David Von Pein

So Truly was out to frame Oswald too, eh Ray? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Even the age of the assassin Brennan saw fits perfectly with Marrion Baker's incorrect estimate of Lee Oswald's age -- about 30 -- which we know is wrong, but we also know that the man Baker described as being "approximately 30 years old" WAS Lee Harvey Oswald and not somebody who could have merely been confused with Oswald. And then there are the "weight" estimates provided by Brennan and Baker in their individual affidavits, which also (just like the "age" estimate) blend together perfectly: Baker said -- "165 pounds". Brennan said -- "165 to 175 pounds". And, just like Baker's estimate for Oswald's age, the weight estimate he provided in his affidavit is wrong, but we still know that Baker was estimating the weight of the real Lee Harvey Oswald when he wrote down "165 pounds" in his 11/22/63 affidavit. Ergo, we know that it is, indeed, possible for a person to look right at Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, and think he weighed as much as 165 pounds. Shouldn't this fact mean just a little something to CTers when they attempt to assess whether or not Howard Brennan could have possibly seen Oswald in the Sniper's Nest on that same day? Do CTers think that Baker and Brennan got together and swapped information so that their affidavits would merge perfectly with respect to both the "age" and "weight" estimates?" -- DVP; Aug. 2015

Baker, Brennan, and Truly.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1000.html

The statements show no such thing. In fact, Roy Truly's "early" [11/23/63] affidavit totally demolishes DiEugenio's "Baker never saw Oswald" nonsense. (I guess Nov. 23rd isn't "early" enough for you, eh Sandy?) ....

FWIW: Handwriting comparisons are possible of Captain J.W. Fritz' handwriting. Here are the Fritz notes, discovered decades after the assassination: http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/fritz1-5.jpg http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/fritz2-5.jpg http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/fritz3-5.jpg http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/fritz4-5.jpg http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/fritz5-5.jpg --------------------------------- Documents signed by J.W. Fritz: http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/05/0500-002.gif http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0497-002.gif http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0494-002.gif http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/02/0273-001.gif

Mr. Irony strikes again. DiEugenio, you see, cares so much about "the facts" in the Kennedy case, he was able to spout the following nonsense (without even turning red). The gall of the man is becoming legendary: "[Marrion] Baker never saw Oswald. .... I believe the [Oswald/Baker/Truly] incident was created after the fact." -- James DiEugenio; July 13-14, 2015 "I don't think [Howard] Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 27, 2010 If anybody needs a few dozen more examples of the strange way Jim DiEugenio treats "the facts", just ask. I can supply tons of them.

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."

Interesting. That's the same Martin Fackler who "testified" at the 1992 ABA mock trial. The same Fackler who did a test that produced this Carcano bullet (which was fired at a reduced velocity through a human wrist):

THE ZAPRUDER FILM (VERSION CREATED BY DVP USING EACH OF THE 486 INDIVIDUAL FILM FRAMES):

jfk-arrives-in-dallas.blogspot.com

So, Tom, you think it was absolutely impossible for a gunman, after he had shot at somebody, to have washed (or wiped off) his face in order to remove most of the barium and antimony deposits? Is that correct?

Oh, okay. Makes sense. Thanks. BTW, don't ever try using those awful "Automated Captions" on YouTube videos. They don't work at all. The captions almost never match the words being spoken. But they are entertaining if you're in the mood for a good laugh.... Caption-Hilarity WML-Caption-Hilarity-Part-2 WML-Caption-Hilarity-Part-3

Oh, brother. You need to re-read this whole thread again, Ray (starting with Post #213). Because something very interesting happened at that point, which I pointed out in a subsequent post of mine (which you apparently never saw, or just ignored)..... Here's what I said.... "Everybody go to Jim's Post #213 in this discussion thread. After reading it (and my follow-up reply to it), it becomes fairly obvious that DiEugenio hasn't yet been able to figure out that I was talking about TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF TESTS when I quoted from Pat Speer's article (where he quoted from the Aynesworth article re: Guinn). DiEugenio, naturally, wants to make it look like Aynesworth was misquoting Guinn (or that Aynesworth just flat-out lied in his article). But the other articles cited by Speer LEAVE OUT the part about Guinn "repeating" the tests -- with only the second tests (the NAA tests) resulting in all 8 tests being "positive". No deception by anyone there. (Except maybe by the person who inserted the three dots [the ellipsis] in the August 28 article.) There were two different sets of tests with wholly different results. [...] 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 August 28th story is misleading, because we're really talking about TWO different kinds of tests -- Nitrate & NAA." [End Quote.] So, Ray, who is it again who you think is being "economical with the truth"?

