(PART 583)


The cheek cast of LHO. Physical proof that he didn't fire a rifle that day.


LOL. Holmes The Kook is a riot!

I ask for "physical evidence" and this is the NUMBER ONE item produced by Holmes! As if Holmes himself doesn't know how completely unreliable any such paraffin (and "cheek") tests really are. Hilarious!

And Holmes undoubtedly believes that the FBI lied through their collective ass when they said that one of their agents had tested NEGATIVELY for nitrates on BOTH of his hands AND his cheek after the agent had fired Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after the assassination.

That must have been a lie by the FBI, right Ben? Because if the agent had REALLY fired Oswald's gun, then his cheek MUST have tested POSITIVE for nitrates, right?

In short, Ben The Kook will simply ignore the FBI test which had an agent firing CE139 and testing NEGATIVE for gunpowder residue. Or, Holmes will just lie some more. But, we're used to that.

[NOTE --- Also see THIS ADDENDUM regarding the subject of Lee Harvey Oswald's paraffin and Neutron Activation Analysis tests.]


CE 343 [sic] is another bit of physical proof. It fails to exhibit the characteristic "chamber mark" found on all cases *KNOWN* to have been fired out of CE 139.


Ben really meant to say CE543, not 343. But we'll give the kook a break and just chalk that error up to a slipped computer digit.

Anyway, Holmes will simply IGNORE the fact that MULTIPLE firearms identification experts testified that ALL THREE of the cartridge cases found underneath Oswald's window in the Depository (of which CE543 is one) were positively fired in and ejected from CE139 (Oswald's Carcano) to the exclusion of every other weapon on the Planet Earth:

MELVIN EISENBERG -- "Mr. Frazier, returning to the cartridge cases which were marked earlier into evidence as Commission Exhibits 543, 544, and 545, and which, as I stated earlier for the record, had been found next to the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, can you tell us when you received those cartridge cases?"

ROBERT A. FRAZIER OF THE FBI -- "Yes, sir. I received the first of the exhibits, 543 and 544, on November 23, 1963. They were delivered to me by Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas FBI Office. And the other one I received on November 27, 1963, which was delivered by Special Agents Vincent Drain and Warren De Brueys of the Dallas Office."


MR. EISENBERG -- "After receiving the cartridge cases, did you examine them to determine whether they had been fired in Commission Exhibit 139?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."


MR. EISENBERG -- "And what were your conclusions, Mr. Frazier?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "I found all three of the cartridge cases had been fired in this particular weapon."


Of course, the eyewitness testimony is overwhelming, which no doubt explains why trolls demand "physical" evidence.


You'd think that if the kind of multi-gun plot was afoot in Dallas that you kooks fervently believe was afoot, you'd be able to scrape up at least a LITTLE "physical evidence". Wouldn't ya think?

Is it really asking too much for the kooks to be able to SUPPORT their nonsensical beliefs in a multi-gun conspiracy with at least ONE PIECE of "physical evidence"?

Instead, kooks like Holmes want to desperately avoid discussing the PHYSICAL evidence....because that type of evidence hangs his precious "patsy". And it always will hang him.

So, when asked for physical evidence, Holmes has to drag out stuff that is either totally meaningless (like his next item below, the Minox camera, which is a real howl) or he drags out an item (bullet shell #CE543) that really is, of course, physical evidence of Oswald's GUILT, not his innocence! These conspiracy retards are just incredible, aren't they?


The Minox camera (and the way the FBI dealt with it) demonstrates a 'conspiracy' to hide the evidence of Oswald's intelligence connections.


The only possible response to this item on Holmes' silly list is -- LOL!

I guess maybe Holmes thinks President Kennedy was shot with a Minox camera on Elm Street, huh?

This is how far down the "evidence chain" a mega-kook like Ben Holmes must dig in order to satisfy their need for a "plot" in the JFK case.

Pathetic, isn't it?


Much "physical evidence" was simply destroyed. Some of which we now know about, I suspect quite a bit that we never learned of.


This is another cop-out used by the idiots in Conspiracy Land, with the usual kook mantra being: Everything That Would Prove This Conspiracy We Believe In Has Been Faked Or Tampered With Or "Destroyed" By The Evil Cover-Up Agents Of The World.

Funny, though, isn't it, how if something has been "destroyed" that Ben Holmes KNOWS ABOUT ITS EXISTENCE AT ALL?!

And even Holmes, via his last words above, is admitting that "we never learned of" a lot of actual evidence of conspiracy in this case.

Amazing, huh?! We've "never learned" about the existence of evidence....but Holmes (somehow) knows that some "conspiracy"-proving evidence DID exist at some point in time.

That, folks, is known as --- Faith.

And rest assured, Ben's "faith" in his make-believe conspiracy will continue, unabated, until he breathes his last breath of air.

And this is a conspiracy in which the only physical evidence Holmes can seem to muster is a bullet shell that CAME FROM THE GUN OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD and a cheek cast of Oswald's which PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and a Minox camera WHICH PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and a faith-based belief that a lot of evidence was "SIMPLY DESTROYED" by people who were part of Ben's make-believe cover-up.

As I said before:

"No CTer can produce ONE SOLID PIECE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support his or her belief that a multi-gun conspiracy ended the life of John F. Kennedy. Not one." -- DVP; 06/12/09; 5:04 PM EDT

David Von Pein
June 12, 2009






Because you haven't offered any PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of a conspiracy. None. And that's mainly because there is none to offer. So your conspiracy store is empty. There's nothing on the CT shelves, and you know it.

Some of the things that Holmes thinks are items of "physical evidence" favoring a conspiracy are things that Holmes knows have been reasonably explained in non-sinister (non-conspiratorial) ways---such as the disappearance of JFK's brain and the tissue slides from the autopsy.

