Why CBS Covered up the JFK Case (pt1)

[Tom Neal]

Note: I just wrote a detailed response to this, that got eaten just as I was about to post. Is anyone else having this problem? Is the forum now booting out responses that take longer than 10 minutes?

For what it's worth, I never *ever* type posts in the forum reply box. Instead, I type them in Notepad (because if you do it in Word, it sometimes carries the formatting of Word over to the reply box). That way, you can type to your heart's content in Notepad, even save the file to go back to later, and then just copy and paste into the forum reply box when you're ready.

It's a little bit more work, but you'll never lose anything.

I do the same thing, Michael. It also gives me a record that I can easily find of any new information I've learned. It's not easy to go back and find a previous post on this site.

Tom

[Pat Speer]

3. The results for the gsr tests of the hands were positive. There is a chance the gsr came from merely handling the revolver

In response to Sandy's question:

Mr. Speer,

"..a chance?"

AGAIN, from your own website, which I quoted from earlier which provoked a response from you that I "refuse" to read your document...

FROM MY EARLIER POST: Dr. W.F. Mason of Dallas concluded, after tests, that paraffin casts made of Oswalds hands contained traces of nitrate

consistent with the residue on the hands of a person who had recently HANDLED *or* fired a firearm. This doesn't state there's "a chance", it STATES that

just HANDLING a pistol (which he did) is enough to produce the results achieved.

If Mr. Spear would stop accusing me of refusing to read his document when I OBVIOUSLY had or I couldn't have quoted from it, and read HIS own document

AND my posts, which mention more than one statement from an expert (also from HIS document) that LHO's tests indicate that HANDLING a pistol (which he did)

caused the positive results.

So Mr. Spear, should we ignore Dr. D.F. Mason et al as you have ignored YOUR OWN document AND my posts?

If you ever bother to respond to this post, we can get around to a more recent post of yours...

A couple of points.

1. My answer was about the gsr test. Not the nitrate test to which Mason refers. I don't believe Mason ever conducted an NAA test. He most certainly had not at the time of the shooting.

2. The scientific consensus at the time of the shooting was that handling a weapon COULD create a false positive, not that it necessarily would. Eventually this was tested. I made reference to this in an earlier post. Here is is again:

"That the residue on Oswald's right hand came from his merely handling his weapon is discounted by a more recent study as well. For this study, as described in the November 1995 Journal of the Forensic Sciences, the hands of 43 police officers—none of whom had recently fired a weapon-- were tested to see if they had picked up gunshot residue from merely handling their weapons. The tests were positive for only 3 of them."

When I wrote my chapter/article I was trying to reach conclusions based upon the latest science, so to speak, and not based upon what people were saying in 1963 or 1964. As stated, it is my feeling that the NAA test results are only suggestive and not conclusive. If more testing had been done in 1964 and/or if an investigation had been conducted into how the casts got contaminated, a much clearer picture could have emerged. Unfortunately, this was not done.

I think it's fair to say, moreover, that it's not a coincidence this wasn't done. IMO, the FBI and WC were scared to death where this would lead, and so turned off at the nearest exit. "The casts were contaminated. We can come to no conclusion regarding the cheek cast. And good luck finding the numerical results of this test, because we aren't gonna put them in the commission's records. Goodbye."

Even if one disagrees with my belief the tests suggest Oswald fired his revolver but not his rifle, moreover, I think my chapter on this topic is important. Weisberg was mostly interested in the NAA of the bullet fragments, and never really told the story of the FBI and AEC's secret agreement to hide the NAA tests from the Warren Commission, and the public. This is a compelling story, IMO, and an important addition to our understanding of the cover-up, that is, the part of the cover-up that's visible above the surface. It's quite telling, IMO, that Cunningham testified that his personal expectation was that no gsr would leak onto the face of a man firing a rifle...at a time when his department had already been informed of tests in which it was found this happened every time, and had even conducted such a test of their own, using the assassination rifle, with positive results.

[Tom Neal]

1. My answer was about the gsr test. Not the nitrate test to which Mason refers.

DICTIONARY DEFINITION: Gunshot residue (GSR), is residue deposited on the hands and clothes of someone who discharges a firearm.

For the umpteenth time NITRATES ARE *ALSO* GSR!

When you say "gsr" test, but "not the nitrate test" you reveal that you STILL haven't learned that the "Nitrate Test" AND the "NAA Test" are *BOTH* tests of GSR.

