Why CBS Covered up the JFK Case (pt1)

[James DiEugenio]

What a pile of Von Peinian baloney. (or BS)

Do you know how to read? Pat wrote the following:

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.

Pat then went on to say:

He [Gallagher] 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.

​You completely distort the drift and intent of the article to somehow make it agree with the WR--which it does not.

How can it if Pat wrote this: it is hard to come to any other conclusion than that the tests on Oswald's cheek cast, prior to contamination, were negative.

And you did the same thing with Holmes by cherry picking one part of his article based upon an unreliable source, Aynesworth, and ignoring every single other part of the piece where Guinn, or the rifle results, said the opposite. Which is why Pat also writes that Shaneyfelt mislead the Commission.

​This is why I have said many times that no one should trust you with evidence. No one. And why your reputation as a con man proceeds you everywhere.

And it is a deserved one. As we can see from above.

Edited April 26, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

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

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"?

[David Von Pein]

~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.

Edited April 26, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

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 [DVP] 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.

All I can say is.... WOW!

(Awesome catch, Jim. Simply awesome.)

[David Von Pein]

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

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

Dave,

All indications are that Oswald's cheek added nearly ZERO antimony and absolutely ZERO barium to the paraffin cast. How can you possibly conclude from that that the test was positive? There was actually MORE gun residue on the outside of the cast than on the inside part that made contact with Oswald's cheek. If you believe that this test indicates Oswald shot the rifle, then you must also believe that the paraffin cast itself shot the rifle as well! The outside part!

Edited April 26, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[David Von Pein]

"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!!

Edited April 26, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

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

Jim,

It does appear that (gasp!) DVP is right in this one respect, that the Guinn quotes you posted all have to do with the neutron activation analysis, testing for barium and antimony. Yes, NAA was shown to be consistently reliable with controls. It was the chemical testing for nitrates that was shown to be unreliable. I don't know if DVP's "one-in-eight" statistic is correct, but I have confirmed my earlier understanding that tests were performed on nitrate testing and they showed that both false negatives and false positives were problems with this unreliable test.

Correct me if I am wrong about this, but that appears to be the case.

Now to Dave... your contention that a positive test means merely that something (like a chemical) is present is just plain wrong. Suppose you buy an old house and have the paint tested for lead. Do you think the test result will come back positive if they discover a concentration of 1 PPM (part per million) of lead in the paint? Of course it won't.... even though the lead "is there." There is some unsafe threshold above which the test will be considered positive. So please stop this nonsense talk about Oswald's cheek NAA test coming back positive.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[David Von Pein]

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.

Edited April 26, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

You say that it's likely that the barium and antimony levels were so small on the face casts because the casts had been washed. Well, then, why weren't the barium and antimony levels on the hand casts also that small? They were washed too. (This fact places some doubt on your statement.)

[David Von Pein]

You say that it's likely that the barium and antimony levels were so small on the face casts because the casts had been washed. Well, then, why weren't the barium and antimony levels on the hand casts also that small? They were washed too. (This fact places some doubt on your statement.)

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.)

[Pat Speer]

I just wrote a lengthy post which somehow got eaten when someone else made a post and my computer updated to include that post. Arrgh!

In any event, DVP, you're wrong. My article did not support the conclusions or integrity of the FBI and WC. It was in fact quite damaging to the FBI. They had evidence which suggested Oswald's innocence re Kennedy, and they hid this from the public.

Now, let's go back to that word "suggested". The paraffin tests themselves were conducted later than one would normally expect. But this passage of time had no apparent effect on the hand casts, which were fairly clear in their depiction of residue on Oswald's hands. Not so the cheek. While Gallagher made much ado about the problem with barium (there being more barium on the back of the cheek cast than on the front), he said little about antimony. Within the records I acquired from the Weisberg Archives I found the totals for antimony. It was insufficient to claim the presence of GSR. The cheek cast was thereby negative for GSR. This should have been put into the record, instead of the last minute gobbledygook spewed by Gallagher. (It's hard to call it testimony when Redlich was pretending to ask him real questions and Gallagher was simply reading from a report.)

In any event, the negative result for this test is not conclusive. Too much time had passed. But it is suggestive. In my estimation, an analogy can be made to a lie detector test in which Oswald appeared to be telling the truth when he said he didn't shoot Kennedy, but lying when he said he didn't shoot Tippit.

A lot of evidence against Oswald was presented to the public. The NAA test on the cheek cast was a piece of evidence supporting Oswald's innocence re Kennedy. It should have been readily presented to the public, as opposed to being hidden away to the extent that Weisberg had to sue multiple agencies before getting access to it.

A final note on "negative" vs. "positive" test results. While a test in which barium is found might be considered "positive" for barium, and a test in which more barium is found on the back than on the front might be considered "tainted" and therefore "inconclusive", tests for GSR require the presence of both barium and antimony in quantities greater than would be expected in the general population, and in ratios similar to that in GSR. The antimony level on Oswald's cheek cast was lower than one would expect based upon the available tests. The test for GSR on Oswald's cheek cast was thereby "negative" even though both barium and antimony were found on the cheek cast.

There's also a question about the barium on the back of the cast. The FBI should have investigated how the cheek cast got contaminated with so much barium. As the DPD crime lab in which the initial nitrate tests were conducted was at Parkland Hospital--a location with plentiful barium--moreover, the possibility exists that someone only marginally familiar with the then highly-experimental NAA tests for GSR deliberately sprinkled some barium on the cheek cast before sending the cast to the FBI, in the hopes it would skew the test positive. This is a strong possibility, IMO, as I have uncovered many instances which suggest the DPD was actively faking much of the evidence against Oswald.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

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

[Ray Mitcham]

You have been shown to be "economical with the truth", Von Pein. In future, any dubious, misleading comment by anybody will be known as a "Von Peiny". Congratulations, you have entered the Lexicon of the Assassination story.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Ray Mitcham

[Pat Speer]

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

While researching the paraffin tests, I came across a study which showed the level of residue on Oswald's hands was far more suggestive that he'd fired a revolver than that he'd merely handled one. That's one of the reasons I came to conclude the tests suggested he'd killed Tippit, but not Kennedy.