And this item on Holmes' list of physical evidence that he says was "destroyed" is simply a make-believe item that never existed in the first place:

"The bullet found in the grass in Dealey Plaza."

There was no bullet found in the grass in the Plaza, of course. But Holmes will pretend it existed anyway and was then "destroyed" by the evil forces wanting to frame only Oswald. That's how a mind like Holmes' works. He can't help himself from thinking this skewed way.

As for some of those other items on Holmes' list of things that seemingly "disappeared" --- I have no answer for things like the original Nix Film going AWOL, or Babushka Lady's film, or Finck's notes, or Joe West's survey plats, or the Harper fragment, or the Parkland press conference video (or film).

But to suggest that those are items that positively lead down the sinister road of "Conspiracy" in this case is merely wishful thinking on Ben Holmes' behalf and is a leap of CT faith that is not warranted, IMO. Particularly with respect to the AWOL films taken in Dealey Plaza---because there were several unidentified people taking films and/or photos in the Plaza whose films and photos have never surfaced--including Babushka's. So why single her film out? (You can't believe Beverly Oliver, can you?)

As for the video of the Clark/Perry Parkland news conference---that's a video that I, myself, have been asking about for years as well. I would love to see (or hear) the video/film of that conference, which must have existed at one point because we have a verbatim transcript of every word of the conference, which I've put on my site, HERE.

Why the video has never surfaced is a mystery to me. But Ben undoubtedly wants to believe the written transcript linked above is an EDITED transcript....right, Ben? And if we saw the video, it would further the notion of a "conspiracy", correct? (If we did have the video, you know what Holmes would be saying about it then, don't you?)

And, yes, Ben, I most certainly did think you were talking about the paraffin cheek cast when you said this....

"The cheek cast of LHO. Physical proof that he didn't fire a rifle that day." -- B. Holmes

Almost ANYONE would think you were referring to the negative paraffin test performed on LHO's right cheek. Who wouldn't think that is what you meant? You should be more specific, Holmes.


Then you stand corrected, and you'll immediately remove that section from your website, since it's clearly *YOUR* mistake, right?


I'm not sure the original 2009 quote is a "mistake" on my part at all. I don't know you WEREN'T referring to the negative paraffin result when you said "cheek cast". You never said "NAA" test. Why would I assume you were talking ONLY about NAA there?

And I can almost guarantee this Amazon aggregation that Holmes has utilized the "Negative Paraffin Result = Oswald's Innocence (And Therefore Equals Conspiracy)" argument in the past. (Somebody search the acj archives.)*

In addition, even from the "NAA" angle, the cheek cast result certainly is NOT physical evidence of a conspiracy at all. And that's because there's so much OTHER evidence to prove Oswald shot and killed JFK and J.D. Tippit --- with or without the NAA and paraffin tests.

Only a person in 100% denial could possibly argue with my last statement above.

Ben Holmes, of course, is just such a person.

* After just a few seconds of searching the acj [alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup] archives, I came up with this post where Ben Holmes was propping up the same old myth about the negative PARAFFIN test on Oswald's cheek....

"I've long been aware of the fact that when a paraffin test was done on LHO, he was positive on his hands, and negative on his face. Being positive for nitrates can have sources other than firing a gun... such as soap, or ink on books and cartons that LHO handled routinely. The fact that LHO was negative on the face would square with him firing a pistol, but NOT square with him firing a rifle."
-- Ben Holmes; June 29, 2002


But Holmes knew, of course (even in June of 2002), that FBI agent Charles Killion had test-fired Oswald's rifle and the paraffin results on Killion's HANDS and CHEEK were both NEGATIVE. But Holmes will continue to pretend that the "cheek cast" results on Lee Oswald are some kind of evidence of conspiracy---which they are not (and neither are the NAA results).

From Page 165 of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"....

"To confirm that firing a rifle will not leave nitrate residue on the firer's cheeks, the FBI had one of their agents, Charles L. Killion, fire three rounds in Oswald's Carcano rifle. The result of the paraffin test conducted thereafter was negative for his cheeks and hands (3 H 494, WCT Cortlandt Cunningham; WR, pp.561–562)."



You're not looking very good on the NAA issue, are you?

You should just call it a day and run away as fast as your little legs can take you.


We absolutely positively KNOW that a person can (and DID) fire three shots with OSWALD'S C2766 rifle and end up with NO nitrates on his hands or CHEEK. So what difference does it make WHAT the "Neutron Activation Analysis" (NAA) tests showed?

CTers are continually fighting an uphill battle trying to make Oswald look blameless.

But keep on fighting, CTers. There's always another hill in the distance you can try to climb.

Let me also add this quote from one of the best at doing this "JFK" stuff, Jean Davison....

[Quote On:]

"Aha, I think I see now what happened here. The fact that the documents came from the ERDA [Energy Research and Development Administration] 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

[End Quote.]

Also see THIS DISCUSSION regarding the paraffin tests.


You see, I have no fear of mentioning the contradicting evidence -- BUT YOU REFUSE TO DO SO. And that fact tells the story. You really do understand how weak your case is.


My "case" isn't weak, Mr. Holmes. You've got to be clueless of the verified facts to say such a thing.

Also....keep in mind that the hand and cheek paraffin casts of Oswald were WASHED prior to being subjected to the NAA analysis. And the washing of the casts, according to John Gallagher of the FBI, "will remove portions of the barium and antimony from these casts" [15 H 749]....

NORMAN REDLICH -- "Did the fact that these casts were washed prior to the neutron activation test materially alter, in your opinion, the results of the neutron activation analysis?"

JOHN F. GALLAGHER -- "I can say that the washing did not remove all the antimony and barium."

