(41) A paraffin test on Oswald's hands showed he'd fired a revolver
just before his arrest.
(Don't do it, "Bud"... don't do it!)
No, this simply isn't true, and Bugliosi *knows* it. Common materials
that can *also* cause a positive result is paper - and where did
Oswald work?? Anyone remember?
Oswald showed negative in the paraffin test of his cheek - and no-one
will scream louder than the Warren Commission believers when it comes
to denigrating the Paraffin test - yet Bugliosi still brings it out as
if it showed that Oswald was a murderer. It would have been far more convincing had they also ran the same test on Frazier, and other TSBD workers - just as a control.
(David Von Pein was asked the perfectly reasonable question of what he thought the chances were that Givens would have tested "positive" on
the paraffin test, he repeatedly refused to answer. The answer, of
course, is obvious... if David were honest - he'd have been forced to
admit that it was likely.)
But the object wasn't to discover the truth, but to find anything they
could use to bolster their weak case. It's quite disingenuous to
proclaim the veracity of the paraffin test in one instance, and
denigrate it in the next.
The paraffin evidence would be raised by the defense, not by the prosecution... since it shows that Oswald never fired a rifle, and
didn't necessarily show that he fired a pistol.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 11:08:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:saying that "For what it's worth" this too is against him! As Holmes has been informed endlessly, very little of he 53 reasons prove anything completely *BY THEMSELVES*. But *cumulatively* they are impossible to all be true and Oswald be innocent!
(41) A paraffin test on Oswald's hands showed he'd fired a revolver
just before his arrest.
(Don't do it, "Bud"... don't do it!)
No, this simply isn't true, and Bugliosi *knows* it. Common materials
that can *also* cause a positive result is paper - and where did
Oswald work?? Anyone remember?
Oswald showed negative in the paraffin test of his cheek - and no-one
will scream louder than the Warren Commission believers when it comes
to denigrating the Paraffin test - yet Bugliosi still brings it out as
if it showed that Oswald was a murderer. It would have been far more convincing had they also ran the same test on Frazier, and other TSBD workers - just as a control.
(David Von Pein was asked the perfectly reasonable question of what he thought the chances were that Givens would have tested "positive" on
the paraffin test, he repeatedly refused to answer. The answer, of
course, is obvious... if David were honest - he'd have been forced to admit that it was likely.)
The last comment is *rich* with irony, given how often Holmes ever admits to anything!
But the object wasn't to discover the truth, but to find anything they could use to bolster their weak case. It's quite disingenuous to
proclaim the veracity of the paraffin test in one instance, and
denigrate it in the next.
The paraffin evidence would be raised by the defense, not by the prosecution... since it shows that Oswald never fired a rifle, andSo what do you want? To credit it for showing he definitely could have fired a revolver or for *exonerating* him of firing a rifle. Seems you too want to have your cake and eat it too. But if bebsy cared about truth, he would *know* Bugliosi is merely
didn't necessarily show that he fired a pistol.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 2:01:16 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:merely saying that "For what it's worth" this too is against him! As Holmes has been informed endlessly, very little of he 53 reasons prove anything completely *BY THEMSELVES*. But *cumulatively* they are impossible to all be true and Oswald be innocent!
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 11:08:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
(41) A paraffin test on Oswald's hands showed he'd fired a revolver
just before his arrest.
(Don't do it, "Bud"... don't do it!)
No, this simply isn't true, and Bugliosi *knows* it. Common materials that can *also* cause a positive result is paper - and where did
Oswald work?? Anyone remember?
Oswald showed negative in the paraffin test of his cheek - and no-one will scream louder than the Warren Commission believers when it comes
to denigrating the Paraffin test - yet Bugliosi still brings it out as if it showed that Oswald was a murderer. It would have been far more convincing had they also ran the same test on Frazier, and other TSBD workers - just as a control.
(David Von Pein was asked the perfectly reasonable question of what he thought the chances were that Givens would have tested "positive" on
the paraffin test, he repeatedly refused to answer. The answer, of course, is obvious... if David were honest - he'd have been forced to admit that it was likely.)
The last comment is *rich* with irony, given how often Holmes ever admits to anything!
