA testing disclosed that
all this lead had exactly the same chemical composition, then the
Commission would have had an airtight, scientifically rock-hard,
incontestable case that the fatal bullet had been fired from Oswald's
rifle. [or, at least, CE139 - which they *claimed* was Oswald's
rifle!] Had the Commission had the scientific proof to state this case
with confidence, then Gallagher would have been one of its first
witnesses rather than slipped in at the fag end of the investigation.
(ibid. pg 210)

The Warren Commission lied... and they knew it. Anyone care to defend
the Warren Commission's burying of direct testing data that was
exculpatory, and their assertion of data instead that was favorable to
their hypothesis?


Of course, Corbutt is like Chuckles in his lack of knowledge about
this case, and probably has no concept of what the NAA consisted of...
But Huckster, who does... will run like the coward he is...

Huckster **CAN'T** respond... he knows I've proven a lie, and he can't
defend the WCR from this obvious lie.

[Hank Sienzant]

No, the tests are meaningless as those tests were performed on a different rifle, and thus, have no bearing on what would have shown on paraffin tests performed with Oswald’s rifle. Moreover, despite testing only one *similar* WWII war-surplus MC, Guinn (or McKnight) jump to the conclusion that all Carcano’s have this defect. That is assumed, not established. The tests by Guinn are therefore meaningless as they haven’t been shown to have any bearing on what tests with Oswald’s weapon would have shown.

This is established in Ben’s citation:
“He [Guinn] sought out Gallagher to report the results of their tests on a
**** "rifle similar to the one reportedly owned by Lee Harvey Oswald." *****
The triple firing of the rifle, Guinn advised, "leaves unambiguous positive tests every time on the paraffin casts." Because of the inferior construction of the Mannlicher-Carcano [this particular war surplus weapon, not all], the Italian army's World War II assault rifle, Guinn noted that the blowback from one or three shots deposited powder residue "on both cheeks" of the shooter." (Breach of Trust - Gerald McKnight, pg 211)

>
> THEY LIED BY OMISSION...
>
> Gallagher was nearly the last witness called to testify, despite the
> fact that he'd been in charge of the NAA testing... as McKnight puts
> it: "If Gallagher could have testified that NAA testing disclosed that
> all this lead had exactly the same chemical composition, then the
> Commission would have had an airtight, scientifically rock-hard,
> incontestable case that the fatal bullet had been fired from Oswald's
> rifle. [or, at least, CE139 - which they *claimed* was Oswald's
> rifle!] Had the Commission had the scientific proof to state this case
> with confidence, then Gallagher would have been one of its first
> witnesses rather than slipped in at the fag end of the investigation.
> (ibid. pg 210)
>
> The Warren Commission lied... and they knew it. Anyone care to defend
> the Warren Commission's burying of direct testing data that was
> exculpatory, and their assertion of data instead that was favorable to
> their hypothesis?
>

How is testing on a similar rifle exculpatory? If I show a shooter getting off six shots in five seconds with a different MC, does that establish the capability of Oswald’s weapon?

>
> Of course, Corbutt is like Chuckles in his lack of knowledge about
> this case, and probably has no concept of what the NAA consisted of...
> But Huckster, who does... will run like the coward he is...
>
> Huckster **CAN'T** respond... he knows I've proven a lie, and he can't
> defend the WCR from this obvious lie.

Begged Question logical fallacy.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 08:57:58 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?