MR. REDLICH -- "In your opinion, would the washing of these paraffin casts remove substantial amounts of the elements barium and antimony if they were present on those casts?"

MR. GALLAGHER -- "Chemical treatment and washing will remove portions of the barium and antimony from these casts. This was determined from test casts which were studied in connection with these analyses. But it did not remove all the barium and antimony."

[End WC Quotes.]


Therefore, it stands to reason that PRIOR to the washing of the casts, there was very likely MORE barium and antimony present on the casts (and, hence, on Oswald's hands and face) than there was after the casts were washed.

So I'd like to know WHY conspiracy theorists prop up the NAA test at all in their zeal to prove Oswald didn't fire a rifle? The NAA test proves no such thing and everybody knows it. It doesn't even test for the presence of nitrates. So it's a completely different test (testing for different trace elements) when compared to the paraffin tests.

But the main point is --- Neither test (paraffin or NAA) proves Lee Harvey Oswald didn't fire a gun on 11/22/63. And, by the same token, neither test proves he DID fire a gun.


Oswald came up NEGATIVE on the NAA testing of his cheek cast.


This is an outright lie. The NAA tests, according to John Gallagher (see his testimony above), showed a POSITIVE result on all casts for the presence of some deposits of antimony and barium (the casts weren't checked for nitrates at all, remember).

And the obvious reason for there not being a lot MORE deposits found on the casts is because the casts were washed before going through the NAA process.

So it's rather humorous that any CTer would want to utilize the NAA cast tests at all, because they definitely showed some presence of barium and antimony on Oswald's face and hands.

Now, Ben, did Dr. Vincent P. Guinn WASH his casts before subjecting them to his NAA tests? (I kinda doubt he did.)

And why on Earth conspiracy fanatic Ben Holmes [in this post] is propping up the fact that NOT ALL of the barium and antimony was washed off the casts is anyone's guess. That's hysterical! That means that TWO properties that you'd expect to find on a gunman were still present on Oswald's casts during the NAA analysis.

And yet that is supposed to somehow EXONERATE Mr. Oswald and prove a conspiracy????

Incredible illogic.


Ben Holmes is digging himself ever deeper into Mother Earth with this "paraffin/NAA" thing....

How so?

Because even if I did misunderstand the exact area of "Paraffin testing" vs. "NAA testing" that Ben was talking about in this 2009 post, Ben still has nowhere to go with this statement of his:

"The cheek cast of LHO. Physical proof that he didn't fire a rifle that day." -- Ben Holmes; June 12, 2009

Because whether Ben was talking ONLY about the "paraffin/nitrate" test (as I thought he was only talking about there; and who wouldn't, given the brief post made by Holmes there?), or whether he was actually referring to the "NAA/Barium/Antimony" test --- it doesn't make a bit of difference! Because EITHER WAY, Ben's statement is a blatant falsehood....because NEITHER test constitutes "Physical proof that he [Oswald] didn't fire a rifle that day", as Ben so boldly suggested in 2009.

So Ben is cooked either way.

And I wonder why Ben thinks a POSITIVE NAA result for barium and antimony really means, as Holmes asserted today....

"Oswald came up NEGATIVE on the NAA testing of his cheek cast." -- B. Holmes; 9/16/15

And yet I am always the target of Ben's brusk "YOU'RE A LIAR, VON PEIN" attacks nearly every day at the Amazon.com JFK forums.

Pot once more is introduced to kettle.

Somebody stick a fork in Mr. Ben Holmes --- he's (over)done.


Tell us Davey... have you read Gallagher's testimony?

If so, what reason did Gallagher, an EXPERT witness, give for being unable to "determine the significance" of the positive readings of barium & antimony on the cheek cast?


And if Gallagher, THE *EXPERT* WITNESS for the Warren Commission, was unwilling to ascribe what positive readings he got to Oswald firing a rifle - WHY ARE YOU LABELING IT A LIE WHEN I MERELY REPEAT WHAT THE WARREN COMMISSION EXPERT WITNESS STATED?


It sounds like you're trying to walk back this lie you told earlier this month....

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

The above statement is NOT true. LHO's NAA cheek cast definitely was POSITIVE for two different elements--which were, as far as I can tell, the ONLY TWO elements that were tested for during the FBI's NAA tests.

And this 2009 statement by Holmes is definitely wrong too....

"The cheek cast of LHO. Physical proof that he didn't fire a rifle that day." -- Ben Holmes

And, btw, I have never once suggested that the positive "Barium/Antimony" NAA test proves that Oswald fired a rifle. In fact, earlier I stated precisely the opposite when I said this....

"But the main point is --- Neither test (paraffin or NAA) proves Lee Harvey Oswald didn't fire a gun on 11/22/63. And, by the same token, neither test proves he DID fire a gun." -- DVP

I'm beginning to think Ben Holmes is more mixed up on this "NAA/Paraffin/Barium/Antimony/Nitrate" thing than I ever was.


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.


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?


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.]


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?


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.


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.


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


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.


Ah! Science via polling!

A new low for believers.


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




The Warren Commission certainly thought this [the NAA/Barium/Antimony tests on Oswald's cheek cast] was negative - can you name *ANY* evidence against Oswald that was not used?


You have, of course, failed to cite anything from the Warren Commission stating that this was a positive result.

Lied, didn't you David?


How can it be anything BUT "positive", Ben? The only two things the NAA test tests for are Barium & Antimony, and Oswald's cheek had traces of BOTH of those elements on the NAA cheek cast. So how can that type of result be deemed "NEGATIVE"? How?

You're showing desperation, Ben. Maybe you should quit now before you bury yourself any further in denial.


*YOUR* opinion means less than nothing - you're a known liar.

Now, cite something from the Warren Commission stating that this was a positive result...

