(PART 901)


[Quoting from the Warren Commission's Final Report:]

"Speculation. -- Gordon Shanklin, the special agent in charge of the Dallas office of the FBI, stated that the paraffin test of Oswald's face and hands was positive and proved that he had fired a rifle.

Commission finding. -- The paraffin tests were conducted by members of the Dallas Police Department and the technical examinations by members of the Dallas City-County Criminal Investigation Laboratory. The FBI has notified the Commission that neither Shanklin nor any other representative of the FBI ever made such a statement. The Commission has found no evidence that Special Agent Shanklin ever made this statement publicly."
(WCR 647)

The commission certainly didn't look too hard, for Anthony Lewis wrote a story in the New York Times of November 25, 1963 (pg 11 cols. 6-8) which specified Gordon Shanklin as the source of information that a paraffin test "showed that particles of gunpowder from a weapon, probably a rifle, remained on Oswald's cheek and hands."

Do you suppose that the vast investigative power of the WC managed to miss a New York Times article??

Once again, the Warren Commission simply lied.


Gee, Ben, since you think the Warren Commission "lied" about approximately 6,679 things in their Final Report, wouldn't it stand to reason that if they were going to "lie" about the paraffin result on Oswald's cheek, they'd lie in the OTHER direction -- i.e., they'd probably be telling a bunch of lies that would lead the readers of their Report to falsely believe that the paraffin test on Oswald's cheek had, indeed, been POSITIVE to indicate he fired a rifle?

But in the instance of alleged "lying" by the WC cited by conspiracy sensationalist Ben Holmes above, the Warren Commission is telling a "lie" that leads in the OTHER direction, leading readers to think that it was NOT likely that the paraffin test on LHO's face was positive at all.

So, per Hound Holmes, the Warren Commission lied in many instances to make Oswald look MORE guilty. And the Warren Commission lied, per Hound Holmes, to ALSO make Oswald look more INNOCENT too.

The irony is thick and rich, isn't it?

Holmes no doubt thinks the Commission lied on Page 647 of its Final Report just to keep from having to call Gordon Shanklin the actual liar. Right, Ben?

It's also interesting to note how deep into his Pit Of Absurdity that Ben Holmes now has to dig in order to find more make-believe "lies" that he claims were told by those evil and rotten-to-the-core members of the Warren Commission. Holmes is now down to digging out alleged "lies" that support his own theory of Oswald being INNOCENT.

The irony of it is hysterical.

Thanks, Benji, for today's chuckle. Your desperation to find ANY kind of malfeasance on the part of the Warren Commission is duly noted.


The DPD lied, then the Warren Commission lied to cover it up.


Holmes thinks the Warren Commission wanted to lie in order to "cover up" something that (if not "covered up") would make it seem MORE LIKELY that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty, even though Mr. Oswald was, of course, the WC's designated "patsy", per conspiracy sensationalist Ben Holmes.

The (il)logic is astounding. But apparently it somehow makes perfect sense to Holmes. ~shrug~


What they "covered up" was the fact that Oswald was being framed with lies.

The Warren Commission then LIED about that particular lie.

The fact that you can't explain it is amusing, nothing more.

No "illogic" involved at all... the Warren Commission lied to protect the public from seeing how Oswald was being railroaded with lies.

What's so hard to see about that?

And why are you lying about it?


And if the Warren Commission was doing THE EXACT SAME THING (railroading Oswald with one lie after another), as you seem to think they were doing every step of the way in the WC's investigation, then why would the Commission have wanted to lie about somebody ELSE who was also railroading Oswald with lies?

Geez, what convolution.

(Somebody give me an Anacin. Holmes' logic has my head aching from "Imaginary Conspiracy Overload".)


It's important to note that all Ben is doing is parroting the claims of Mark Lane from Chapter 12, "The Paraffin Test and the Latent Palm Print", from Rush To Judgment.

He's also confusing evidence with hearsay. He (and Lane) cites the hearsay reported in a newspaper article as evidence, but it's not. It never will be.

