(PART 116)

NOTE -- Besides DVP and Jim DiEugenio, other people also contribute to the discussion below.


The evidence clearly indicates Oswald's guilt.


Oh really? Then how do you explain the evidence that shows that Oswald did NOT fire the Carcano rifle that day?


You surely aren't relying on the wholly UNreliable paraffin (cheek) test, are you?


I am relying on the very reliable neutron activation analysis done on the paraffin casts. Which showed negative for Oswald, yet positive for seven out of seven control subjects who fired a similar rifle.


You'd better re-think that argument, Sandy. The NAA tests on Oswald's paraffin casts were certainly NOT negative. They were positive.

See this September 2015 discussion for more on that topic.


Say what? Even Bugliosi acknowledges that the NAA test came back negative on Oswald's cheek, when he wrote (on p. 165 of Reclaiming History):

"Predictably, the paraffin cast for Oswald's right cheek showed no reaction."

You do recall, don't you, that we are talking about the cast of Oswald's cheek?

The NAA test showed positive on the cheeks of seven control subjects who fired a Carcano. But not on Oswald.

EDIT: I suppose that when Bugliosi wrote the above he could have been thinking ONLY of the standard paraffin test, not the NAA test. But I doubt it. Why would he point out that the standard test failed, but not point out that the more sensitive NAA test tested positive... if it had indeed tested positive??

EDIT 2: I've done some further reading regarding the NAA test performed on the cast of Oswald's cheek. I discovered that SOME residues were found on Oswald's cheek cast. HOWEVER, the level was too low to indicate a positive result. In fact, the level of these residues on the OUTSIDES of the cast was found to be greater than on the part of the cast that made contact with Oswald's cheek.

(Source. Note: I quote WC testimony directly in this post.)


Go to Page 80 of Vince Bugliosi's Endnotes in "Reclaiming History". He talks specifically about the NAA test on that page.

Vince does make a mistake, however, when he implies that the NAA/Barium/Antimony test at Oak Ridge tested for "nitrates". I don't think it tested for the presence of nitrates at all. It only tested for barium and antimony. (See John Gallagher's WC testimony at 15 H 749 for confirmation of this.)


Nice one, Sandy.

And BTW, Redlich wrote an internal memo on this, when he got the report from the FBI.

He said words to the effect that the Commission, based on this, had little or no case that Oswald fired a rifle that day.

BTW, when you match up that memo with the April 27th memo by Redlich saying they have not the foggiest idea of any kind of how the shooting sequence was conducted in Dealey Plaza, well then you see just how lost the WC was. Simply because they could not mount any kind of case. And this is in late April, about 4.5 months after the first executive session meeting.

According to Sylvia Meagher, a lot of the staff was ready to quit. But that rat Willens got two newly minted law school graduates to join up and this shifted the case to what the likes of what an even bigger rat, McCloy, wanted: the WR would build its case through the social pathology of Oswald and Ruby, not the evidence.


The NAA analysis of Oswald's cheek paraffin cast came back negative.


No, it did not! Why are you saying such a thing, Sandy? Just read John Gallagher's testimony at 15 H 748. Here it is (emphasis is mine):

MR. GALLAGHER -- "The deposits found on the paraffin casts from the hands and cheek of Oswald could not be specifically associated with the rifle cartridges. The casts from Oswald bore elements--namely, barium and antimony--which were present in the powder residues from both the rifle, and revolver cartridges. No characteristic elements were found by neutron activation analysis of the residues which could be used to distinguish the rifle from the revolver cartridges. In view of the fact that the paraffin casts were not made until after the reported firing and handling of the fired revolver, no significance could be attached to the residues found on the casts other than the conclusion that the barium and antimony in these residues are present in amounts greater than found on the hands of an individual who has not recently fired or handled a recently fired weapon."


Now, how does that testimony by Mr. Gallagher of the FBI somehow translate to a NEGATIVE NAA result on Oswald's paraffin casts?

