Why CBS Covered up the JFK Case (pt1)

[David Von Pein]

Plus, Sandy, as I mentioned multiple times previously, Oswald's casts were WASHED before being subjected to the NAA analysis!

What would you expect after the casts are WASHED, for Pete sake?

Of course there's going to be LESS of the chemicals present after such washing. That's only common sense. And the FBI's John Gallagher says so in his testimony (emphasis is my own)....

Mr. REDLICH -- Did the fact that these casts were washed prior to the neutron activation test materially alter, in your opinion, the results of the neutron activation analysis?

Mr. GALLAGHER -- I can say that the washing did not remove all the antimony and barium.

Mr. REDLICH -- In your opinion, would the washing of these paraffin casts remove substantial amounts of the elements barium and antimony if they were present on those casts?

Mr. GALLAGHER -- Chemical treatment and washing will remove portions of the barium and antimony from these casts. This was determined from test casts which were studied in connection with these analyses. But it did not remove all the barium and antimony.

Edited April 25, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

I have always said that DVP is even worse than the Warren Commission.

This is from Pat Speer's web site, and it summarizes a memo from Redlich to Dulles. Recall, this is an internal WC memo summarizing their own evidence.

A 7-2 memo from Norman Redlich to Commissioner Allen Dulles, apparently written just after Redlich spoke with the FBI, gives a possible answer. Here, Redlich discusses the Reader's Digest article with Dulles without first explaining its subject matter. This suggests that Dulles, the former head of the CIA, had already known its subject matter and had in fact obtained the article himself--perhaps through "friends" at the Digest-- and had provided it to Redlich. The content of the memo is also intriguing. Redlich makes four basic statements: 1) “At best the analysis shows that Oswald may have fired a pistol, although this is by no means certain;” 2) “There is no basis for concluding that he also fired a rifle;” 3) "The presence of barium and antimony in the cheek cast is of no significance because Oswald might have touched his face with his hands after firing a pistol;" and 4) "barium and antimony are found on a variety of common substances." In other words, these tests are of no help in proving Oswald killed Kennedy.

Did Redlich turn a positive into a negative?

I would like to make a comment about point #3, "The presence of barium and antimony in the cheek cast is of no significance because Oswald might have touched his face with his hands after firing a pistol."

This statement would be relevant had the test performed on Oswald's cheek cast come back positive. But it came back negative, so #3 is irrelevant (and the conclusion should be that Oswald didn't fire the rifle). Redlich apparently didn't understand this when he wrote to Dulles.

Pat Speer also noticed that Redlich's wasn't fully-informed when he wrote the memo to Dulles. You see this if you read the paragraph directly following what Jim quoted above. Pat continues:

"This memo is nevertheless helpful to our understanding. In explaining why the cheek residue had little significance, Redlich writes: "I have been advised by the FBI lab that there had been insufficient experience with this technique to enable conclusions as to what would be the normal amounts of these elements on a person's cheek whether or not he had fired a weapon." This suggests that Gallagher had failed to tell Redlich of Guinn's tests, which showed that the levels on the cheek of one who'd fired a rifle were inevitably higher than the levels on one who had not, and gave numerical values to back this up."

Edited April 26, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[James DiEugenio]

I just got done reading Pat Speer's very long essay on the paraffin and NAA tests for gunshot residue.

Because I wanted to find where DVP got the following quote:

"A rifle similar to the one that killed the president was used. One person fired the rifle on eight different occasions and each time was given the paraffin test. 'Only one out of the eight experiments gave a positive identification,' Guinn said."

He used this to pummel Ben Holmes and the rest of the non believers into thinking that somehow Guinn was denying the results of a test he himself had worked on. The reason this puzzled me was that after I had done research on this subject, I did not recall any such thing spoken by Guinn in any credible context.

Consider some of the following:

1. Guinn: We bought a similar rifle from the same shop as Oswald and conducted two parallel tests. One person fired the rifle on eight occasions...it was positive in all eight cases and showed a primer on both hands and both cheeks. (Early 1963)

2. Guinn: Further be advised that the tests to date indicate that powder residues are deposited on both cheeks of the shooter after the rifle is fired either one time or three times. (Same time period)

3. Guinn in 1964: An article by Guinn in the October 1964 Journal of the Forensic Science Society confirms that he felt there should have been gunshot residue on Oswald's cheek. After discussing the use of neutron activation analysis in detecting gunshot residue on men suspected of firing a handgun, Guinn states “Similar studies with rifles and shotguns are now being initiated, but to date the only such studies carried out have been with one particular type of rifle. These measurements, however, produced very interesting results, namely, that firing of this type of rifle deposited quite measurable amounts of Ba (Barium) and Sb (Antimony) on both hands and both cheeks of the firers.”

