Why CBS Covered up the JFK Case (pt1)

[James DiEugenio]

From Mike Griffith on Steve Roe's box prints:

11. [Gus] Russo claims the sixth-floor sniper's nest was "literally blanketed with Oswald's prints" (p. 444). This is simply erroneous. Not a single fingerprint of Oswald's was found on any of the boxes that were used to make the shield behind the sniper's nest. Nor were Oswald's prints found on any of the boxes under and between which the alleged murder weapon was hidden. Of the four boxes that were positioned near the sniper's window, Oswald's prints were found on only two of them. However, since Oswald worked at the Depository and handled many boxes in the course of his daily duties, the presence of these prints proves nothing. Moreover, only three of Oswald's prints were found on those two boxes, and their distribution was such that they could easily and logically have been made during the routine movement of the boxes.

In fact, what is puzzling is that more of Oswald's prints weren't found on the boxes, especially if, as the Commission claimed, he was the one who used them to construct the "gun rest." One of the three prints was found on the box behind the so-called "gun rest." Only two of Oswald's prints were found on the boxes constituting the "gun rest" itself, and both of them were on the same box, at the corners. Why were only two of Oswald's prints found on those boxes, when one of the Dallas police detectives left multiple prints on all the boxes he handled?

Mike on the so called rifle prints:

http://miketgriffith.com/files/palmprint.htm

Let me add here, when you talk to someone like Bob Tanenbaum, who was a prosecutor in NYC for years and years, he tells you who the best people in various forensic fields were and how much he used them in court and how it was not easy to get some of these guys.

Of course, he talks about the legendary Milton Helpern, the man who testified in so many high profile cases that he became the first medical examiner to elevate his office onto a national scale e.g. the Coppolino case, the Hill/Robinson Blood and Money case. Read up on what Helpern says about the JFK case. And especially how he hones in on the incompetence of Humes and Boswell. And what he says about CE 399.

Tanenbaum will also tell you about how difficult it was to get Sebastian LaTona, the FBI authority on fingerprints, as an expert witness. For the simple reason that everyone in the country wanted the guy to testify for them. Since he had written the sacred text on the technique of fingerprinting, and almost everyone in every department followed it.

All of the above, what Sandy and Mike have produced, goes back to my original point. To talk about "beyond reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty" in the JFK case is simply ridiculous. It doesn't exist in this case.

Which is why CBS had to do what it did, and why Ayton altered the legal standard for his book. And even then it did not work for either one.

Edited April 25, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[David Lifton]

This has just gone up at ctka.net

It is easily, the most in depth, detailed, compelling examination of how a powerful broadcast network abased and humiliated itself before the figure of John McCloy. And at the same time, completely and utterly adulterated its allegiance to its own code of ethics, while concealing the true facts of the JFK murder.

We all owe a great deal of gratitude to the memory of the late Roger Feinman for this powerful expose of the American power structure and how it failed to work at a time of stress and pressure. As you read this, note that the people at the lower level, like Schorr, were completely run over by those at the top. And none of these guys, screamed. Until Roger did many years later.

Part 2 is coming soon.

http://www.ctka.net/2016/FeinmanCBS1.html

Perhaps its a flaw in my computer, but none of these links to the two-part article (at CTKA) on the June 1967 CBS program on the Warren Report work.

Every time I click on any of the links provided here (at the London Forum,) a page comes up with the notice: "Page Not Found."

When I went to the CTKA website, I could not find the 2-part article that is supposedly there.

In fact, the two-part article about the June 1967 CBS show does not appear anywhere on page one of the CTKA site.

(Is it "hidden" behind some other tile, or box? I have no idea.)

Request: Can someone post here, in response to my post, links to this two-part article?

OR: simply email me links that work to: dsl74@cornell.edu

Also, I do not understand why, at the CTKA page, this two-part article is not prominently featured, and easy to find.

Thank you.

DSL

4/25/16 - 7:35 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

[David Lifton]

Excellent Jim,

Eagerly awaiting Part 2.

Mockingbird at its finest!

Was part 2 ever published, at the CTKA site?