Answer -- It doesn't (of course).

And the probable reason for there not being MORE deposits of antimony and barium on Oswald's casts is because they had been washed prior to the NAA tests, thus removing some of the deposits before testing.

Here's a Jean Davison quote from 2002:

"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




I have always said that DVP is even worse than the Warren Commission.

This is from Pat Speer's web site, and it summarizes a memo from Redlich to Dulles. Recall, this is an internal WC memo summarizing their own evidence....

"A 7-2 memo from Norman Redlich to Commissioner Allen Dulles, apparently written just after Redlich spoke with the FBI, gives a possible answer. Here, Redlich discusses the Reader's Digest article with Dulles without first explaining its subject matter. This suggests that Dulles, the former head of the CIA, had already known its subject matter and had in fact obtained the article himself--perhaps through "friends" at the Digest-- and had provided it to Redlich. The content of the memo is also intriguing. Redlich makes four basic statements: 1) “At best the analysis shows that Oswald may have fired a pistol, although this is by no means certain;” 2) “There is no basis for concluding that he also fired a rifle;” 3) "The presence of barium and antimony in the cheek cast is of no significance because Oswald might have touched his face with his hands after firing a pistol;" and 4) "barium and antimony are found on a variety of common substances." In other words, these tests are of no help in proving Oswald killed Kennedy."

[Quote Off.]

Did Redlich turn a positive into a negative? :)


Jim DiEugenio's last post is another great big "SO WHAT?" post.

Jimmy seems to want people to believe that the Warren Commission was HIDING the fact that the NAA and Paraffin/Nitrate tests were WORTHLESS for determining if Oswald had fired a rifle or a revolver.

Jim seems to imply that the ONLY place we are able to find out about the uselessless of the NAA/Paraffin tests are in memos distributed amongst the WC members. But that's certainly not true at all. Because, as I just pointed out (and linked to) in my previous post, the Warren Commission and the FBI were not hiding anything regarding the NAA & Paraffin tests. The WC says, right there on Page 562 of its public Report, that it is "impossible to attach significance to the presence of these elements" on Oswald's paraffin casts.

Some cover-up there, huh?

Why is it the WC and FBI don't get ANY credit for their forthright HONESTY about what we find on Page 562 of the WCR regarding Oswald's paraffin and NAA tests, Jim? Why is that?

But the fact still remains that all CTers are wrong, and always will be, when they try to say that Oswald's cheek cast had a negative result for barium and antimony (the only two elements the NAA tests for, btw). Those results were POSITIVE, not negative.

But even with a positive NAA result, we still find the WC being completely honest about what that positive results MEANS --- they told us, on Page 562, that it really doesn't mean much of anything.



The mere presence of a chemical doesn't necessarily indicate a positive result. Chemicals are all around us. That is why it's often necessary to compare the chemical level found on a test subject to that on a control. If the chemical is present at the same level on both the test subject and the control, the test is considered negative. The test subject has to have significantly higher levels of the chemical than the control for it to be considered positive for the chemical.


But the PRESENCE of the substance means it is THERE.

Ergo, it's a POSITIVE result for the PRESENCE of the item being searched for.

Plus, Sandy, as I mentioned multiple times previously, Oswald's casts were WASHED before being subjected to the NAA analysis!

What would you expect after the casts are WASHED, for Pete sake?

Of course there's going to be LESS of the chemicals present after such washing. That's only common sense. And the FBI's John Gallagher says so in his testimony (emphasis is my own)....

Mr. 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?

Mr. 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.


You're clearly not a technically minded person. You need to be educated on scientific controls, and on absolute versus relative measurements.

I'll just say this... you are saying that the absolute measurement is what is important in the NAA test, and that a control is unnecessary. In contrast, I am saying that the relative measurement is what is important in the NAA test, and that a control is necessary.


I'm merely pointing out to you 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....

"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; September 2015



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.


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, Sandy, 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.