How is anyone supposed to follow your statements when you CONSTANTLY use the most BASIC of terminology incorrectly? Why should anyone believe something complex from you, when you can't be bothered to learn AND USE basic terminology?

As just ONE MORE poster saying this about yet another topic, why don't you post the ACTUAL results of the NAA testing and the Nitrate testing and let US determine what they mean? I've already made this request several times, but like a HUNDRED other topics, where you have ignored the requests of others with whom you disagree, you STILL haven't made this data available either...

Either you drew your conclusions without actual data, or you refuse to share because someone could point out that you are wrong based on this info that you keep to yourself...

Edited May 1, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

Jim D. I sent you a PM a while ago apologizing for hijacking this thread. So once again I apologize for what will hopefully be the last OT on this thread.

Mr. Speer continues to cite the alleged results of tests performed over the many years since the assassination as evidence that LHO fired a pistol that day. Note that these "experts" in Mr. Speers writings contradict each other regularly.

My first objection is to Mr. Speer's continuing statements that these test results "suggest" that LHO fired a pistol that day, so he is more likely to have murdered JDT than he is to have murdered the president. In reality they suggest that he did NOT fire a pistol.

Most CTs believe that as part of the plan LHO was to be murdered. No mention is made of the "chance" that JDT tried to kill LHO, and IF he fired a pistol that day, it would be for self-defense. ALWAYS an acceptable defense - ESPECIALLY in Texas.

No test is 100% accurate. But despite this fact, Mr. Speer considers any test result less than 100% negative "suggests" LHO fired a handgun. The test result options are Positive, Negative or Inconclusive. Contrary to those who actually performed the tests, Mr. Speer has personally decided that "Inconclusive" results "suggest" that LHO fired a pistol. However, inconclusive actually means the tests don't indicate a decisive result. Thus an answer to the question did he fire a gun is "We don't know."

Although I have mentioned this fact more than once, Mr. Spear will not acknowledge a simple fact. If he actually was correct in saying there's a "chance" that he fired a gun, then obviously there is a "chance" that he didn't. Which "chance" is greater?

To properly evaluate ANY test results, it is important to consider other factors in addition to the actual test numbers. A few examples:

Were the required steps taken to assure that LHO did not come into contact with any contaminants such as the previously mentioned ordinary household items, like Clorox which according to the experts would give a false positive?

Could a man who handles cardboard boxes at his job test positive for nitrates on his hands but not his face? Yes. There are nitrates present in the boxes, and LHO allegedly tested positive for nitrates on his hands, but NOT on his face.

As a control were any other TSBD employees tested for GSR? No. Is that suspicious? Yes. They certainly had enough time to do this. Remember, even according to Mr. Speer's quoted data from experts, CONTACT with "ordinary household items" would cause a Postive result for the Nitrate, OR NAA tests, AND LHO did NOT test positive in the NAA - his result was "inconclusive."

Were there ANY suspicious circumstances involved prior to or after taking these samples? For example did DPD wait until 7 hours or more after LHO was taken into custody before making the Paraffin Casts when they knew that 4 hours was the normal max allowed time, and that the longer they waited the lower the test results?

Were the test samples PROPERLY obtained and PROPERLY stored by QUALIFIED personnel? Was ANY evidence in this case?

The NAA tests were performed months after the casts were made. Mr. Speer says this didn't matter, but he quotes no one who was QUALIFIED to make that statement. Who had custody of these paraffin casts until the tests were completed? Is there a proper chain of evidence? To my knowledge, NO evidence in this case does, so why wouldn't this be suspect?

Was there ANYTHING suspicious about the results? For example, although the cheek cast tested Negative on the face side, it tested Positive on the side that did NOT touch his cheek. Could there be a STRONGER indication that someone tampered with this evidence? Even Mr. Speer agrees that this indicates likely tampering with the cheek casts. Should we view the results of the hand tests as highly suspicious? Enough to disregard Mr. Speer's "chance" that he fired a gun?

All of the above cast a LARGE doubt that these test results mean anything at all.

Are there OTHER factors that we could combine with these tests results, that could aid in determining whether LHO fired a pistol?

Totally off the top of my head:

1. While DPD was searching for him, LHO had to have walked all the way to the murder scene, without being noticed, and arrived in time to kill JDT.

2. LHO's pistol was determined to have a bent firing pin, and thus it was unable to fire. Yet if LHO fired a pistol that day he had to have put 5 slugs into JDT. What is the "chance" of that happening?