And somehow people think RUSH TO JUDGMENT is a good book. Only if they themselves rush to judgment and skim over these arguments without putting much thought into them.

I once had an exchange with a conspiracy theorist (and I'm pretty sure David has too) where that person alleged the police made up Oswald's claims in custody to frame him...

But when asked why the police would make up DENIALS by Oswald (like he didn't own a rifle or like he didn't bring a long sack to work that day), instead of admissions (like he did own a rifle and did bring a sack), the conspiracy theorist fell silent.

Their claims make no sense if you give it just a little thought.

Which apparently CTs seldom if ever do.


Good point, Hank.

If the Dallas Police Department was going to blatantly LIE about Lee Harvey Oswald's statements made behind closed doors, why not put GUILTY statements in the resident patsy's mouth, rather than "No, I never owned a rifle" and "No, I never said anything about curtain rods to Wesley Frazier"?

Why not tell lies that fit the actual evidence? But, per many CTers (and yes, Hank, I've encountered several of them online), the DPD lied in the OTHER direction--similar to the kind of "paraffin test" lie that Ben claims the Warren Commission told--making it seem that Oswald is more INNOCENT (if the alleged "lies" told by the DPD are believed by the public to be truthful).

So, I guess the conspiracy theorists must therefore think the DPD's desired end result of all of their lies regarding LHO's statements would be to have the public NOT BELIEVE a single one of the so-called lies. Because the DPD, after all, was framing Patsy Oswald, right? So the DPD couldn't actually want the public to fall for the lies the police were putting in the patsy's mouth, right?

Again, good point, Hank. Thanks.


This is simple, Davey...

Did the DPD lie about the paraffin results?

Yes or no?

Did the Warren Commission then lie about what the DPD had done?

Yes or no?

Cite for your answer... or run like a coward again...


No and no.


Yep... just proving yourself a coward again. (or perhaps you're too illiterate to read the part about citing for your answer...)

You REFUSED to cite for your assertions, nor will you ever do so...

Presumably, you're asserting that the New York Times writer lied... and that the Warren Commission just didn't have the investigative ability to read the #1 newpaper of record in the United States.

Tell us Lil Davey - why do you have to lie to support the Warren Commission?

You understand, I hope, that you're simply revealing for everyone to see just how weak you think your case is.


You're just plain silly, Ben.

The very simple explanation for The New York Times quote attributed to Gordon Shanklin is that Shanklin (who didn't perform the paraffin test and was not with the DPD at all in 1963, he was FBI) simply OVERstated the "positive" results of Oswald's paraffin tests.

I don't doubt that Shanklin probably DID say what he is quoted as having said in the NYT on 11/25/63, but I can also easily envision a perfectly logical and reasonable (and NON-conspiratorial) type of answer to explain why Shanklin would make such a statement.

And I wouldn't be at all surprised if similar incorrect statements concerning Oswald's "cheek" test were made by other people around the same time of Shanklin's statement.

But Shanklin's statement is really only HALF wrong, because Oswald DID test "positive" for nitrates on his HANDS. It's just that Shanklin must have lumped the "cheek/face" test in with the "hands" test, and he inaccurately reported to the NYT that BOTH the hands and cheek tests came out positive, when in reality only the HANDS of Oswald tested positive.

But, IMO, the "cheek" portion of Shanklin's remark is still not a "lie". He was merely misinformed about the nature of a portion of the paraffin tests. He lumped both tests together, when he should have kept them separate.

Yes, the above is just a guess on my part as to why the head of the Dallas FBI office, Gordon Shanklin, would have made such a statement about both paraffin tests being positive on Oswald. But I doubt very much that Mr. Shanklin, of ALL people in the world, would be wanting to lie about the paraffin tests so that the public would (falsely) think that it was MORE likely that the man who a lot of people think should have been watched more closely by SHANKLIN'S OWN FBI prior to the assassination was guilty of the President's murder.

Shanklin and his boss, J. Edgar Hoover, should have been anxious to EXONERATE Oswald under such circumstances, not going around deliberately saying false things to INCRIMINATE him in the eyes of the public. The FBI certainly wouldn't be the people who would have had a desire to frame an INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald. Such a notion is just plain silly from the FBI's point-of-view in November 1963.