4. Guinn in 1967: In a June '67 article in Ramparts Magazine, and then again in his 1968 book on forensic evidence, Invisible Witness, former FBI man William Turner reports that Guinn admitted that he and a Los Angeles Police Department criminalist named Raymond Pinker had tested a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle like Oswald’s and had found abundant gunshot residue on the cheeks of those firing the rifle every time.

Interesting, is it not? And by the way, all of these are from the same article, that same Speer article. Begin to see a characteristic Von Peinian pattern?

5. Now, further, Guinn conducted tests on this with former FBI agent Bill Turner. The results were printed in a forensic magazine called American Jurisprudence. Turner wrote that the gunshot residue expelled by the MC rifle was significant. (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 88, based on a letter from the late FBI agent Turner to Gary Aguilar)

If you are counting that is five instances which contradict the one instance Von Pein is utilizing. Hmm. But let us go back to Pat's essay. Which DVP knocks and discourages you from reading, and actually takes a personal shot at Speer for suspecting anything is up with the FBI.

6. Pat Speer: "It's also important to note that, as already discussed, Gallagher's sole test on a cheek proved the assassination rifle leaked residue, and that FBI Agent Cunningham's subsequent testimony was misleading."

7. Pat Speer: "As a result, we can understand John Gallagher's position when testifying before the Warren Commission. There was no way he could explain these results without casting doubt on Oswald's guilt, the scientific basis of his and Dr. Guinn's tests, their ability to run the tests without contaminating the evidence, or the competence and integrity of the Dallas Police. He had little choice but to act as though the contamination of the cheek cast made it impossible for him to come to any conclusions. He had little choice but to bury his test results in the FBI laboratory files, far, far, away from the Warren Commission and the ever-curious gaze of the public."

As Artie Johnson used to say on Laugh In, "Very interesting." And it is. Because of the obvious contradiction between the overwhelming majority of the references made by Guinn, and the one DVP chose to extract and use so indiscriminately while, James Phelan style, trying to cast aspersion on the source. Namely Speer. Is there some kind of unflattering explanation? One which Davey will not be candid about?

Yes there is.

Edited April 26, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Now whenever someone on the other side does something like this, it immediately raises my antennae.

Because I have seen the technique used so often by the Dark Syde. I mention Phelan above. That is just one instance.

So why does the one instance that Davey used disagree with all the others? And why does he not tell us about the radical exception?

Because if you read Pat's essay--which Davey does not want you to do--you will read all the other quotes by Guinn that are direct and impeach this one. But you will also see that the one he uses is not a direct quote from Guinn.

It is a report in a newspaper from Dallas.

Who is the reporter? Phelan's good buddy, Hugh Aynesworth.

Case Closed.

Edited April 26, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

The mere presence of a chemical doesn't necessarily indicate a positive result.

Sure it does. The PRESENCE of the substance = it is THERE.

Ergo, it's a POSITIVE result for the PRESENCE of the item being searched for.

Duh.

You're clearly not a technically minded person. You need to be educated on scientific controls, and on absolute versus relative measurements.

I'll just say this... you are saying that the absolute measurement is what is important in the NAA test, and that a control is unnecessary. In contrast, I am saying that the relative measurement is what is important in the NAA test, and that a control is necessary.

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy,as I showed above, Davey does not give a hoot about controls.

[David Von Pein]

This statement would be relevant had the test performed on Oswald's cheek cast come back positive. But it came back negative...

I guess you're going to keep telling this blatant falsehood until the end of your days, eh Sandy?

The Barium/Antimony/NAA test was NOT "negative". It was positive for the presence of antimony and barium. And nothing you can say can change it to a "negative" result.

[David Von Pein]

You're clearly not a technically minded person. You need to be educated on scientific controls, and on absolute versus relative measurements.

I'll just say this... you are saying that the absolute measurement is what is important in the NAA test, and that a control is unnecessary. In contrast, I am saying that the relative measurement is what is important in the NAA test, and that a control is necessary.