3. The bullets were from LHO's gun even though they could not be linked by ballistics, and that the manufacturers of the bullets in evidence are different from those reported when recovered, and initials are not present when they had been marked.

4. All those shots fired, and not one witness ID'd him on the day it happened. They gave descriptions that didn't match LHO at all, and some said the shooter had companions.

5. There was nothing suspicious about the 7 hour wait for the paraffin casts to be made (see above).

6. There was nothing suspicious about the positive results of the NAA tests on the side of the cast that did NOT touch his cheek (see above), so the hand test results were NOT tampered with.

7. Handling the cardboard cartons at the TSBD would NOT create a positive result for nitrates on his hands.

I have undoubtedly overlooked some other examples, but just using the above examples can we quantify the "chance" that LHO hired a pistol that day?

Rather than argue as to the relative likelyhood of any of these individual examples, how about we assign a 75% chance of each of the above examples being TRUE...although I don't believe that ANY of them are better than 50%, and some are MUCH less.

A 75% chance that each of the above actually happened means there's a 13% chance that ALL happened. If any ONE of these are false then he couldn't have fired the pistol.

About 1 in 10 is a slim chance... but how about using 50% odds for each item? This yields a 0.68% or 1 chance out of about 150. That's not much of a chance, and I consider the actual odds to be MUCH higher than this... I do NOT think he fired a pistol that day.

I don't have the time to try and come up with odds for the above or any others, but if someone else wants to add items or assign percentages, I'm REALLY curious as to what odds you would assign to LHO firing 5 shots with a pistol that wouldn't fire when tested...or to "rigging" GSR tests to skew the results.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Sandy Larsen]

Can you two give me your opinions on this? What you've read and understood to be the case.

There's a lot of confusion regarding the paraffin tests. Much of this stems from the fact two different tests were performed on the same paraffin casts. The original test for nitrates was demonstrated to be too unreliable to use in a court of law. But, as I remember, the 1967 study which pretty much killed this test also acknowledged that it was accurate most of the time.

Although the FBI dissed these tests in their 1964 testimony, moreover, they cited the conclusions of the hand tests in their 1963 report on the shooting as evidence of Oswald's guilt, and only started dissing the accuracy of the tests after Mark Lane found out the cheek test was negative, and started telling this to the public.

It is my understanding that they continued to perform these tests for years after, moreover, and that the nitrate test was killed more by the 1967 study than by the FBI's testimony to the WC.

Thanks Pat. I'd like to summarize my understanding of the tests on Oswald and their interpretations. Please tell me where I'm wrong.

1. The results of the nitrate tests on Oswald's hands were inconclusive. (On what grounds were they found to be inconclusive?)
2. The result of the nitrate test on Oswald's right cheek was negative. The result probably was NOT a false positive.
3. The results of the NAA tests on Oswald's hands were both positive. But the results could be false positives.
4. The result of the NAA test on Oswald's right cheek was negative. But due to contamination of the paraffin, the test was proclaimed to be inconclusive.

Did I get that right? What's the answer to my question in item 1?

Note: I just wrote a detailed response to this, that got eaten just as I was about to post. Is anyone else having this problem? Is the forum now booting out responses that take longer than 10 minutes?

In any event, here's the quick answer.

1. The results for the nitrate tests of the hands were positive . The overall accuracy of this test has since come in question. But the results were positive. This was then used to suggest Oswald's guilt in killing both Tippit and Kennedy.

2. The result for the nitrate test of the cheek was negative. This was hidden from the public until Mark Lane started talking about it. The WC and FBI then decided to trash the accuracy of the nitrate tests.

3. The results for the gsr tests of the hands were positive. The results of these tests could probably be introduced into a court of law today. There is a chance the gsr came from merely handling the revolver, however, and the likelihood of this would undoubtedly be contested by battling experts.

4. The result for the gsr test of the cheek was proclaimed as inconclusive, due to there being too much barium on the back of the cast (the side that never touched Oswald's face). This puzzled me, as the level of antimony on the cast wae never revealed, and a low quantity of antimony on the cast would make the result a negative, no matter how much barium was found on the cheek cast, back or front. With the help of the Weisberg Archives at Hood Library I received the actual numbers, and sure enough, the level of antimony indicates a negative result.

Thanks for writing that, Pat. Very well written. I'm going to use it as a starting point for my own summary which will include points being made by Tom that I believe are valid.

[James DiEugenio]

You know, I deliberately stayed away after I saw that this thread was being hijacked.