Plus, if conspiracy theorists want to think the Dallas Police Department lied about the results of the cheek test on Oswald, they don't have much of a leg to stand on there, because the DPD's J.C. Day told the Warren Commission that "The test on the face [of Oswald] was negative" [4 H 276].

So, as we can see from those words spoken by DPD Lieutenant J.C. Day in 1964, the Dallas Police certainly wasn't LYING and claiming to the Warren Commission that the paraffin test on Oswald's face was POSITIVE. Lt. Day said just the opposite--that the cheek test was "negative".

So where do conspiracy clowns like Ben Holmes go after being confronted with those words I just quoted above by Carl Day? Will Holmes continue to claim the DPD "lied" about the results of the cheek test, even though Lt. Day made it clear in his WC testimony that the test turned out NEGATIVE on Lee Oswald's face?

Good luck with that one, Ben. You'll need it.


Now that you're admitting that Shanklin was wrong, let's deal with the other question you lied about... you stated "no" to the question: "Did the Warren Commission then lie about what the DPD had done?"

Granted that it was FBI rather than the DPD (although this information was coming out of the DPD), explain to everyone why you said "no".

The ONLY credible way that the Warren Commission was not lying is that they were too incompetent to read the New York Times.

Feel free to offer another credible explanation.

Or run away again.


Quite obviously, Ben, the Warren Commission must NOT have been made aware of the NYT Shanklin statement. Simple as that.

You, of course, think that such an oversight is totally impossible. But I know that the Warren Commission was comprised of HUMAN BEINGS. And human beings sometimes make mistakes. And human beings sometimes overlook things -- even some things that are in plain sight, like the FBI not being able to figure out that the Single-Bullet Theory was the proper and correct conclusion to reach, instead of the "3 Shots & 3 Hits" conclusion they reached in their 12/9/63 Report).

I'm human too. I make lots of mistakes. In fact, I'm making a whopper right now---I'm wasting my time talking to Ben Holmes.


Good of you to finally be honest.

The Warren Commission was so incompetent that they were unable to track down this information - and FBI Agent Shanklin MUST have lied... the Warren Commission stated that "The Commission has found no evidence that Special Agent Shanklin ever made this statement publicly."

Now can you imagine any situation where someone would make such a statement WITHOUT asking Shanklin?

So Shanklin lied, and the Warren Commission was too incompetent to catch him at it.

And, as we see, YOU lied about the statement being made... even if you were correct that it was the FBI, rather than the DPD.

And you've shown FBI Agent Shanklin a liar, unless, of course, you can [credibly] explain away the Warren Commission statement WITHOUT them ever asking Shanklin.

Run Lil Davey... RUN!!!

You're getting schooled here! (and none of this will appear on your website...)


I'm putting all of it on my website, Benji. (So you lied about that, didn't you?)

And I just gave a plausible explanation for Shanklin's statement about the cheek test. He incorrectly lumped both tests together. A very easy mistake to make.

And, as I also previously said, I'd bet that other people made the same mistake. They heard about A PARAFFIN TEST on Oswald being "positive" -- ergo, some people might have incorrectly reported that ALL of the paraffin tests turned out "positive".

See how simple and logical a non-sinister explanation can be, Benji? Try it sometime. It can't kill ya.

(Chalk up another mistake on DVP's part --- I'm still conversing with a fantasist named Holmes. What's the matter with me? Would the analogy about "not being able to stop after just one peanut" be appropriate here? I think it might---especially the "nut" part.)


You've admitted that the weight of the evidence shows that Shanklin STATED that the cheek caste [sic] was positive - BUT YOU HAVEN'T EXPLAINED WHY HE LIED ABOUT IT.


Why do you think EACH AND EVERY mistake or piece of misunderstood information HAS to be labeled a "lie"? Why? So many other explanations are equally as credible, and even probable.

And as I already mentioned, Shanklin would have been one of the very LAST humans on the planet to want to tell tall tales that would make Oswald look GUILTY. And surely even you know why, Ben.