Or run like the little yellow coward you are once again...


Will John Gallagher's testimony suffice? (Prob'ly not, huh?) ....

MR. GALLAGHER -- "Barium and antimony were found on the cheek casts." [15 H 751]

Now, Ben, if you want to think the words "barium and antimony were found on the cheek casts" somehow are words that support your two crazy notions repeated below, well, I guess you can believe that if you want to. But no sensible person who is capable of reading page 751 of WC Volume 15 is likely to believe you:

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

"The cheek cast of LHO. Physical proof that he didn't fire a rifle that day." -- B. Holmes


Certainly his testimony would be sufficient.

Simply quote him as stating that the results were "positive" - showing that Oswald fired a rifle.


Oh, good! Holmes is going to change the conditions and move the goal posts (again)! How lovely.

Now he demands that I cite that the NAA cheek test shows "that Oswald fired a rifle". Which is something I have NEVER contended or maintained--ever! Not once. And neither did the WC or FBI agent Gallagher or anyone else connected with the Warren Commission. Just the opposite, in fact, as deceitful Holmes knows. Once again, just read Page 562 of the Warren Report for proof that the WC never maintained that the NAA tests were indicative of LHO's guilt.

You'd think there would be a few CTers who just might want to give the WC a couple of bonus points for their honesty exhibited there on Page 562. But nooooo. Never would a CTer do that. Right, Ben?


You have, of course, failed to cite anything from the Warren Commission stating that this was a positive result.


Conversely, why don't YOU try citing something in the Warren Commission Report or in the 26 WC volumes saying that the NAA cheek cast results were "negative".

Can you do that, Ben?


You know - YOU KNOW - that had Killion's cast been subjected to the NAA - the results quite likely would have been different.


Oh, you mean you think Killion's cast would have been the same as Oswald's cheek cast --- POSITIVE for the presence of BOTH of the elements that were being tested for via Neutron Activation Analysis? Is that what you mean?

(Yeah, that positive result on Killion would sure put DVP in his place, wouldn't it?)



Is Holmes *actually* retarded? Or just really, really stupid?



There's something definitely wrong with Ben. One or two people at Amazon were telling me years ago (before Ben got himself banished from posting at Amazon) how they also thought Ben was mentally ill and should be seeking professional help. And after seeing his behavior in this thread (and others), I'm beginning to think those Amazon posters might be correct. This type of behavior can't possibly be "normal".

It's obvious that Ben has no shame. He'll mangle and distort people's quotes (as I proved in this thread, which he started just in order to start up a blatant LIE about me), and yet he turns around and calls ME the "liar" for pointing out his outrageous behavior and HIS lie.

I have no idea why I am still responding to that pathetic person named Ben. I really don't. I should probably go to a shrink with Ben for just reading his junk--and for wasting my time responding to it.

Maybe it's like a train wreck or a car crash on I-70 --- it's a mess, but you can't help but slow down and look at it. And Ben's a real mess alright. I've never seen anything like it.


What did the WC attempt to prove with Killion's tests?


They merely wanted to confirm what they already knew was probably true -- i.e., that a paraffin (nitrate) test is completely unreliable and is of no value when trying to determine whether or not a person has recently fired a gun. And Killion's test did, indeed, prove the unreliability of the paraffin test, because Killion tested NEGATIVE on both of his hands and his cheek after firing Oswald's Carcano rifle.

Ben apparently wanted me to answer his question this way: The WC wanted to prove, via the Killion/FBI paraffin test, that Lee Harvey Oswald definitely fired a rifle on 11/22/63.

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint Ben, because even though the Killion test definitely DID prove something to the Warren Commission (i.e., it proved that a person who recently fired Oswald's very own rifle can test NEGATIVE for the presence of nitrates on his FACE, just like Lee Oswald did), the Commission still did not utilize that information to try and prove that Oswald had fired any guns on 11/22/63.

For the proof that my last sentence above is a 100% accurate and true statement, all that Ben or any other conspiracy theorist has to do is to read Pages 561 and 562 of the Warren Report. On those pages, these words can be found (emphasis is mine):

"Since gunpowder residues contain nitrates, the theory behind the test is that if a cast reacts positively...it provides evidence that the suspect recently fired a weapon. In fact, however, the test is completely unreliable in determining either whether a person has recently fired a weapon or whether he has not. .... Also, the mere handling of a weapon may leave nitrates on the skin. A positive reaction is, therefore, valueless in determining whether a suspect has recently fired a weapon. Conversely, a person who has recently fired a weapon may not show a positive reaction to the paraffin test, particularly if the weapon was a rifle. .... The unreliability of the paraffin test has been demonstrated by experiments run by the FBI. In one experiment, conducted prior to the assassination, paraffin tests were performed on 17 men who had just fired 5 shots with a .38-caliber revolver. Eight men tested negative in both hands, three men tested positive on the idle hand and negative on the firing hand, two men tested positive on the firing hand and negative on the idle hand, and four men tested positive on both their firing and idle hands. In a second experiment, paraffin tests were performed on 29 persons, 9 of whom had just fired a revolver or an automatic, and 20 of whom had not fired a weapon. All 29 persons tested positive on either or both hands. In a third experiment, performed after the assassination, an agent of the FBI, using the C2766 rifle, fired three rounds of Western 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition in rapid succession. A paraffin test was then performed on both of his hands and his right cheek. Both of his hands and his cheek tested negative." -- Warren Commission Final Report; Page 561 and Page 562


What did Guinn prove about Killion's test?


He proved that the results of Killion's test were a perfect match to 87.5% of Guinn's own tests (i.e., 7 out of his 8 Paraffin/Nitrate tests came back with a NEGATIVE result).