But the object wasn't to discover the truth, but to find anything they could use to bolster their weak case. It's quite disingenuous to proclaim the veracity of the paraffin test in one instance, and denigrate it in the next.
The paraffin evidence would be raised by the defense, not by the prosecution... since it shows that Oswald never fired a rifle, and didn't necessarily show that he fired a pistol.So what do you want? To credit it for showing he definitely could have fired a revolver or for *exonerating* him of firing a rifle. Seems you too want to have your cake and eat it too. But if bebsy cared about truth, he would *know* Bugliosi is
The odds of all 53 of these items falsely indicating Oswald's guilt are so remote as to be notspade every time. It wouldn't be
worth considering. Each of the 53 pieces of evidence has varying degrees of probative value
of Oswald's guilt. Oswald's guilt is consistent with all of them and in most cases is the most
likely explanation for them. The odds of the least likely explanation being the correct one for all 53 of the items on Bugliosi's list is a remote as to be not worth considering. It would be like cutting a deck of cards 53 times and coming up with a
remarkable if it happened once, twice, or even three times but it is ridiculous to think that could happen 53 times in a row.The alternative explanation for these pieces of evidence beggars belief. And logic. Reason. Evidence.
What the paraffin test showed is exactly what we would expect it to show if Oswald had fired a
revolver. A positive test for nitrates doesn't prove someone fired a gun but it is the excected
result if somebody had fired a revolver, which disperses nitrates through the openings in the
frame. FBI tests showed the someone firing the revolver should test positive for nitrates. It
would have been highly significant if Oswald had tested negative for nitrates because the would
have been inconsistent with someone having recently fired a revolver.
The WC explained the limitations of paraffin testing and how they can yield false positive
results. Bugliosi never claimed the tests proved Oswald fired a revolver, only that they are
consistent with Oswald having fired a revolver.
The alternative explanation for these pieces of evidence beggars belief. And logic. Reason. Evidence.this but not falsify this test? Lie and say he tested positive. Lie and say the bullets from Tippit matched the revolver. Lie and have witnesses in Dealey Plaza say they saw Oswald shoot JFK.
It is kind of interesting that the same people who say all of this was manufactured, that Oswald was framed with corrupt evidence, also said the people who did these other corrupt acts *didn't* falsify the paraffin results. Why would they do all of
It's illogical. Once again, we have the brilliant conspirators and the dullard conspirators.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 2:34:24 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:merely saying that "For what it's worth" this too is against him! As Holmes has been informed endlessly, very little of he 53 reasons prove anything completely *BY THEMSELVES*. But *cumulatively* they are impossible to all be true and Oswald be innocent!
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 2:01:16 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 11:08:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
(41) A paraffin test on Oswald's hands showed he'd fired a revolver just before his arrest.
(Don't do it, "Bud"... don't do it!)
No, this simply isn't true, and Bugliosi *knows* it. Common materials that can *also* cause a positive result is paper - and where did Oswald work?? Anyone remember?
Oswald showed negative in the paraffin test of his cheek - and no-one will scream louder than the Warren Commission believers when it comes to denigrating the Paraffin test - yet Bugliosi still brings it out as if it showed that Oswald was a murderer. It would have been far more convincing had they also ran the same test on Frazier, and other TSBD workers - just as a control.
(David Von Pein was asked the perfectly reasonable question of what he thought the chances were that Givens would have tested "positive" on the paraffin test, he repeatedly refused to answer. The answer, of course, is obvious... if David were honest - he'd have been forced to admit that it was likely.)
The last comment is *rich* with irony, given how often Holmes ever admits to anything!
But the object wasn't to discover the truth, but to find anything they could use to bolster their weak case. It's quite disingenuous to proclaim the veracity of the paraffin test in one instance, and denigrate it in the next.
