[Ben Holmes]

(07-31-2016, 11:59 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  

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. 

You can "disagree" all you want.

But you'd simply be the liar, as proven time and time again:

Quote:Tests were also made with a nuclear reactor on the cast of Oswald's cheek. Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, head of the activation analysis program of the general atomic division of General Dynamics Corporation, made an analysis of the paraffin cast, the results of which were presented to the Commission. Dr. Guinn said that he hand his colleagues reasoned 'that if a gun was fired and some of the powder came back on the hands and cheek, some of the bullet primer should also come back'. They decided to try looking for elements by putting the wax impressions of hands and cheeks into a nuclear reactor.' Guinn said the had informed the FBI that it would be worth-while to utilize 'activation analysis' because the Dallas police had merely used the chemical paraffin test. 

'We bought a similar rifle from the same shop as Oswald and conducted two parallel tests,' Guinn said. 'One person fired the rifle on eight occasions.' The scientist stated that paraffin casts were made and when tested by means of radioactivity, 'it was positive in all eight cases and showed a primer on both hands and both cheeks. [Weisberg, who has seen Guinn's report, quotes "heavy deposits" on the cheek casts] Then we took the casts of Oswald's cheek and put them in a nuclear reactor.'  Guinn added, 'I cannot say what we found out about Oswald because it is secret until the publication of the Warren Commission Report." - Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement, pg 152-153 

Nor is it "reasonable" to presume that his hands would have more evidence than his cheeks - that's merely a speculation on your part, and based on no knowledge whatsoever.
Speculation will never serve as evidence... no matter how many times you try to make it do so...

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:Nor is it "reasonable" to presume that his hands would have more evidence than his cheeks - that's merely a speculation on your part,

I disagree, I think it entirely reasonable to suggest (not presume) that we might expect residue on Oswald's hands because they had come into more contact with guns and bullets on that day more so than his face.

Entirely reasonable. You just won't see it because you can't entertain the idea for a second that Oswald was a lone assassin so you look for every excuse you can find to defend your belief in the JFK conspiracy fairy tale.

[Ben Holmes]

(08-01-2016, 03:23 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:Nor is it "reasonable" to presume that his hands would have more evidence than his cheeks - that's merely a speculation on your part,

I disagree, I think it entirely reasonable to suggest (not presume) that we might expect residue on Oswald's hands because they had come into more contact with guns and bullets on that day more so than his face.

Entirely reasonable. You just won't see it because you can't entertain the idea for a second that Oswald was a lone assassin so you look for every excuse you can find to defend your belief in the JFK conspiracy fairy tale.

Suggest all you want...

Just don't presume that your speculation is evidence.

The Warren Commission lied by omission - and you've been entirely silent on that point.