What a load of BS there. The ONLY reason I quoted from Aynesworth's article at my webpage below (after finding it in Pat Speer's article) was to emphasize the "7 out of 8 negative" results that Dr. Guinn got when he did the 8 PARAFFIN tests for NITRATES. (Not the NAA tests.) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-583.html I never even MENTIONED anything about "gases". And the excerpt from Aynesworth that I quoted doesn't mention that word either. You just made that up to make it look like I was being dishonest regarding the Aynesworth quote. Disgraceful, Jim. You, however, Jim, WERE hiding some of the facts in Post 213 in this thread when you failed to mention that the Aug. 28 New York newspaper story didn't put in ALL of the Aynesworth quote. (Probably because you didn't even notice the "..." in the story and didn't even realize something had been cut out of it. I didn't notice it either, until looking further into it yesterday.)

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. .... And therefore, if true, could account for the lack of nitrates and the relatively low level of barium and antimony on his cheek." -- DVP; September 2015

"The Secret Service would later report that “a few minutes after the motorcade passed, an employee of the Illinois Department of Public Safety saw a rifle barrel with telescopic sight protruding from a second-story window.” Two men, brothers-in-law aged 20 and 16, were taken into custody. The report continued, “A .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle and a full box of .22 long rifle ammunition was seized.” Both men admitted “pointing the gun out the window on the parade route. However, they claimed that they had merely been testing the power of the telescopic sight to determine if it would be worthwhile to remove it in order to get a better look at the President when the motorcade returned. As there was no evidence to the contrary, and neither man had any previous record, prosecution was declined." Complete article: HistoryNewsNetwork.org/article/162604

....

I don't know, Sandy. But weren't ALL the levels of barium & antimony pretty small on the Oswald casts? (I haven't studied the exact quantities lately.)

Okay, Sandy, have it your way if you want. But allow me to repeat these words uttered by FBI agent John Gallagher once again. And, again, I'm not saying this testimony PROVES Oswald fired a gun on Nov. 22. In fact, I have insisted that these tests are useless for that purpose. Please remember that. .... "Barium and antimony were found on the cheek casts. .... The casts from Oswald bore elements--namely, barium and antimony--which were present in the powder residues from both the rifle, and revolver cartridges. .... I found that there was more barium and antimony on the inside surface of the cast than you would find on the cheek of an individual who had recently washed his cheek. However, the significance of this antimony and barium on the inside of the cheek is not known." -- John F. Gallagher (FBI) [End Quotes.] Now, if you want to say that all of the above testimony somehow equates to Oswald's cheek casts coming back NEGATIVE for barium and antimony, well, that's your privilege, I guess. But please excuse me if I disagree with you slightly. Plus, the casts WERE WASHED BEFORE THE NAA TESTS WERE CONDUCTED!! Which is very likely why the levels of barium and antimony were so small on Oswald's face casts.

"The casts from Oswald bore elements--namely, barium and antimony--which were present in the powder residues from both the rifle, and revolver cartridges." -- John F. Gallagher (FBI) How is that NOT a "positive" result for the presence (at least SOME presence) of both barium and antimony? Plus, the casts WERE WASHED BEFORE THE TESTS WERE DONE!!

Go back to this post, Sandy, to see if that "Wow" was a deserved one or not.

~sigh~ Everybody go to Jim's Post #213 in this thread. After reading it (and my follow-up reply to it), it becomes fairly obvious that DiEugenio hasn't yet been able to figure out that I was talking about TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF TESTS when I quoted from Pat Speer's article (where he quoted from the Aynesworth article re: Guinn). DiEugenio, naturally, wants to make it look like Aynesworth was misquoting Guinn (or that Aynesworth just flat-out lied in his article). But the other articles cited by Speer LEAVE OUT the part about Guinn "repeating" the tests -- with only the second tests (the NAA tests) resulting in all 8 tests being "positive". No deception by anyone there. (Except maybe by the person who inserted the three dots [the ellipsis] in the August 28 article.) There were two different sets of tests with wholly different results. And, in essence, just as I said previously, Pat Speer DOES agree with the WCR on the bottom-line issue --- i.e., the paraffin and NAA tests are not reliable enough to determine whether or not Oswald shot anybody on 11/22/63.

Yes. Exactly. So? The CHEEK (NAA) test was ALSO positive. It had deposits of barium & antimony on it. Why are you still insisting that means it was "negative"?

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.

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?

LOL. Hilarious, Jim. Fat chance there. Maybe when hell freezes rock solid, but not until then. Holmes is a nutcase to end all nutcases. Who's Jerry D.? 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.)