The paraffin evidence would be raised by the defense, not by the prosecution... since it shows that Oswald never fired a rifle, and didn't necessarily show that he fired a pistol.So what do you want? To credit it for showing he definitely could have fired a revolver or for *exonerating* him of firing a rifle. Seems you too want to have your cake and eat it too. But if bebsy cared about truth, he would *know* Bugliosi is
spade every time. It wouldn't beThe odds of all 53 of these items falsely indicating Oswald's guilt are so remote as to be not
worth considering. Each of the 53 pieces of evidence has varying degrees of probative value
of Oswald's guilt. Oswald's guilt is consistent with all of them and in most cases is the most
likely explanation for them. The odds of the least likely explanation being the correct one for all 53 of the items on Bugliosi's list is a remote as to be not worth considering. It would be like cutting a deck of cards 53 times and coming up with a
this but not falsify this test? Lie and say he tested positive. Lie and say the bullets from Tippit matched the revolver. Lie and have witnesses in Dealey Plaza say they saw Oswald shoot JFK.remarkable if it happened once, twice, or even three times but it is ridiculous to think that could happen 53 times in a row.
What the paraffin test showed is exactly what we would expect it to show if Oswald had fired a
revolver. A positive test for nitrates doesn't prove someone fired a gun but it is the excected
result if somebody had fired a revolver, which disperses nitrates through the openings in the
frame. FBI tests showed the someone firing the revolver should test positive for nitrates. It
would have been highly significant if Oswald had tested negative for nitrates because the would
have been inconsistent with someone having recently fired a revolver.
The WC explained the limitations of paraffin testing and how they can yield false positiveThe alternative explanation for these pieces of evidence beggars belief. And logic. Reason. Evidence.
results. Bugliosi never claimed the tests proved Oswald fired a revolver, only that they are
consistent with Oswald having fired a revolver.
It is kind of interesting that the same people who say all of this was manufactured, that Oswald was framed with corrupt evidence, also said the people who did these other corrupt acts *didn't* falsify the paraffin results. Why would they do all of
It's illogical. Once again, we have the brilliant conspirators and the dullard conspirators.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 3:30:01 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:this but not falsify this test? Lie and say he tested positive. Lie and say the bullets from Tippit matched the revolver. Lie and have witnesses in Dealey Plaza say they saw Oswald shoot JFK.
The alternative explanation for these pieces of evidence beggars belief. And logic. Reason. Evidence.
It is kind of interesting that the same people who say all of this was manufactured, that Oswald was framed with corrupt evidence, also said the people who did these other corrupt acts *didn't* falsify the paraffin results. Why would they do all of
It's illogical. Once again, we have the brilliant conspirators and the dullard conspirators.They lied and said Oswald fired the rifle.
Were there nitrates on his cheek ?
Chief Curry said he didn't know.
https://youtu.be/3c8_7gNwI8o
But he knew about the positive readings on the hands.
The same report that concluded the hands were positive also said the right cheek was negative and the left cheek was never checked.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217807#relPageId=577
https://youtu.be/3c8_7gNwI8o
He knew. He lied to newsmen.
And the officials continued to lie by avoiding mentioning the results of the test on the cheek.
You don't have to falsify ALL of the evidence if the suspect is never going to make it trial.
Welcome to the real world.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 2:34:24 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:merely saying that "For what it's worth" this too is against him! As Holmes has been informed endlessly, very little of he 53 reasons prove anything completely *BY THEMSELVES*. But *cumulatively* they are impossible to all be true and Oswald be innocent!
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 2:01:16 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 11:08:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
(41) A paraffin test on Oswald's hands showed he'd fired a revolver just before his arrest.
(Don't do it, "Bud"... don't do it!)
No, this simply isn't true, and Bugliosi *knows* it. Common materials that can *also* cause a positive result is paper - and where did Oswald work?? Anyone remember?
Oswald showed negative in the paraffin test of his cheek - and no-one will scream louder than the Warren Commission believers when it comes to denigrating the Paraffin test - yet Bugliosi still brings it out as if it showed that Oswald was a murderer. It would have been far more convincing had they also ran the same test on Frazier, and other TSBD workers - just as a control.
(David Von Pein was asked the perfectly reasonable question of what he thought the chances were that Givens would have tested "positive" on the paraffin test, he repeatedly refused to answer. The answer, of course, is obvious... if David were honest - he'd have been forced to admit that it was likely.)
The last comment is *rich* with irony, given how often Holmes ever admits to anything!