As far as "proving" anything with respect to the Killion test regarding any NAA (Barium/Antimony) findings, no comparison can even be made there, because (as far as I know) Killion's cheek cast was not subjected to the Neutron Activation Analysis testing. So Dr. Guinn "proved" absolutely NOTHING in that regard at all, since no comparison could even be done.

Looks like a bad day for Ben Holmes. His two big bombshell questions for DVP turned out to be less than a wet sparkler on a rainy Fourth of July.

Try again tomorrow, Ben. Between now and then, I'm sure you can invent some new way to embarrass yourself even more than you did today. It won't be easy, but I'm confident you can manage it.



And how does that prove that you're lying about the Warren Commission's understanding of Killion's tests?


Cunningham's quote on Page 561 of the WCR says that he would not expect to see a positive result on a person's cheek after firing a rifle. And the WC, just before quoting Cunningham, specifically says "NITRATES" would not be expected to show up after firing a rifle (as opposed to other elements, via an NAA test, which is different).

I don't see anything wrong with Page 561 of the WR. But you obviously see a lot of obfuscation and lying there. Right, Ben? (But, then too, CTers always do "see" a lot of lying everywhere.)

[Let the "You're lying again, David" comments commence.]


The Warren Commission knew that the tests showed Oswald's innocence, so they used Killion to obviate it... and buried Guinn.

YOU KNOW THIS - yet you're willing to lie about it.


How do the NAA cheeks tests show "Oswald's innocence"? How? Please tell me. Because I don't think they show that at all. But, as I've said many times recently, I don't think the NAA or Paraffin tests necessarily show Oswald's GUILT either. I agree with the WC on Page 561 --- such tests are not reliable in trying to CONCLUSIVELY PROVE whether or not a person has recently fired a gun. And THAT'S really the bottom line of this discussion -- the RELIABILITY of the Paraffin and NAA tests.

And if you're going to retort with -- Well, Dave, you KNOW the NAA tests ARE very reliable, don't you?

....My response will always be: Well, Ben, then why don't you want to accept the results of Oswald's NAA cheek test from '63? It was certainly not NEGATIVE as you want to believe. It showed the presence of BOTH elements that one would expect to find on a person's body if they had, indeed, fired a rifle or a revolver. So I want to still know HOW you can think that such results can be used to EXONERATE Lee Oswald? How is that even possible with the presence of those elements on Oswald's face?*

* Let me emphasize again that I think the NAA and Paraffin tests should NOT be used when forming a list of reasons to accept Oswald's guilt. And when I said the other day that I have "never" utilized the NAA or Paraffin tests to "prove" Oswald's guilt, I wasn't implying that I have never discussed or debated these points about NAA/Paraffin with CTers over the years. When the topic comes up (like now), yes, I'll discuss it. But as far as propping up the NAA/Paraffin results as concrete PROOF of Lee Oswald's guilt, I have maintained for years that they are NOT concrete PROOF of his guilt. And you won't find the words "Paraffin" or "NAA" anywhere on my "Oswald's Guilt: Point By Point" website, which is sort of my own personal version of Vincent Bugliosi's "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt [53 Things]" chapter, where I list a bunch of things that, IMO, do indeed lead toward LHO's guilt (when totalled together and not isolated, that is).


You lied about Guinn agreeing with Killion. Guinn's NAA tests showed quite clearly that Killion's tests were meaningless.


How so? Seven of Guinn's tests had the exact same result as the Killion test---NEGATIVE.

Why can't you understand this? Why?


Tell us David, how much barium & antimony was on the OUTSIDE of the cast, in comparison to how much was inside?


I suppose you want to totally ignore the fact that those casts were WASHED before the NAA test was even conducted, right?

What would you expect if the casts were washed first? Would you expect MORE deposits or FEWER deposits to be present?

And the possibility of Oswald washing his face in the Texas Theater and/or just merely wiping his cheek with his sleeve at some point in time after the assassination are distinct possibilities as well. But CTers never want to consider those things. Do you, Ben?


Cite expert testimony that states that the results found in the NAA test showed that Oswald fired a rifle.


Similarly, the POSITIVE paraffin result on Oswald's hands doesn't prove he fired any type of gun either. It might be "indicative" of him having handled a fired weapon, but it certainly doesn't PROVE he fired any gun at all; and the Warren Commission knew this to be true. That's why they were so honest and forthright when they said JUST THAT on pages 561 and 562 of their final report.

Ergo, a POSITIVE paraffin/nitrate result on Oswald (on his hands) was not used by the Commission to "prove" Oswald was guilty. But the results of the paraffin test on LHO's hands were still considered "POSITIVE", weren't they?

Same thing with the NAA cheek test --- POSITIVE results, but no declaration of that POSITIVE result equating to "Oswald Fired A Gun".

It's the EXACT same thing. Ben is just too stupid to realize it (or admit it).


You can't use what exonerates Oswald... that's simply common sense.


Only an idiot could possibly think the NAA tests on Oswald's cheek and hands "exonerate" Lee H. Oswald.

Ben Holmes, ladies and gentlemen, IS that idiot.


BTW / FWIW....