I got a note from Tom Neal apologizing for that a couple of days ago.

So I waited again hoping it would clear.

So here I am after draft days, and guess what, its still hijacked.

Meanwhile my CBS article is going great guns across the web. It has been posted at about ten spots on the internet, in addition to CTKA, Consortium News and JFK Facts. Therefore it must be getting at least four thousands hits a day. In other words, tens of thousands of people are finally seeing the perfidy of what CBS did in deceiving the American Public at a time when the JFK case could have been cracked open. And further, how CBS then lied about what they did afterwards to do some CYA, and then terminated the one employee who wanted to get to the bottom of the scandal.

Somehow, that has been sidelined for these NAA tests, which as Tom notes, have clearly been contaminated. And are therefore useless.

Edited May 1, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Robert Prudhomme]

Sevareid actually compares the critics of the WR--Meagher, Thompson, Popkin etc-- with those who say Hitler Lives.

Thanks for the Hood College lead - I'll check it out. Wow! Amazing he lumps together assassination researchers with Hitler Lives.

UPDATE - Unfortunately, the Hood College archive only has transcripts of Parts 1-3 but not the "Hitler Lives" speech in Part 4.

But, Hitler DOES live. I spoke to him just the other day.

[James DiEugenio]

And according to McAdams, Hitler said that Oswald did it.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Nah, he changed his mind on that. He's a stubborn old Kraut but I finally convinced him he was in error. He likes the part about the Argentine Mauser, though.

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, that screed by Sevareid at the end of the show really epitomized what it was all about.

And why Schiller was one of the consultants.

See, Schiller's (co written) book Scavengers and Critics of the Warren Report was released that year. That book was the first full scale effort to demonize the critics of the WR. Its odd about its publishing because it was released in hardcover, trade paper, and an accompanying LP, all around the same time.

Sevareid then caps that effort with this televised screed which, in some ways, went beyond the Schiller-Warren hatchet job. I mean it doesn't get much worse that "Hitler Lives" does it?

Except, of course, if you helped someone like Klaus Barbie escape from Europe after the war. But, that was McCloy, who was helping out on the show. One of those unimpeachable Warren Commissioners Cronkite talked about at the top. With what we know about McCloy, Dulles and Ford today, Cronkite's credo is laughable. And in fact, with what we know today, covering up the JFK case was all in a day's work for those three guys.

Edited May 1, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

As I talked about on Len's show this past week, according to Roger's friend Jerry Policoff, Cronkite refused to host the 1975 show.

That is why Dan Rather hosted that one.

Well, I guess Walter finally said, enough is enough. A little late though.

[David Von Pein]

BTW, that screed by Sevareid at the end of the show really epitomized what it was all about.

And God bless Mr. Sevareid for it. Truer words were never spoken --- at CBS or anywhere else. And they deserve a reprise:

ERIC SEVAREID -- "And so, three-and-a-half years later, there are people who still think some group of men are living somewhere carrying in their breasts the most explosive secret conceivable....knowledge of a plot to kill Mr. Kennedy.

These imagined men supposedly go about their lives under iron self-discipline, never falling out with each other, never giving out a hint of suspicion to anyone else.

And nearly three years after the Warren inquiry finished its painful and onerous work, there are not only the serious critics who point to the various mistakes of commission or omission....mistakes of a consequence one can only guess at, and of a kind that have probably plagued every lengthy, voluminous official investigation ever staged. There are also people who think the Commission itself was a conspiracy to cover up something.

In the first place, it would be utterly impossible in the American arena of the fierce and free press and politics to conceal a conspiracy among so many individuals who live in the public eye.

In the second place, the deepest allegiance of men like Chief Justice Warren, or of John McCloy, does not lie with any president, political party, or current cause. It lies with history....their name and place in history. That is all they live for in their later years.

If they knowingly suppressed or distorted decisive evidence about such an event as a Presidential murder, their descendants would bear their accursed names forever. The notion that they would do such a thing is idiotic."

Edited May 1, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

1. My answer was about the gsr test. Not the nitrate test to which Mason refers.

DICTIONARY DEFINITION: Gunshot residue (GSR), is residue deposited on the hands and clothes of someone who discharges a firearm.

For the umpteenth time NITRATES ARE *ALSO* GSR!

When you say "gsr" test, but "not the nitrate test" you reveal that you STILL haven't learned that the "Nitrate Test" AND the "NAA Test" are *BOTH* tests of GSR.

