[Ben Holmes]

Quote:...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. - WCR, pg 561

Unfortunately for the honesty of the Warren Commission, they decided to completely bury the NAA testing (which is far more sensitive than a diphenylamine test of the paraffin casting) conducted by Dr. Guinn... and reported to Gallagher (who was not questioned on NAA the test results, even though he'd been in charge of them!)

Quote:At the end of February 1964 Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, head of the NAA Section of General Atomic Division, of the General Dynamics Corporation, called Gallagher about the research his division was undertaking for the Atomic Energy Commission. For the past few years, Guinn reported, he and his colleagues had been using NAA to test the powder residues from discharged firearms. He sought out Gallagher to report the results of their tests on a "rifle similar to the one reportedly owned by Lee Harvey Oswald." The triple firing of the rifle, Guinn advised, "leaves unambiguous positive tests every time on the paraffin casts." Because of the inferior construction of the Mannlicher-Carcano, the Italian army's World War II assault rifle, Guinn noted that the blowback from one or three shots deposited powder residue "on both cheeks" of the shooter." (Breach of Trust - Gerald McKnight, pg 211)

These comparison tests were in direct contradiction to the tests that the Warren Commission reported on by the FBI. It's a near certainty, however, that the Warren Commission was referring to spectrographic testing of paraffin casts by the FBI. The far more sensitive NAA tests always came back positive, according to Dr. Guinn. Because this was exculpatory, these results were buried by the WC, and indeed, they lied by omission.

THEY LIED BY OMISSION...

Gallagher was nearly the last witness called to testify, despite the fact that he'd been in charge of the NAA testing... as McKnight puts it:

Quote:If Gallagher could have testified that NAA testing disclosed that all this lead had exactly the same chemical composition, then the Commission would have had an airtight, scientifically rock-hard, incontestable case that the fatal bullet had been fired from Oswald's rifle. Had the Commission had the scientific proof to state this case with confidence, then Gallagher would have been one of its first witnesses rather than slipped in at the fag end of the investigation. (ibid. pg 210)

The Warren Commission lied... and they knew it. Anyone care to defend the Warren Commission's burying of direct testing data that was exculpatory, and their assertion of data instead that was favorable to their hypothesis?

[Patrick C]

Although I studied biochemistry I cannot say at this point if washing with soap and water would remove barium and antimony which the NAA picks up. Oswald had plenty of opportunity to wash his hands and face......anyway

A quick search on Google ......"you can wash your hands with soapy water and most of it will come off, .."

This seems to escape people's notice...Oswald could have washed his face....

What was the time between him leaving the Tippit scene and Brewer seeing him.....20 minutes at least......?

Maybe he used a washroom somewhere on the Bld......and no one saw him.....

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:Although I studied biochemistry I cannot say at this point if washing with soap and water would remove barium and antimony which the NAA picks up. Oswald had plenty of opportunity to wash his hands and face......anyway

A quick search on Google ......"you can wash your hands with soapy water and most of it will come off, .."

This seems to escape people's notice...Oswald could have washed his face....

What was the time between him leaving the Tippit scene and Brewer seeing him.....20 minutes at least......?

Maybe he used a washroom somewhere on the Bld......and no one saw him.....

And this explains why the Warren Commission evaded this issue... how???

Why do you continue to evade facts when posted?

You refuse to acknowledge them, and you refuse to refute them. So clearly, YOU KNOW that the Warren Commission lied by omission.

And I guess we have a theory on your part that Oswald washed his face using his forearms, right?

I'm sure it didn't escape your notice that you're trying to explain away a negative NAA test on his cheek cast, while admitting that he was positive on his hands...

P.S. Still showing your cowardice on the Railroad yard shots...

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:I'm sure it didn't escape your notice that you're trying to explain away a negative NAA test on his cheek cast, while admitting that he was positive on his hands...

Did not escape my notice at all. As you know the test was pretty poor and gave false negatives and positives. Perhaps Oswald used a face cloth or towel or Kleenex.....perhaps there was more residue on his hands - after all he used his hands for the pistol. The only time his face was close to the gunpowder elements was when he fired the rifle.....there are a number of options here to explain why the lone assassin tested positive for hands and negative for face.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

And I guess we have a theory on your part that Oswald washed his face using his forearms, right?

I'm sure it didn't escape your notice that you're trying to explain away a negative NAA test on his cheek cast, while admitting that he was positive on his hands...

Did not escape my notice at all. As you know the test was pretty poor and gave false negatives and positives. Perhaps Oswald used a face cloth or towel or Kleenex.....perhaps there was more residue on his hands - after all he used his hands for the pistol. The only time his face was close to the gunpowder elements was when he fired the rifle.....there are a number of options here to explain why the lone assassin tested positive for hands and negative for face.

Tell us Patrick, how do you wash your cheeks without washing your hands?

Why would you proffer such a silly theory?

P.S. And continue your cowardice over the Railroad issue?

[Patrick C]

You can use a face cloth to wash your face Ben without washing your hands....DUH

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:You can use a face cloth to wash your face Ben without washing your hands....DUH

That you would seriously argue this shows that your faith is unwavering.

But the average person will scoff at this. Indeed, I had mentioned your theory that Oswald had washed up to someone a few hours ago, and he had a good laugh too.

Except in highly unusual situations, people don't wash their face without also washing their hands - that's simply ordinary life experience...

You'd better stick to Oswald using his forearms to wash his face, it's equally nonsensical, and at least has the advantage of being a prior claim (re: forearms)

Once again you've refused to address the actual issue I raised, which was the lie by omission of the Warren Commission... it seems that you must agree that the Warren Commission lied by omission - since you refuse to even touch that topic.

P.S. Still the coward on the Railroad shots, eh Patrick?

[Patrick C]

Ben, I was toying with you.

I know full well you wash your hands when you wash your face.

However my point about his hands coming into more contact with the two weapons than his face that day is a fair point and you should accept that.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:Ben, I was toying with you.

And yet, it wasn't me that was looking dumb... what an insane suggestion!

Patrick C Wrote:I know full well you wash your hands when you wash your face.

However my point about his hands coming into more contact with the two weapons than his face that day is a fair point and you should accept that.

Nope. No need to do so when the EVIDENCE shows that Oswald should have had "heavy deposits" on his cheeks. This is, of course, evidence that YOU will refuse to publicly admit.

And once again, you're still refusing to address the actual lie of omission told by the Warren Commission - their refusal to gather the full testimony on the NAA and it's results.

Not surprising really - you're a coward, Patrick - you continue to provably run from any questions that would force you to admit problems in this case.

Such as the Railroad shot...

[Patrick C]

(07-30-2016, 02:43 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Patrick C Wrote:Ben, I was toying with you.

And yet, it wasn't me that was looking dumb... what an insane suggestion!

Patrick C Wrote:I know full well you wash your hands when you wash your face.

However my point about his hands coming into more contact with the two weapons than his face that day is a fair point and you should accept that.

Nope. No need to do so when the EVIDENCE shows that Oswald should have had "heavy deposits" on his cheeks. This is, of course, evidence that YOU will refuse to publicly admit.

And once again, you're still refusing to address the actual lie of omission told by the Warren Commission - their refusal to gather the full testimony on the NAA and it's results.

Not surprising really - you're a coward, Patrick - you continue to provably run from any questions that would force you to admit problems in this case.

Such as the Railroad shot...

---

Ben Holmes Wrote:No need to do so when the EVIDENCE shows that Oswald should have had "heavy deposits" on his cheeks.

I disagree - you might try getting your facts straight.

And incidentally, suggesting that Oswald's hands came into more contact with his weapons is perfectly reasonable.