If so, can someone post a link that works?

Thanks.

DSL

[Tom Neal]

How do you explain the evidence that shows that Oswald did NOT fire the Carcano rifle that day?

You surely aren't relying on the wholly UNreliable paraffin (cheek) test, are you?

Unlike the DVP test which gives both FALSE positives, and FALSE negatives, the parafin test is "unreliable" because it gives false POSITIVES-not false negatives. LHO's test was negative.

What are you doing here? Is the Flat Earth Society web site down?

Edited April 25, 2016 by Tom Neal

[James DiEugenio]

To David Lifton:

My essay on the CBS documents has been transferred to Bob Parry's site Consortium News. Bob collapsed both parts into one.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/22/how-cbs-news-aided-the-jfk-cover-up/

All the links there should work.

Edited April 25, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

How do you explain the evidence that shows that Oswald did NOT fire the Carcano rifle that day?

You surely aren't relying on the wholly UNreliable paraffin (cheek) test, are you?

Unlike the DVP test which gives both FALSE positives, and FALSE negatives, the parafin test is "unreliable" because it gives false POSITIVES-not false negatives. LHO's test was negative.

What are you doing here? Is the Flat Earth Society web site down?

That's a good point, Tom.

So in summary, what we have are two different types of gun residue tests, both indicating that Oswald didn't fire a Carcano rifle that day. (I favor the NAA test because all seven of its control subjects, who fired a Carcano rifle, tested positive. Yet Oswald didn't. That's pretty convincing.)

Then we have a snipers nest where Oswald's fingerprints were found on only a few boxes. Which is not surprising because he didn't shoot the rifle, and so likely wouldn't have built the snipers nest either. His prints on the boxes only prove that he touched them while doing his job.

Finally, while I can't say for sure that Oswald's palm-print wasn't found on the rifle, I feel confident in believing that it wasn't. Because the story behind the palm-print is just too far-fetched to believe. (Thanks go to Jim for the link to Mike Griffith's excellent palm print article.)

It amazes me that anybody -- knowing just this much about the case -- could possibly believe that Oswald even took a shot at JFK.

[Tom Neal]

How do you explain the evidence that shows that Oswald did NOT fire the Carcano rifle that day?

You surely aren't relying on the wholly UNreliable paraffin (cheek) test, are you?

Unlike the DVP test which gives both FALSE positives, and FALSE negatives, the parafin test is "unreliable" because it gives false POSITIVES-not false negatives. LHO's test was negative.

What are you doing here? Is the Flat Earth Society web site down?

That's a good point, Tom.

Actually, in a legal sense, did anyone shoot that rifle on that day?

There is no question that a simple "swab" test could have determined whether or not the rifle had been fired since it was last cleaned. Why is there no report? IF this test revealed that the rifle HAD been fired that day, DPD, Hoover, and everyone else would have put it on the front page - yet we heard nothing. What possible reason would there be to NOT test the rifle?

With a presumption of innocence, and no test conducted that could have exonerated LHO, where's the case against him? Any defense attorney would accuse DPD of framing LHO by not conducting the swab test.

Of course the prosecution would claim that CE-399 WAS fired from that rifle, and came from JBC's stretcher therefore that rifle MUST have been fired that day. The broken chain of evidence would reveal that this bullet morphed from a short pointed-nose bullet to a long ogive-shape. Even IF they could get this past a judge, there is no continuity in the chain, so the bullet would be thrown out.

It amazes me that anybody -- knowing just this much about the case -- could possibly believe that Oswald even took a shot at JFK.

Sandy,

You may want to consider this: Does anyone who took the time to read any one of dozens of books, or spent 20 minutes on line, actually believe in LHO's guilt? Or do they just have an agenda that requires maintaining the lie? Think 'global-warming'...

[David Von Pein]

The NAA analysis of Oswald's cheek paraffin cast came back negative.