On February 27, 2017, I was looking through some of Jean Davison's old Internet forum posts and noticed the following comments that she made in 2002 while responding to something Ben Holmes said. I had not read this specific post of Jean's prior to 2/27/17, although that post is in the very same forum thread which contains Jean's comments that I cited earlier on this webpage. And I was pleased to find these words being written by Jean Davison, a person whose opinions I respect more than just about anybody else I can think of, because they are words that almost perfectly match the comments I made when arguing with various conspiracy believers about the very same subject years later:

Jean's Quote:

"For Pete's sake, Ben, I'm not arguing that the NA [Neutron Activation] test proved that Oswald fired a rifle, I'm saying that his face cast was *positive* for *barium and antimony*. The question was, Is barium and antimony present, and the answer was "yes"; therefore, the test result was *positive* for barium and antimony. The WC didn't regard this test as evidence that Oswald fired a rifle that day and neither do I. I'm only saying that Weisberg may've gotten the results of these two different tests mixed up. The DPD did the traditional paraffin test and found no nitrates on Oswald's cheek cast (negative result). The FBI had an agent fire the M-C twice and also got no nitrates on the face (negative result) -- and this is what the WC reported. But when the same Oswald face cast was sent to the FBI and checked for barium and antimony the results were positive -- the two elements were THERE. What that actually *means* is another matter."
-- Jean Davison; July 5, 2002

DVP's Quote:

"I'm merely pointing out to you [Sandy Larsen] that you are wrong when you utilize the word "NEGATIVE" when describing the results of Oswald's NAA/Barium/Antimony cast tests. Some of those elements WERE present on the casts. Therefore, the casts showed a POSITIVE result. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that that positive result is proof that Oswald shot JFK. In fact, in 2015, I specifically made this clear to conspiracy hobbyist Ben Holmes [when I said this:] "But the main point is --- Neither test (paraffin or NAA) proves Lee Harvey Oswald didn't fire a gun on 11/22/63. And, by the same token, neither test proves he DID fire a gun."" -- DVP; April 25, 2016


How many times have you asserted that the [NAA] test [on Oswald's cheek] had a "positive" result? A test who's [sic] SOLE GOAL WAS TO DETERMINE IF OSWALD HAD FIRED A WEAPON?

Watch as David runs from this.


A "Positive" result on the Paraffin tests OR the NAA tests does NOT equate to "Oswald fired a rifle". I've never maintained that it has; and, more importantly, the Warren Commission never maintained that a "POSITIVE" result on a Paraffin or an NAA test meant that Oswald was guilty (see WCR pages 561-562 for proof of that).

These facts have been pointed out to Ben Holmes numerous times already. But since he's got a cinder block for a head, things just don't sink in properly.

To prove my point (again)....

We know that Oswald's hands tested "Positive" for nitrates during the standard paraffin test done by the DPD.

But did the WC use that "POSITIVE" result to try and say that that meant LHO was guilty of firing a gun?

Answer -- No. They did not. Just go to Pages 560-562 of the Warren Report to verify that fact.

For some reason, Ben acts as if pages 560 to 562 of the Warren Commission's Final Report don't even exist. Go figure. ~shrug~


The Warren Report page that Ben mentioned the other day (Page 180) is, indeed, also a good page for proving my point about how the Commission didn't view Oswald's "Positive" paraffin results on his hands as any kind of PROOF that he had fired a gun. So we can add that page (180) to Pages 560-562 as well.

Thanks for pointing that out, Ben. Because it's another very good example illustrating the Warren Commission's complete honesty and non-biased attitude when discussing the results of Lee Harvey Oswald's paraffin tests.


[Guinn's NAA tests] *DID* show quite positively when someone had fired a weapon.

You're pretending that the NAA test NEVER CAN tell if someone has fired a weapon...

That's a lie.


No, it's not. Because Barium and Antimony are present in many ordinary common things like cloth, paper, matches, paint, and rubber. The chances of the B&A adhering to somebody's skin after coming into contact with those common items are smaller than it is with, say, getting nitrates on your hands after urinating and not washing your hands, but the possibility of getting a positive Barium & Antimony result after handling all sorts of common household items is still a definite possibility that can't be completely ignored.

Would you like to just ignore the POSSIBILITY of those other common items being the cause of a person's "Positive" NAA test result, Ben? If so, then I guess I should say, Great! Because I guess that means you think Oswald's POSITIVE NAA result on his cheek can ONLY be interpreted as "Oswald Fired A Gun". That's good to know, Ben. Thanks.


Your website will pretend that it was *you*, and not I that had the last undisputed word on the topic.

Liar, aren't you?


No, I'm just someone who is capable of properly evaluating and assessing the sum total of evidence connected with the murders committed in Dallas on the 22nd of November in 1963. That's something you have demonstrated via your posts that you are obviously incapable of doing if your life hung in the balance.

And would you actually expect me to let you conspiracy clowns have the "LAST WORD" on my own webpages? Get real.

Go to ANYBODY'S blogs and see who has the "last word" in almost every single discussion or article. Do you think the "last word" is going to be written by the person who owns the blog or by the person the blog owner is arguing with? (Again, Ben needs to "get real". Because the answer is all too obvious.)

(And I always provide direct links on my webpages to each "source" discussion I'm involved in, if they are available and not broken. So if somebody wants to read more of Holmes' lies and silly arguments, they can easily do so by just clicking away.)


You're lying again, David... and you *KNOW* you're lying. I can easily cite on YOUR website where there are no links at all to the debate.

Tell us David, why do you think you can lie and not have it pointed out?



Since Holmes can't read, I'm forced to repeat this part of my comment again (THE PART IN ALL CAPS), which Holmes is pretending I never wrote at all....

"And I always provide direct links on my webpages to each "source" discussion I'm involved in, IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE AND NOT BROKEN." -- DVP

In point of fact, I hate it when I can't provide a source link (or links) to a particular discussion, because I want visitors to my site to be able to trace back the ORIGINAL SOURCE of the discussion/debate. And if the original link is broken or unavailable, I obviously can't provide a link to it.

And some of the time the original links are no longer available, especially for some threads that started at The Education Forum or at Duncan MacRae's forum, where often the threads will completely disappear due to the forum member who started the discussion having been kicked off the forum by the moderators. When that happens, the whole thread gets deleted at the EF forum and at MacRae's forum (for some stupid reason). And, thusly, I can't post any link to those deleted discussions -- unless they've been archived at the Wayback Machine at Archive.org, which often is the case. And, yes, I check out the "Wayback" to see if I can recover a deleted discussion. I've done that quite often, in fact. Sometimes with success, sometimes not.