I'm merely pointing out to you that you are wrong when you utilize the word "NEGATIVE" when describing the results of Oswald's NAA/Barium/Antimony cast tests. Some of those elements WERE present on the casts. Therefore, the casts showed a POSITIVE result. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that that positive result is proof that Oswald shot JFK. In fact, in 2015, I specifically made this clear to conspiracy hobbyist Ben Holmes....

"But the main point is --- Neither test (paraffin or NAA) proves Lee Harvey Oswald didn't fire a gun on 11/22/63. And, by the same token, neither test proves he DID fire a gun." -- DVP; Sept. 2015

Edited April 26, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Because if you read Pat's essay--which Davey does not want you to do...

Total BS (yet again) from Jimmy D.

I specifically LINKED to Pat's article at my website--TWICE! And I even referred to Pat's article as an "excellent article"....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-583.html

But I guess this REALLY is supposed to mean, per Jimbo, that I don't want anybody to read Pat's article. Even though I linked to it twice.

Edited April 26, 2016 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Then why did you write this:

Pat Speer's lengthy Internet article, "Casts Of Contention", is a very interesting piece. But I can't really see how Pat's article changes the previously-linked "unreliable" determination reached by the Warren Commission on Page 562 of the Warren Report.

Speer, however, thinks that there is something "suspicious" about the way the NAA cheek test was treated by the FBI and the Warren Commission. (CTers, of course, think that a lot of things are "suspicious" in the JFK case.)

And then you left out the payoff of Speer's long and subtle analysis. Which he does not cherry pick, as you do:

There's also this. In an online discussion, researcher Herbert Blenner and chemist Tom Pinkston alerted me to the little appreciated fact that barium, when in a form that is readily soluble, is extremely poisonous, and that most commercial forms of barium, including that in gun powder, are, as a result, not soluble. This means that the barium on Oswald's cheek cast, if it were from gunpowder, could be rinsed away, but would not readily dry onto the outside of the cast afterward. This is supported by the fact that the ratios of barium to antimony on the inside of Oswald's hand casts were 3-4 times greater than on the outside of the casts. As a result, one can not reasonably assume the .97 micro grams barium found on the back of the cheek cast came from the inside of the cast. To be consistent with the hand casts, moreover, one might assume the actual amount of barium on the outside of the cast would have been no more than ten percent of the amount on the inside, or .03 micro grams. This would put the level of barium on Oswald's cheek cast, inside and outside, at .33 micro grams, within the normal range of unwashed hand casts, and quite possibly within the normal range of washed cheek casts of men in his line of work.

Of course, if one rids oneself of the notion that the residue on the outside of the casts came from the inside, and instead considers that at least some of the contamination on the outside of the cast reached the inside part that touched Oswald's cheek, it is hard to come to any other conclusion than that the tests on Oswald's cheek cast, prior to contamination, were negative.

As a result, we can understand John Gallagher's position when testifying before the Warren Commission. There was no way he could explain these results without casting doubt on Oswald's guilt, the scientific basis of his and Dr. Guinn's tests, their ability to run the tests without contaminating the evidence, or the competence and integrity of the Dallas Police. He had little choice but to act as though the contamination of the cheek cast made it impossible for him to come to any conclusions. He had little choice but to bury his test results in the FBI laboratory files, far, far, away from the Warren Commission and the ever-curious gaze of the public.

Besides leaving that out, you also cherry picked the Aynesworth quote, without telling the reader about that source, and you left out all the other instances which impeach that quote, which are from Guinn himself.

​So who is dishing the BS?

​You owe Ben Holmes an apology, which he will never get. Maybe David H will let him know you conned him.

Edited April 26, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

I suppose that when Bugliosi wrote the above he could have been thinking ONLY of the standard paraffin test, not the NAA test. But I doubt it. Why would he point out that the standard test failed, but not point out that the more sensitive NAA test tested positive... if it had indeed tested positive??

Go to Page 80 of Vince's Endnotes in "Reclaiming History". He talks specifically about the NAA test on that page.

Vince does make a mistake, however, when he implies that the NAA/Barium/Antimony test at Oak Ridge tested for "nitrates". I don't think it tested for the presence of nitrates at all. It only tested for barium and antimony. (See John Gallagher's WC testimony at 15 H 749 for confirmation of this.)

Edited April 26, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

​You owe Ben Holmes an apology...

LOL. Hilarious, Jim.