No, it did not! Why are you saying such a thing, Sandy? Just read John Gallagher's testimony at 15 H 748. Here it is (emphasis is mine):

Mr. GALLAGHER -- "The deposits found on the paraffin casts from the hands and cheek of Oswald could not be specifically associated with the rifle cartridges. The casts from Oswald bore elements--namely, barium and antimony--which were present in the powder residues from both the rifle, and revolver cartridges. No characteristic elements were found by neutron activation analysis of the residues which could be used to distinguish the rifle from the revolver cartridges. In view of the fact that the paraffin casts were not made until after the reported firing and handling of the fired revolver, no significance could be attached to the residues found on the casts other than the conclusion that the barium and antimony in these residues are present in amounts greater than found on the hands of an individual who has not recently fired or handled a recently fired weapon."

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

Now, how does that testimony by Mr. Gallagher of the FBI somehow translate to a NEGATIVE NAA result on Oswald's paraffin casts?

Answer -- It doesn't (of course).

And, as I mentioned previously, the probable reason for there not being MORE deposits of antimony and barium on Oswald's casts is because they had been washed prior to the NAA tests, thus removing some of the deposits before testing.

Here's a Jean Davison quote from 2002:

"I think I see now what happened here. The fact that the documents came from the ERDA indicates that they deal with the results of the neutron activation tests done at Oak Ridge and NOT with the paraffin tests done by the DPD. Although the paraffin test on Oswald's cheek was negative for nitrates, the NA test on the same cast was *positive* for barium and antimony, two elements found in bullet primer. [see WR, 562: "The paraffin casts of Oswald's hand and right cheek were also examined by neutron-activation analyses at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Barium and antimony were found to be present on both surfaces of all the casts and also in residues from the rifle cartridges and revolver cartridge cases. ...." and Gallagher's testimony, XV, beginning at 746] Thus it's very possible that face casts made of someone who fired Oswald's rifle would *also* test positive for barium and antimony. This is in no way a contradiction of the WR statement that rifle tests showed negative results for *nitrates* on the cheek. Different tests, different results. Weisberg said "heavy deposits" were left on the shooters' faces, but heavy deposits of WHAT? Too bad he didn't say, but since the papers came from the ERDA, I assume he must be talking about the elements Oak Ridge tested for -- barium and antimony. If so, there's no WC dishonesty here." -- Jean Davison; July 5, 2002

Edited April 25, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

To David Lifton:

My essay on the CBS documents has been transferred to Bob Parry's site Consortium News. Bob collapsed both parts into one.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/22/how-cbs-news-aided-the-jfk-cover-up/

All the links there should work.

FYI:

I've saved Jim DiEugenio's original 2-part version of his CBS article (prior to some edits being made by Parry). Here are the two original parts....

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B-rcjDGNFEH_NlFqNGJqZTBZUGM

[Sandy Larsen]

The NAA analysis of Oswald's cheek paraffin cast came back negative.

No, it did not! Why are you saying such a thing, Sandy? Just read John Gallagher's testimony at 15 H 748. Here it is (emphasis is mine):

Mr. GALLAGHER -- "The deposits found on the paraffin casts from the hands and cheek of Oswald could not be specifically associated with the rifle cartridges. The casts from Oswald bore elements--namely, barium and antimony--which were present in the powder residues from both the rifle, and revolver cartridges. No characteristic elements were found by neutron activation analysis of the residues which could be used to distinguish the rifle from the revolver cartridges. In view of the fact that the paraffin casts were not made until after the reported firing and handling of the fired revolver, no significance could be attached to the residues found on the casts other than the conclusion that the barium and antimony in these residues are present in amounts greater than found on the hands of an individual who has not recently fired or handled a recently fired weapon."

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

Now, how does that highlighted sentence equal a NEGATIVE NAA result on Oswald's casts?

Did you not read the following part of Gallagher's testimony which I quoted in Post 194? Unlike your quote of his testimony above, this deals specifically with the cheek cast:

Mr. GALLAGHER. The outside surface of the cheek [cast] was run as a control for this particular specimen.

Mr. REDLICH. And therefore the presence of a lesser amount of barium and a slightly larger amount of antimony on the inside surface was one of the reasons why you could not make a determination as to the significance of the barium and antimony on the inside surface, is that correct?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.