So, as you can see, I go to great lengths to archive the original source links to the discussions I archive at my website. Therefore, Ben, as usual, doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

For more discussion about Ben Holmes' lies, go here and here.


David Von Pein...refuses to link much of his material to the original...


A bald-faced lie uttered by Holmes there. (Par for Holmes' course, of course.)


If it were actually a "bald-faced lie", then lurkers could go here and find the original posts that you quote.

I invite you to CUT AND PASTE from that URL the links you claim you've posted.

Now, I'll accept either a CUT AND PASTE URL for each of my quoted statements on that page, OR AN APOLOGY FROM YOU FOR CALLING ME A LIAR.


That "Part 1185" page has the two source links included -- one of them is hyperlinked to the words "January 8-10, 2014"; the other is attached to the date "March 29, 2017". Holmes is just too stupid to figure out how to click on them, I guess. But that's certainly not my fault.


Nope... not good enough.

There isn't any way that someone could have figured out which link goes where.

You INTENTIONALLY make it extremely difficult to find the original source material.

The normal rule is to link directly under any quotes used...

As I'm always happy to do.


Bullshit. My method of hyperlinking the DATES to take readers to the original source discussions is perfectly fine and makes perfect sense. You're only quibbling about this because you are a total nutcase.


Fortunately, you illustrate quite well what I've long said - there's no such thing as an honest AND knowledgeable believer in the Warren Commission.

You can be honest and believe that the Warren Commission told the truth and got it right.

But you can't do so once you learn more about the evidence in this case. There's no such thing as an honest KNOWLEDGEABLE believer in the Warren Commission.

A perfect example is David - who RAN when I demolished his point about Nicol... and ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO DEBATE the issue.

Believers lose every time they debate a knowledgeable critic... EACH AND EVERY SINGLE TIME. I've been proving it for many years now, and will continue to do so...

Most believers refuse to debate when I'm around... John McAdams learned the lesson... Henry Sienzant learned the lesson, Patrick Collins learned the lesson... and many others... when a knowledgeable critic is around, they shut up and run in the other direction.


Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, Ben. Your self-flattery and bloated chest notwithstanding, the REAL reason most people decide not to engage Ben Holmes in discussion after a period of time is because, (#1) I'm sure they get tired of being called a "liar" every time Ben posts something. I have a pretty thick skin, so it doesn't bother me as much as some other people I guess, but it certainly isn't a very good debating technique to call your opponent a blatant and despicable "LIAR" every time you turn around. (Not to mention the fact that Ben is just simply DEAD WRONG when he calls most LNers "liars" a dozen times a day. Let's face it, Ben's just nuts in this regard. Because I'm not a liar and neither is Bud and neither is John McAdams and neither was the late Vincent T. Bugliosi.)

And (#2), the people who "debate" Ben no doubt just get sick and tired of him constantly misrepresenting the true facts and the various circumstances surrounding the deaths of JFK and J.D. Tippit.

A recent example of Ben's misrepresenting the true facts can be found in the quote below, which is just not a true statement:

"But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol." -- B. Holmes

Ben knows, of course, that Oswald's revolver WAS "ballistically matched" to the Tippit murder -- via the BULLET SHELLS. But he'll pretend (I guess) that the bullet SHELLS just DON'T COUNT as "ballistics" type evidence....or he'll pretend those 4 shells were planted or "switched" by the DPD or the FBI (or by somebody).

But, in fact, ALL FOUR of those shells found at the Tippit murder scene were MATCHED to Oswald's .38 revolver "to the exclusion of all other weapons" [see WCR, p.171].

So, as we can see from just my one example, people who choose to talk about the JFK case with Ben Holmes over a period of time are no doubt going to get fed up with having to constantly correct him on the basic facts of the case. Because, like most rabid conspiracy clowns who prowl the Internet year after year, Ben Holmes has made it quite clear that he will never change his tune about anything related to the evidence in the JFK case.

He has to know, of course, that he's dead wrong about many things associated with Lee Harvey Oswald and the evidence in the case, but since he's made it his life's work to try and exonerate a double-murderer, Ben will never be able to bring himself to admit that he has ever been wrong about anything.

Eventually, the type of "Exonerate Oswald At All Costs" attitude that CTers like Ben seem to possess will grow mighty tiresome to a reasonable opponent who knows Ben is FOS. Hence, the opponent decides to abandon the debate. But it certainly isn't because they are "running away" from the evidence, as Ben seems to want to believe. It's because they just get fed up with being fed B.S. day after day.


Why Is David Von Pein So Afraid To Debate The NAA Test?

Just like the Warren Commission, the far more accurate and credible NAA tests absolutely frightens David Von Pein.

David runs away every time the topic comes up.

Time and time again, I've challenged him to explain what a scientific "control" test is, and what it does... and David has run away each and EVERY time!

If Oswald alone shot JFK, why the fear?


As I've mentioned numerous times already, John Gallagher of the FBI and the Warren Commission decided that Oswald's NAA casts were worthless in trying to determine whether or not LHO fired a rifle on 11/22/63 --- even though Gallagher and the WC knew that Oswald DID have "MORE BARIUM AND ANTIMONY PRESENT ON THE CASTS THAN WOULD NORMALLY BE FOUND ON THE HANDS OF A PERSON WHO HAD NOT FIRED A WEAPON OR HANDLED A FIRED WEAPON" (WCR, p.562).

But even WITH the above determination, the Warren Commission still would not say that it was enough to indicate Oswald definitely did fire a weapon on November 22.