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 1964)

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 he 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.


Total BS (yet again) from Jimmy D.

I specifically LINKED to Pat's article at my website--TWICE--on this webpage! And I even referred to Pat's article as an "excellent article".

But I guess this REALLY is supposed to mean, per Jimbo, that I don't want anybody to read Pat's article. Even though I linked to it twice.


Then why did you write this:

"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.)"

And then you left out the payoff of Speer's long and subtle analysis. Which he does not cherry pick, as you do:


Besides leaving that out, you also cherry picked the Aynesworth quote, without telling the reader about that source, and you left out all the other instances which impeach that quote, which are from Guinn himself.

​So who is dishing the BS?


It's just as I said ---- Pat Speer's article is, in essence, saying the EXACT SAME THING the Warren Commission says on Page 562 --- i.e., the NAA and Paraffin tests are not reliable and it's therefore "impossible to attach significance to the presence of these elements" (WCR; Pg. 562).

Therefore, with or without the nice article penned by Patrick J. Speer, we're still left with that "impossible to attach significance" conclusion reached by the Warren Commission.

IOW -- Pat Speer and the Warren Commission completely agree with each other on this point regarding the unreliability of the paraffin and NAA tests.

So, what's the beef, Jim? Or are you pulling a Tony Marsh trick on me here and arguing just for the sake of arguing?


Addendum regarding the NAA tests done by Dr. Vincent Guinn....

Please note that in the quotes used by Jim DiEugenio in this previous post of his, it would appear that a very important part of the 1964 newspaper article written by Hugh Aynesworth was omitted in other versions of the same story that were cited in other papers and newswire services.

Please note the critical part that is left out (via the "...") in the version of this story that was printed in the New York World Sun & Telegram on August 28, 1964 (compared to the 8/31/64 Aynesworth version that appeared in the Dallas paper)....

The Aug. 28 version:

"One person fired the rifle on eight occasions...it was positive in all eight cases and showed a primer on both hands and both cheeks."


The Aug. 31 (Aynesworth) version:

"One person fired the rifle on eight different occasions and each time was given the paraffin test. 'Only one out of the eight experiments gave a positive identification,' Guinn said. Then they repeated the experiment using radioactivity. 'It was positive in all eight cases, and showed a primer on both hands and cheeks,' he said."


So, it would seem as if the tests were both POSITIVE and NEGATIVE. All of them being positive after the test was "repeated" for the NAA tests. But only one of the results was positive when tested ONLY for nitrates.

So citing only the August 28th story is misleading, because we're really talking about TWO different kinds of tests -- Nitrate & NAA.


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 misled 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 [sic; precedes] you everywhere.

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



Everybody go to Jim's Post #213 in this discussion thread.

After reading it (and my follow-up reply to it), it becomes fairly obvious that DiEugenio hasn't yet been able to figure out that I was talking about TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF TESTS when I quoted from Pat Speer's article (where he quoted from the Aynesworth article re: Guinn).

DiEugenio, naturally, wants to make it look like Aynesworth was misquoting Guinn (or that Aynesworth just flat-out lied in his article). But the other articles cited by Speer LEAVE OUT the part about Guinn "repeating" the tests -- with only the second tests (the NAA tests) resulting in all 8 tests being "positive".

No deception by anyone there. (Except maybe by the person who inserted the three dots [the ellipsis] in the August 28 article.) There were two different sets of tests with wholly different results.

And, in essence, just as I said previously, Pat Speer DOES agree with the Warren Report 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.



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.



What I was saying is that the nitrate test is valid in the sense that that rifle does give off plentiful gases when it's fired. Therefore, the idea that Bugliosi and the FBI try to pawn off, that it does not, is false.

And Guinn admitted this many times.

What DVP did was he quoted Aynesworth, not a reliable source, to try and say to Ben that it did not.