Fat chance there. Maybe when hell freezes rock solid, but not until then. Holmes is a nutcase to end all nutcases.

Maybe Jerry D will let him know you conned him.

Who's Jerry D.?

[EDIT:] Maybe David H will let him know you conned him.

I'm sure he will. After all, Healy has been gum on my shoe for ten years now.

(Ben Holmes, btw, was apparently kicked off the Amazon forums recently. He hasn't posted there for several weeks after his series of non-stop insulting "You're Lying" posts were summarily deleted by the Amazon moderators.)

Edited April 26, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Then why did you write this:

Pat Speer's lengthy Internet article, "Casts Of Contention", is a very interesting piece. But I can't really see how Pat's article changes the previously-linked "unreliable" determination reached by the Warren Commission on Page 562 of the Warren Report.

Speer, however, thinks that there is something "suspicious" about the way the NAA cheek test was treated by the FBI and the Warren Commission. (CTers, of course, think that a lot of things are "suspicious" in the JFK case.)

It's just as I said ---- Speer's article is, in essence, saying the EXACT SAME THING the WC says on Page 562 --- i.e., the NAA and Paraffin tests are not reliable and it's therefore "impossible to attach significance to the presence of these elements" (WCR; Pg. 562).

Therefore, with or without the nice article penned by Patrick J. Speer, we're still left with that "impossible to attach significance" conclusion reached by the Warren Commission.

IOW -- Pat Speer and the Warren Commission completely agree with each other on this point regarding the unreliability of the paraffin and NAA tests.

So, what's the beef, Jim? Or are you pulling a Tony Marsh trick on me here and arguing just for the sake of arguing?

Edited April 26, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Addendum re: the NAA tests done by Dr. Vincent Guinn....

Please note that in the quotes used by Jim DiEugenio in a previous post of his above, it would appear that a very important part of the 1964 newspaper article written by Hugh Aynesworth was omitted in other versions of the same story that were cited in other papers and newswire services. Please note the critical part that is left out (via the "...") in the version of this story that was printed in the New York World Sun & Telegram on August 28, 1964 (compared to the 8/31/64 Aynesworth version that appeared in the Dallas paper)....

The Aug. 28 version:

"One person fired the rifle on eight occasions...it was positive in all eight cases and showed a primer on both hands and both cheeks."

~~~~~~~~~~~

The Aug. 31 (Aynesworth) version:

"One person fired the rifle on eight different occasions and each time was given the paraffin test. 'Only one out of the eight experiments gave a positive identification,' Guinn said. Then they repeated the experiment using radioactivity. 'It was positive in all eight cases, and showed a primer on both hands and cheeks,' he said."

~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, it would seem as if the tests were both POSITIVE and NEGATIVE. All of them being positive after the test was "repeated" for the NAA tests. But only one of the results was positive when tested ONLY for nitrates.

So citing only the Aug. 28th story is misleading, because we're really talking about TWO different kinds of tests -- Nitrate & NAA.

Edited April 26, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

Plus, Sandy, as I mentioned multiple times previously, Oswald's casts were WASHED before being subjected to the NAA analysis!

What would you expect after the casts are WASHED, for Pete sake?

Of course there's going to be LESS of the chemicals present after such washing. That's only common sense. And the FBI's John Gallagher says so in his testimony (emphasis is my own)....

Mr. REDLICH -- Did the fact that these casts were washed prior to the neutron activation test materially alter, in your opinion, the results of the neutron activation analysis?

Mr. GALLAGHER -- I can say that the washing did not remove all the antimony and barium.

Mr. REDLICH -- In your opinion, would the washing of these paraffin casts remove substantial amounts of the elements barium and antimony if they were present on those casts?

Mr. GALLAGHER -- Chemical treatment and washing will remove portions of the barium and antimony from these casts. This was determined from test casts which were studied in connection with these analyses. But it did not remove all the barium and antimony.

David,

The hand casts were washed, and they tested positive. This proves that a positive test result was still possible after a washing.

Anything beyond that is anybody's guess.

The WC and those performing these tests certainly could have studied in greater detail the precise effect of washing the casts. But they didn't. They didn't bother doing anything other than a cursory test to discover that some indeterminate amount of residue was washed away. This tells me that they could see that doing anything further would be a waste of their time. It wouldn't show that Oswald fired the rifle. So they quit. As a result nobody knows how much the washing affected the test results.