The part of the cast that made contact with Oswald's cheek had approximately the same concentration of antimony as the outer part of the cast that didn't touch Oswald's cheek. And the part that made contact with Oswald's cheek actually had LESS barium than the outer part. This indicates that Oswald's cheek contributed neither barium nor antimony to the paraffin cast. As Gallagher testified, the outer part of the cast served as a control for the test. And that he could determine no significance from the levels of the residues on the inside part that made contact with Oswald's cheek. This, my friend, is a negative outcome to the test.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[David Von Pein]

CTers have an odd way of turning POSITIVE results into NEGATIVE ones. Amazing.

More excerpts from my Sept. 2015 discussion on this "NAA" matter.....

DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

Here is some more of John Gallagher's Warren Commission testimony.....

Mr. REDLICH -- And therefore the presence of a lesser amount of barium and a slightly larger amount of antimony on the inside surface was one of the reasons why you could not make a determination as to the significance of the barium and antimony on the inside surface, is that correct?

Mr. GALLAGHER -- Yes, sir.

Mr. REDLICH -- Did the fact that Oswald was believed to have fired a revolver prior to the time the paraffin casts were made have an effect on your ability to determine the significance of the barium and antimony on the inside of the cheek cast?

Mr. GALLAGHER -- The subsequent repeated firing of the revolver definitely overshadowed the results. That is why it was reported that no significance could be attached to the residues found on the cast other than the conclusion that the barium and antimony in these residues are present in amounts greater than found on the hands of a normal individual who had not recently fired or handled a fired weapon.

Mr. REDLICH -- In other words, given the known fact, or the assumed fact, that the suspect had fired a revolver repeatedly, the barium and antimony could have found their way to the suspect's cheek as a result of the repeated firing of that revolver, and therefore precluded you from making any determination as to whether the elements barium and antimony were placed on the cheek as the result of the firing of the rifle. Is that a correct statement?

Mr. GALLAGHER -- Well, there is no way to eliminate the fact that the subject may have wiped a contaminated hand across his cheek subsequent to the firing of the revolver, thus contaminating his cheek with barium and antimony.

[End WC Quotes.]

----------------------

But the above testimony doesn't mean the NAA tests were NEGATIVE. They were still POSITIVE, but Gallagher was giving a possible alternate reason for the POSITIVE reading other than Oswald firing a rifle.

But Ben seems to think Gallagher's explanation changes the POSITIVE Barium/Antimony reading to a NEGATIVE one, because Holmes said this in an earlier post (which is most definitely incorrect)....

"Oswald came up NEGATIVE on the NAA testing of his cheek cast." -- Ben Holmes

In addition, I think it's also important to note the completely honest and forthright nature of the testimony of FBI agent John F. Gallagher above (and Norman Redlich's questioning of Gallagher). The WC and the FBI were telling it like it was -- i.e., a POSITIVE result on the cheek of Oswald for barium and antimony did NOT necessarily mean that Oswald had fired a rifle on November 22nd.

And that type of honesty and frankness on the part of both the Warren Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation sure doesn't help out the conspiracy theorists, because many CTers have always believed the Commission and the FBI were on a mission to railroad Oswald and prove his guilt at all possible costs. But the above excerpts from John Gallagher's testimony definitely tend to disprove that notion.

So, let's stick yet another fork in Holmes. He's now burnt to an absolute crisp.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Davey is running like a yellow dog right now. He *KNOWS* what I spoke of earlier... the relevant facts that he's omitting.

He *KNOWS* that the paraffin cast showed a *HIGHER* level of barium & antimony on the OUTSIDE of the cast ... the 'control' of the test.

He surely cannot possibly be too dumb to understand what that means.

Such INCREDIBLE dishonesty!!!

Tell us Davey - why would *anyone* believe anything you say after the lies you've told recently?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Brilliant, Benny. And somehow a "HIGHER level" of the two elements means the overall NAA cheek test was "NEGATIVE", which is what you said in an earlier post.

Is that your ridiculous reasoning process, Ben? If so, think again.

No matter how much double-talk Ben gushes forth, this statement below is (and always will be) an outright falsehood....