Why won't Ben give the WC some credit for honesty when it's warranted?

Instead, Ben thinks the WC should have added the following statement (or something very similar to it) to page 562 of its final report....


But, as Ben has to know, there are a variety of reasons why the above silly declaration should not be applied to the NAA evidence connected with Lee Oswald and the JFK case. Not the least of which is the fact that we know that Oswald's paraffin casts were WASHED before being subjected to the NAA analysis---undoubtedly resulting in some of the elements being washed away before the test. (Given these "washed" conditions, why the NAA test was even done on Oswald's casts in the first place is rather ridiculous, because such a test obviously will not be as accurate as a test done on an UNWASHED cast.)

Plus: nobody can know for certain (not Ben Holmes or anybody else on the planet) if Oswald wiped or washed his face between the time of the assassination and the time his paraffin casts were created. Such wiping (or washing) of the face could have very well removed significant amounts of barium and antimony from Oswald's cheek following the shooting. And nobody can possibly prove such "wiping" or "washing" of Oswald's cheek did NOT take place on 11/22/63. (Just wiping his face with his shirt sleeve would no doubt wipe away some of the elements that HAD been present on his cheek.)

That UNKNOWN "wiping" or "washing" factor, all by itself, renders this statement uttered by Ben Holmes eight years ago completely useless, worthless, and just flat-out wrong:

"The cheek cast of LHO -- physical proof that he didn't fire a rifle
that day."
-- Ben Holmes; June 12, 2009



I knew it!!! WHAT A MORON...

You can't defend this ridiculous assertion, and you know it:

"Plus: nobody can know for certain (not Ben Holmes or anybody else on the planet) if Oswald wiped or washed his face..." [DVP]

Wanna try????


Was he washing his face with his forearms?


What makes you think Oswald would HAVE to wash away 100% of the barium & antimony off of his FACE or his HANDS?

After all, we know that the casts WERE washed after the nitrate tests and--guess what?--there was STILL some barium & antimony left on the WASHED casts.

So it's ludicrous for Ben to laugh at the notion that Oswald could have washed his face and hands and yet not have washed them GOOD ENOUGH to eliminate ALL of the barium and antimony on his cheek and hands.

Do you KNOW how thoroughly LHO usually washed his face and hands on any given day? Of course you don't. Nor do I. Hence, Oswald could very easily have used the bathroom in the Texas Theater to wash his face and hands, resulting in a lower level of barium and antimony being present on those areas of his body.

And no reasonable person can possibly say the above scenario is a "ridiculous assertion" (as Holmes just did). Because it's a scenario that makes perfect sense--especially if Oswald was aware of the tests that the police might conduct on him should he be arrested that day.

In the event that such an "awareness" of potential paraffin tests did exist in the mind of Lee Harvey Oswald on the afternoon of November 22, 1963 (which we can never know for sure, of course), it would make perfect sense for Oswald to want to slip into the restroom while he was in the Texas Theater in order to potentially wash off some of the evidence that might lead the authorities to thinking he shot some people with guns that day.


Only a *MORON* thinks that Oswald washed his face, YET HAD MORE BARIUM & ANTIMONY ON HIS HANDS THAN ON HIS CHEEKS.

You a moron, David?

Explain it.


Sure. That one's easy. It's something I have already explained in a past post too, which you apparently ignored....

"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 [and hands]) 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."
-- DVP; September 23, 2015

And given the fact we KNOW that Oswald handled his recently-fired revolver when he was struggling with the police officers in the Texas Theater, it makes perfect (logical) sense that Oswald could conceivably have had MORE barium and antimony deposits on his HANDS than on his face (via the scenario which has LHO washing his hands and face in the restroom of the theater BEFORE he again handled his revolver during the struggle with the police). Sounds like a perfect "Barium & Antimony" fit to me.

Can I prove such a face-washing scenario took place on 11/22/63? Of course I can't. As I said in my 2015 post, it's purely guesswork on my part. But it's a scenario that helps to reasonably explain the "NAA" and the "Paraffin" evidence in ways which don't force us to dive off the deep end of the conspiracy theorists' diving board — with the "deep end" being: Lee Oswald never shot anyone on 11/22/63 — which is a conclusion that no sensible or reasonable person could possibly believe after evaluating all of the evidence in this whole case.


You think it was impossible for Oswald to have wiped his face with his shirt (or jacket) sleeve between 12:30 PM and the time the paraffin test was administered?


Not at all... certainly he could have done such a thing.

But *YOU* are asserting that it pulled a majority of Barium & Antimony from his cheeks... more than that, you're asserting that it pulled away more of the Barium and left more of the Antimony...

Of course, this is something you can't explain... so you RUN AWAY every time I've brought it up.


Please explain why this simple face-wiping activity would have been
"Not Possible" for Lee Oswald to have accomplished on 11/22/63.


Simple... his sleeve undoubtedly contained just as much, if not more Barium & Antimony.


Now who's engaging in speculation?

BTW, is your last post above your way of admitting that Oswald DID fire some rifle shots on 11/22/63? (Probably not, huh?)

Or did all that barium and antimony get into his sleeve via some other (innocent) means?

Want some more speculation to add to the batch you just provided above? Okay...

If Oswald shot JFK in just his T-shirt (which I think he probably did), then his brown outer shirt would not have necessarily been contaminated with any barium or antimony during the shooting. After LHO put on his brown shirt, he could have THEN wiped his face with his sleeve. Voila!

Your turn to speculate, Ben. Let's see how many more ways you can avoid having to admit Oswald shot anybody.

David Von Pein
February 21, 2017
February 22, 2017
February 23, 2017
February 24, 2017
February 27, 2017
February 28, 2017
February 28, 2017
March 28, 2017
March 31, 2017