Jump to content
The Education Forum

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions


Recommended Posts

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question #12

Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend

the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two

semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the

xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most

of the 'answers'.

*reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...*

But first, an important note:

**********************************************************************

Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's

only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message

threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.

These trolls include (but are not limited to):

**22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh

Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply

deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or

simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill

files.

source: alt.conspiracy.jfk

**********************************************************************

12. "Tests were also made with a nuclear reactor on the cast of Oswald's cheek

Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, head of the activation analysis program of the general

atomic division of General Dynamics Corporation, made an analysis of the

paraffin cast, the results of which were presented to the Commission. Dr. Guinn

said that he hand his colleagues reasoned 'that if a gun was fired and some of

the powder came back on the hands and cheek, some of the bullet primer should

also come back'. They decided to try looking for elements by putting the wax

impressions of hands and cheeks into a nuclear reactor.' Guinn said the had

informed the FBI that it would be worth-while to utilize 'activation analysis'

because the Dallas police had merely used the chemical paraffin test.

'We bought a similar rifle from the same shop as Oswald and conducted two

parallel tests,' Guinn said. 'One person fired the rifle on eight occasions.'

The scientist stated that paraffin casts were made and when tested by means of

radioactivity, 'it was positive in all eight cases and showed a primer on both

hands and both cheeks. [Weisberg, who has seen Guinn's report, quotes "heavy

deposits" on the cheek casts] Then we took the casts of Oswald's cheek and put

them in a nuclear reactor.' Guinn added, 'I cannot say what we found out about

Oswald because it is secret until the publication of the Warren Commission

Report." - Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment, pg 152-153

These comparative tests, which were done by a recognized expert - were

contradicted by Cunningham's testimony on pg 561 of the WCR (despite the fact

that Cunningham had *NO* experience with NAA) - but the Warren Commission was

not honest enough to present Guinn's evidence... This evidence is *exculpatory*

for Oswald...

Why was the WC dishonest enough to present Cunningham's testimony, without

allowing readers to know about Guinn's testing results?

Why were those test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still

denied by most LNT'ers today?

eof

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...