If the Shanklin quote is 100% accurate (which I haven't checked, and it's certainly not a good idea to take anything uttered by Mark Lane as being truthful in every facet), Shanklin likely got wind of some (partially) incorrect information re: the paraffin tests. Why is that not even on the radar of possibilities in the world of Ben Holmes? Or are you too infatuated with the idea that everybody under the sun was a liar?


Or why the Warren Commission lied about it.


You haven't proved the WC lied. Your ASSUMPTIONS that the WC was telling lies all over the place don't count for squat. There was no reason to "lie" about this paraffin thing. Lt. Day is ON THE WC RECORD stating the facts---i.e., the cheek test was negative. End of story.


They either lied, or there's a credible explanation.

We've not heard the credible explanation yet. All I've heard is denials.


You've not dented the facts at all.

You've not explained the facts at all.

All you're doing is denying.



All I'm saying is that there ARE explanations other than bald-faced LIES. But you don't even leave room for MISTAKES, MISCOMMUNICATION, INACCURATE QUOTES IN NEWSPAPERS (which happens all the time), and other possible reasons why things happen that you are calling "LIES".

In Ben Holmes' world, everything uttered that isn't 100% accurate concerning the JFK case must be a LIE WITH INTENT TO DELIBERATELY DECEIVE.

Why would you think such a silly thing, Ben?


I provided a perfectly reasonable explanation for Shanklin's quote (assuming it's a spot-on accurate NYT quote, that is). But Ben Holmes just doesn't like that explanation, and therefore he'll pretend that I've never supplied any kind of credible explanation at all (just like he always does about matters that have already been answered).

"Talking to them [conspiracy theorists] about logic and common sense is like talking to a man without ears. The bottom line is that they WANT there to be a conspiracy and are constitutionally allergic to anything that points away from it." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1438 of "Reclaiming History"

Vince, as usual, is right.


Now, if this blatant speculation were even a SMIDGEN true, you'd be able to cite the evidence showing that the FBI was making even SOME SMALL EFFORT to exonerate Oswald.

But, of course, you're simply lying. You know for a FACT that the FBI was hell-bent on proving Oswald's sole guilt RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING.

And Shanklin had EVERY REASON IN THE WORLD to shaft Oswald as hard as he could, consistent with Hoover's very clear direction.

You claim that "I know" why Shanklin wouldn't be willing to shaft Oswald - but I know no such thing. I do NOT accept your speculation - particularly when IT'S CONTRARY TO THE KNOWN EVIDENCE.

Now - either cite some evidence that the FBI was making an effort to exonerate Oswald, or run away again.


Ben's too slow to grasp the obvious point I've made multiple times now re: the FBI/Shanklin/Hoover, so I'll write it out in kindergarten form for Benji....

1.) The FBI knew Lee Oswald was in Dallas AND working at the Texas School Book Depository PRIOR to 11/22/63.

2.) President Kennedy is killed from the TSBD with Oswald's rifle on 11/22/63.

3.) The FBI did not track any of Oswald's movements on 11/22/63.

4.) ***ALARM BELLS OF CONCERN GO OFF AT THE FBI*** -- (People might start to blame us, the FBI, for the President's assassination. So, Mr. Hosty, get rid of that note.)


Given the above set of facts, can anyone in their right mind imagine Hoover or Shanklin wanting to FRAME an INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald for President Kennedy's death?

Such a thought going through ANY FBI agent's mind following JFK's assassination is too ludicrous to contemplate. And yet, many many CTers actually DO think that is what happened. They think Hoover's boys DID want to frame an INNOCENT Oswald and thus bring extra heat down on Hoover's FBI (by some people) for not watching this goofy bird named Oswald more closely.

Understand now, Ben?

Footnote ---

The reason J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI touted Oswald as President Kennedy's murderer is quite plain and obvious....

They knew Oswald was guilty of that crime BASED ON THE EVIDENCE before their eyes.

Who the heck ELSE was Hoover supposed to say did it---Anthony Perkins? Tallulah Bankhead? Charlie Weaver? The Supremes?