What a load of BS by DiEugenio there. The ONLY reason I quoted from Aynesworth's article at my webpage here (after finding the Aynesworth piece in Pat Speer's article) was to emphasize the "7 out of 8 negative" results that Dr. Guinn got when he did the 8 PARAFFIN tests for NITRATES. (Not the NAA tests.)

I never even MENTIONED anything about "gases". And the excerpt from Aynesworth that I quoted doesn't mention that word either. You just made that up to make it look like I was being dishonest regarding the Aynesworth quote. Disgraceful, Jim.

You, however, Jim, WERE hiding some of the facts in Post #213 in this thread when you failed to mention that the Aug. 28 New York newspaper story didn't put in ALL of the Aynesworth quote. (Probably because you didn't even notice the "..." in the story and didn't even realize something had been cut out of it. I didn't notice it either, until looking further into it yesterday.)


Another addendum concerning 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


A NEGATIVE test result does NOT mean a ZERO AMOUNT. If the count is below the minimum required level, then as everyone has already told you, the result is NEGATIVE. If the cheek test results are negative, then the subject did not fire a rifle.

Once again, you are dead wrong, but unable to admit it!


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


Pat Speer is over on the Education Forum saying the gunpowder residue test at the police station showed Oswald fired a hand gun and therefore likely shot Tippit.

This is a typical example of Speer's half-Loner Nutter mushy-ness.


Regardless of Pat Speer's analysis, we certainly don't need the paraffin test to prove Oswald was guilty of shooting Officer Tippit. There's a whole lot of better evidence to prove LHO's guilt in that murder, as everybody surely realizes (even Pat Speer).

FWIW, my opinion is that the paraffin and the NAA (barium/antimony) tests are essentially worthless and useless for attempting to determine if someone has recently fired a gun, mainly due to the fact that a positive test result can be attributed to so many OTHER things besides gunpowder residue and/or bullet primer.

But I will say this ---

Since we know from other (non-paraffin) evidence that Oswald positively shot J.D. Tippit, the ODDS that the positive nitrate result on Oswald's hands was caused by something OTHER than gunpowder residue are extremely small odds. (IMO.)


This thread has been hijacked by people who are ignoring that Guinn found bullet primer residue that was different than that of the Western Cartridge ammunition allegedly used by Oswald as claimed by the Warren Commission.


But Dr. Guinn did not do any tests with Lee Oswald's paraffin casts at all. Guinn only tested the paraffin casts of shooters who fired a rifle "similar" to Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle.

Guinn confirms he never did tests on the actual "Oswald casts" in a scathing letter he wrote to the New York World Telegram & Sun on September 25, 1964, a portion of which is quoted on Pat Speer's website.

Quoting Guinn (emphasis is DVP's):

“In my opinion, the person who is responsible for the version that you published should be thoroughly bawled out--it is the worst job of reporting I have ever seen…Your version was shot full of atrocious misstatements. Worse yet, the writer had the gall to make up his own statements, then put them into alleged direct quotations attributed to me... All in all, I think your newspaper should hang its face in shame for publication of such garbled and erroneous nonsense. .... We at General Dynamic did not work with the FBI on the Kennedy case. We offered to, immediately after the assassination, but our offer was not taken up by the FBI. We did carry out test firings with an identical rifle, on our own, in conjunction with the Los Angeles Police Department, and made NAA measurements on paraffin casts from this study which yielded valuable information. This information was passed on to the FBI with the recommendation that they undertake NAA of the "used" Oswald casts, which by that time had apparently been turned over to the FBI. We understand that they acted upon this suggestion, but we at General Atomic had no hand in their measurements, and have no knowledge of their results. The statement, 'We found no barium but we found antimony...' is an almost accurate statement of what I said about the results we obtained from the test firings of a similar Italian rifle (not the one used in the assassination) following NAA measurements on hand and cheek paraffin casts after they had first been processed by the usual chemical test.” -- Dr. Vincent P. Guinn; Sept. 1964

David Von Pein
April 23-26, 2016
April 29-30, 2016