"Oswald came up NEGATIVE on the NAA testing of his cheek cast." -- Ben Holmes

Tell us Benji - why would *anyone* believe anything you say after the above provable lie you've told recently?

Plus, as I just said above, the Warren Commission (Redlich) and the FBI (Gallagher) were ADMITTING ON THE RECORD that, in essence, the NAA cheek test was useless and worthless when they said the positive result could not be utilized to say whether or not Oswald fired a rifle.

In other words, the test was meaningless—and Redlich and Gallagher said so! On the WC record!

So, Ben, why are you griping about it? Redlich and Gallagher, in effect, AGREE WITH YOU — the NAA test cannot be used to say if Oswald shot Kennedy.

And that honesty also shows up in the Warren Commission's final report too — on Page 562, right here.

[Another fork is now inserted into Holmes' ravaged torso.]


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

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.)

Quoting from Pat Speer's article:

"On [August 31, 1964], the Dallas Morning News runs their own article on Guinn's statements in Scotland about the use of NAA, entitled "New Test May Tell if Oswald Shot a Gun." The FBI's Special Agent in Charge for Dallas, J. Gordon Shanklin, who'd previously told the New York Times that the paraffin tests performed in Dallas proved Oswald's guilt, calls Laboratory Director Conrad and warns him about the article, written by Hugh Aynesworth. Beyond the statements by Guinn already cited, Aynesworth relates that Guinn "said when it was concluded that Oswald's guilt could not be proved or disproved from paraffin tests made by the Dallas Police, he asked the FBI to try the neutron activation analysis technique. Guinn described the experiment in this manner: 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. 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. 'Then we took the casts of Oswald's cheek and put them in a nuclear reactor. Remember that they already had been through the chemical tests which would wash particles away. I can say for the moment that we found no barium but we found antimony in every case,' Guinn added."

[End Speer Quote.]

-------------

Evidently the last thing mentioned in the above quote is apparently something that never happened at all, according to a later statement made by Dr. Vincent Guinn written on September 25, 1964, in which Guinn said he never subjected the actual "Oswald casts" to any NAA analysis at all. See Speer's article for more details.

And I want to point out and emphasize the following portion of the above excerpt from Speer's article....

"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."

Therefore, after performing EIGHT separate standard paraffin (nitrate) tests on a person who definitely HAD fired a rifle similar to Lee Harvey Oswald's Carcano rifle, SEVEN of the eight tests revealed just exactly the same thing that the FBI's 1964 test revealed after FBI agent Charles Killion had fired Oswald's rifle three times --- a negative result for the presence of any nitrates.

So much for the FBI/Killion test being a big fat lie (which is what some conspiracy theorists have told me they think that FBI test was---a lie).

Or do CTers also think Dr. Guinn lied SEVEN times too about the nitrate/paraffin tests he says he performed?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

You can keep right on trying to compare the paraffin test with the NAA test...and you'll *KNOW* that you're lying. Apparently it doesn't matter at all to you.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I wasn't comparing the paraffin tests to the NAA tests, Holmes. I just took notice of that interesting "7 out of 8 were NEGATIVE" stat regarding the paraffin/nitrate tests that Dr. Guinn performed, and so I just threw that in as a "bonus" for you to chew on (and spit out).

Because most CTers seem to think that the Killion/FBI test with LHO's rifle was a complete lie and merely a manufactured test so that the Feds could say -- You see, we got a false negative on a paraffin test after an agent fired Oswald's rifle three times.

But then I noticed in Pat Speer's excellent article that Dr. Guinn had apparently performed eight paraffin (nitrate) tests after a person had fired a Carcano rifle, with 7 of the 8 turning out NEGATIVE when tested for nitrates. (Although I'm unsure as to the exact number of shots that were fired in each of the eight tests, but I would assume it was probably three shots per test, to simulate Oswald's three shots; otherwise, the tests wouldn't be as accurate if used to compare to the Oswald case.)

So now I can use the FBI/Killion "false negative" test, along with SEVEN other such similar tests done by Dr. Guinn whenever some smart-aleck CTer says to me --- Oswald is innocent because the paraffin (nitrate) test on his cheek was negative.