~Mark VII~


Now, care to give ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for your crazy theory?


The FBI theory of mine is not the kind of theory that I can provide any "evidence" for. It's just basic common sense (two words you aren't familiar with).


So your theory is that despite the FACT that the FBI never did a SINGLE THING that would accrue to Oswald's benefit, this is actually what they wanted to do.



Let me try this one more time.....

My FBI theory was laid out from the POV of the goofy things that the conspiracy theorists believe are true -- such as: Oswald was innocent; and Hoover framed Oswald after the shooting; and the FBI planted evidence against Oswald.

But since NONE of those above three things is true at all, it means the FBI actually didn't attempt to frame LHO and the evidence in the case is just what it suggests---Oswald was guilty.

But IF those things HAD been true (as CT kooks believe), then it's my contention that the FBI would have been totally nuts. They would have been framing an innocent man that the FBI had an open file on in Dallas in November '63. And they would, therefore, be opening themselves up to severe attacks from the public for not monitoring the President's assassin on the day the murder occurred.

Now, yes, they STILL were subject to such attacks from the public even though the FBI DIDN'T frame Oswald. But those attacks were inevitable and could not be controlled by Hoover and his men -- and that's because Oswald DID kill Kennedy. So there was NOTHING the Feds could do about that after it occurred.

And since there is no physical evidence in this whole case that can be used to effectively "exonerate" Lee Oswald, the FBI obviously had nothing at all to work with in that regard (even if they were to actively seek it out).

Ergo, the FBI declared Oswald the lone assassin. And that's because of this fact ---- All of the evidence suggests that LHO was the lone assassin.

So, again, what was Hoover supposed to do? Just PRETEND the evidence against Oswald didn't exist?


Lil Davey is claiming that it's simply "common sense" that the FBI would have no interest in doing everything within their power to nail who they thought was a guilty perp.


But that's NOT what most "Internet CTers" believe, you goof. You're turning it upside-down. Most CTers like you think Hoover and the FBI wanted to frame an INNOCENT man named Oswald--not a GUILTY man named Oswald. Big difference there.

You don't think there's ANY solid evidence of Oswald's guilt, do you Ben? The only evidence is stuff that was PLANTED or FORGED to make Oswald LOOK guilty -- and the FBI was a big part of that charade, correct?

I'm saying that if the FBI engaged in such a foolish charade with the evidence in this case, it would have been suicide for the FBI's own reputation. But you think they went ahead and framed AN INNOCENT OSWALD anyway---despite Jim Hosty's open file on LHO and his visits to Ruth Paine's house, etc.

Now, if Oswald is GUILTY (which he is, of course), there's really no way to "frame" him for two murders he never committed, is there? So the FBI can't do anything about their tarnished reputation if he was guilty (which he was). So the Feds will just have to live with their embarrassment.

But in a situation where Hoover KNOWS Oswald was INNOCENT, you really think Hoover--of all people--would be wanting to put his own Bureau's reputation right into the frying pan?

(Am I going to have to repeat this a 5th time, Ben? Or do you understand me now?)


He [J. Edgar Hoover] knew of evidence for Oswald's innocence - and did everything in his power to bury it.


And you think it's LOGICAL for J. Edgar to have wanted to do that in this case, even though the Bureau was Hoover's "baby" and he hated the idea of its reputation getting soiled?

If you DO believe Hoover engaged in such behavior in November 1963, you're further out in the Twilight Zone than even I had suspected.

So, to recap....

Per Ben Holmes, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover KNEW Oswald was innocent....and he had evidence to show he was innocent....and Hoover knew there was an open file on Oswald at the Dallas FBI office before the assassination (or are you suggesting that Hoover--the FBI's head man--wasn't aware of this open file on LHO?)....and Hoover loved his treasured "Bureau" dearly....but he went ahead and "did everything in his power to bury it" [the LHO-exonerating evidence] anyway.

Is that the situation as it exists in your fantasy-filled mind, Benjamin?


David Von Pein
February 18-19, 2015