How is anyone supposed to follow your statements when you CONSTANTLY use the most BASIC of terminology incorrectly? Why should anyone believe something complex from you, when you can't be bothered to learn AND USE basic terminology?

As just ONE MORE poster saying this about yet another topic, why don't you post the ACTUAL results of the NAA testing and the Nitrate testing and let US determine what they mean? I've already made this request several times, but like a HUNDRED other topics, where you have ignored the requests of others with whom you disagree, you STILL haven't made this data available either...

Either you drew your conclusions without actual data, or you refuse to share because someone could point out that you are wrong based on this info that you keep to yourself...

Geez, Louise, Tom. The tests performed by the DPD were not for gsr, they were for nitrates. Having nitrates on one's hands or face can simply mean one's come in contact with the many other nitrates not found in gsr. That is one of the many reasons this test is no longer performed. The NAA test performed for the FBI, however, was gsr-specific, in that it revealed the levels of barium and antimony, the two components of gsr. A paraffin cast had to test positive for both to be a positive result.

In any event, you seem obsessed with arguing against my "conclusions." And seem to believe my intent is to sell Oswald's guilt in shooting Tippit. This is not accurate. The FBI presented the NAA tests as being positive for the hands but inconclusive for the face. I showed that they were more honestly negative for the face, and that this was concealed from the public. While studying this topic, however, I came across some more recent studies which showed the residue on Oswald's hands to be more suggestive that he'd fired a revolver, as opposed to merely handling one. It would have been dishonest for me to have left this out, IMO.

[Pat Speer]

BTW, that screed by Sevareid at the end of the show really epitomized what it was all about.

And God bless Mr. Sevareid for it. Truer words were never spoken --- at CBS or anywhere else. And they deserve a reprise:

ERIC SEVAREID -- "And so, three-and-a-half years later, there are people who still think some group of men are living somewhere carrying in their breasts the most explosive secret conceivable....knowledge of a plot to kill Mr. Kennedy.

These imagined men supposedly go about their lives under iron self-discipline, never falling out with each other, never giving out a hint of suspicion to anyone else.

And nearly three years after the Warren inquiry finished its painful and onerous work, there are not only the serious critics who point to the various mistakes of commission or omission....mistakes of a consequence one can only guess at, and of a kind that have probably plagued every lengthy, voluminous official investigation ever staged. There are also people who think the Commission itself was a conspiracy to cover up something.

In the first place, it would be utterly impossible in the American arena of the fierce and free press and politics to conceal a conspiracy among so many individuals who live in the public eye.

In the second place, the deepest allegiance of men like Chief Justice Warren, or of John McCloy, does not lie with any president, political party, or current cause. It lies with history....their name and place in history. That is all they live for in their later years.

If they knowingly suppressed or distorted decisive evidence about such an event as a Presidential murder, their descendants would bear their accursed names forever. The notion that they would do such a thing is idiotic."

I watched a documentary the other day on the break-in at the FBI's Media, Pennsylvania office. You know, the break-in through which the "left" got proof the FBI was routinely spying on and harassing people whose politics were offensive to Hoover,. You know, the break-in through which the public ultimately found out about COINTELPRO, the FBI's program to infiltrate, disrupt and discredit leftist organizations, often by pushing them towards violence.

In any event, when showing the media's response to this break-in, it showed Eric Sevareid, spewing forth his venom about the evil un-Americans behind the break-in. There's a special place in hell, IMO, for representatives of the media who use their position to denounce and attack those who seek to help the media expose the illegal activities of the government.

[John Crites]

At the time sevareid was bs-ing the public, telling us how honorable the Commission and (and john mccloy - can you believe that one?) was,

we had 2 different locations to where the back and head wounds were,( including Ford moving the wound), witnesses that differed with the official report, both in the medical rooms and on the street, an FBI report in disagreement with the Warren Report, the hearings held in secret, the documents hidden from the public.

Even as a kid, I* knew CBS was putting on a fraudulent report.

And I love that last Sentence; the people that murdered the president, didn't give a damn about their descendants, or their names being accursed. Sociopaths, don't care about things like that.

This article is so valuable, (Thank you Jim D for your contribution). it demonstrates the pattern of lies that the MSM has been throwing at the public for 50 years. If CBS's lies would have been exposed back then, shows, for example like that yellow journalism put out by abc 13 years ago maybe would have been stopped in pre-production. And the trash written by Posner and Bugliosi would not have been given so much publicity.