And other explanations are certainly possible too for why Oswald's nitrate and NAA tests turned out the way they did. See my following comments below....

Re: Oswald's Paraffin/NAA Tests....

Oswald could have washed his face and hands in the restroom while he was in the Texas Theater. And then he could have re-acquired deposits of gunpowder residue (nitrates on his hands and small amounts of barium and antimony on his face) shortly thereafter when he again handled his revolver during the struggle with the police in the theater.

Another conceivable possibility is that Oswald wiped his face with his shirt sleeve (or jacket sleeve) at some point in time between JFK's assassination and the time when Oswald was given the paraffin test at Dallas City Hall several hours later.

The above scenarios are, indeed, just speculation and guesswork on my part, and they should be properly labeled as such. But they seem to me to be somewhat reasonable pieces of speculation and are certainly within the realm of possibility for Oswald to have accomplished during the 80 minutes between President Kennedy's assassination and Oswald's capture in the Texas Theater.


"IGS" SAID:

DVP, perhaps the test was VERY reliable in that it gave the expected negative result.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's perhaps a pretty good point (re: the negative results for the PARAFFIN/NITRATE test). Because when we take into account the Killion/FBI test plus the 8 Guinn paraffin/nitrate tests, the NEGATIVES outnumber the POSITIVES by an 8 to 1 score.

Plus, as I mentioned earlier, nobody can possibly prove that LHO didn't wash his face and hands in the restroom at the Texas Theater (or simply wipe his face with his shirt) prior to the struggle with police in the theater. That possibility HAS to exist. And therefore, if true, could account for the lack of nitrates and the relatively low level of barium and antimony on his cheek.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Ah! Science via polling!

A new low for believers.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I was merely stating a fact, Ben --- 8 out of 9 paraffin/nitrate tests turned up NEGATIVE when counting the eight Guinn tests and the one Killion/FBI test. And we know that all 8 of those negatives were FALSE NEGATIVES, because we know that all eight of those people HAD fired a rifle shortly before being given the test.

Those statistics can't be good for the persistent and tireless conspiracy theorists who still love to insist that the negative paraffin/nitrate result on Oswald's face is rock-solid PROOF that he never fired a rifle on November 22, 1963.

David Von Pein
September 15-16, 2015
September 22-24, 2015

[James DiEugenio]

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?

Edited April 25, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

David,

The mere presence of a chemical doesn't necessarily indicate a positive result. Chemicals are all around us. That is why it's often necessary to compare the chemical level found on a test subject to that on a control. If the chemical is present at the same level on both the test subject and the control, the test is considered negative. The test subject has to have significantly higher levels of the chemical than the control for it to be considered positive for the chemical.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[David Von Pein]

Jim DiEugenio's last post is another great big "SO WHAT?" post.

Jimmy seems to want people to believe that the WC was HIDING the fact that the NAA and Paraffin/Nitrate tests were WORTHLESS for determining if Oswald had fired a rifle or a revolver. Jim seems to imply that the ONLY place we are able to find out about the uselessless of the NAA/Paraffin tests are in memos distributed amongst the WC members. But that's certainly not true at all. Because, as I just pointed out (and linked to) in my previous post, the Warren Commission and the FBI were not hiding anything regarding the NAA & Paraffin tests. The WC says, right there on Page 562 of its public Report, that it is "impossible to attach significance to the presence of these elements" on Oswald's paraffin casts.

Some cover-up there, huh?

Why is it the WC and FBI don't get ANY credit for their forthright HONESTY about what we find on Page 562 of the WCR regarding Oswald's paraffin and NAA tests, Jim? Why is that?

But the fact still remains that all CTers are wrong, and always will be, when they try to say that Oswald's cheek cast had a negative result for barium & antimony (the only two elements the NAA tests for, btw). Those results were POSITIVE, not negative.

But even with a positive NAA result, we still find the WC being completely honest about what that positive results MEANS --- they told us, on Page 562, that it really doesn't mean much of anything.

Edited April 25, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

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

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

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

Edited April 26, 2016 by David Von Pein