But the object wasn't to discover the truth, but to find anything they could use to bolster their weak case. It's quite disingenuous to proclaim the veracity of the paraffin test in one instance, and denigrate it in the next.
The paraffin evidence would be raised by the defense, not by the prosecution... since it shows that Oswald never fired a rifle, and didn't necessarily show that he fired a pistol.So what do you want? To credit it for showing he definitely could have fired a revolver or for *exonerating* him of firing a rifle. Seems you too want to have your cake and eat it too. But if bebsy cared about truth, he would *know* Bugliosi is
spade every time. It wouldn't beThe odds of all 53 of these items falsely indicating Oswald's guilt are so remote as to be not
worth considering. Each of the 53 pieces of evidence has varying degrees of probative value
of Oswald's guilt. Oswald's guilt is consistent with all of them and in most cases is the most
likely explanation for them. The odds of the least likely explanation being the correct one for all 53 of the items on Bugliosi's list is a remote as to be not worth considering. It would be like cutting a deck of cards 53 times and coming up with a
this but not falsify this test? Lie and say he tested positive. Lie and say the bullets from Tippit matched the revolver. Lie and have witnesses in Dealey Plaza say they saw Oswald shoot JFK.remarkable if it happened once, twice, or even three times but it is ridiculous to think that could happen 53 times in a row.
What the paraffin test showed is exactly what we would expect it to show if Oswald had fired a
revolver. A positive test for nitrates doesn't prove someone fired a gun but it is the excected
result if somebody had fired a revolver, which disperses nitrates through the openings in the
frame. FBI tests showed the someone firing the revolver should test positive for nitrates. It
would have been highly significant if Oswald had tested negative for nitrates because the would
have been inconsistent with someone having recently fired a revolver.
The WC explained the limitations of paraffin testing and how they can yield false positiveThe alternative explanation for these pieces of evidence beggars belief. And logic. Reason. Evidence.
results. Bugliosi never claimed the tests proved Oswald fired a revolver, only that they are
consistent with Oswald having fired a revolver.
It is kind of interesting that the same people who say all of this was manufactured, that Oswald was framed with corrupt evidence, also said the people who did these other corrupt acts *didn't* falsify the paraffin results. Why would they do all of
It's illogical. Once again, we have the brilliant conspirators and the dullard conspirators.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 3:30:01 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:this but not falsify this test? Lie and say he tested positive. Lie and say the bullets from Tippit matched the revolver. Lie and have witnesses in Dealey Plaza say they saw Oswald shoot JFK.
The alternative explanation for these pieces of evidence beggars belief. And logic. Reason. Evidence.
It is kind of interesting that the same people who say all of this was manufactured, that Oswald was framed with corrupt evidence, also said the people who did these other corrupt acts *didn't* falsify the paraffin results. Why would they do all of
It's illogical. Once again, we have the brilliant conspirators and the dullard conspirators.They lied and said Oswald fired the rifle.
Were there nitrates on his cheek ?
Chief Curry said he didn't know.
https://youtu.be/3c8_7gNwI8o
But he knew about the positive readings on the hands.
The same report that concluded the hands were positive also said the right cheek was negative and the left cheek was never checked.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217807#relPageId=577
https://youtu.be/3c8_7gNwI8o
He knew. He lied to newsmen.
And the officials continued to lie by avoiding mentioning the results of the test on the cheek.
You don't have to falsify ALL of the evidence if the suspect is never going to make it trial.
Welcome to the real world.
Avoiding mentioning something is not a lie.
There would be no reason to withhold the fact
Oswald's cheeks tested negative for nitrates because there was no expectation that his
cheeks should have tested positive.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 7:11:33 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Avoiding mentioning something is not a lie.It's called deception by omission when you don't tell the whole truth.
And you people practice it all the time.
There would be no reason to withhold the fact
Oswald's cheeks tested negative for nitrates because there was no expectation that his
cheeks should have tested positive.
What a stupid comment.
No expectation that his cheeks should have tested positive ?
Then why tests the cheeks at all ?
You make more stupid comments than anyone else in the newsgroup.
Do you ever think before you post ?
Have you ever read the WCR, Gil? You seem to be ignorant of the tests conducted by the FBI
that showed firing a bolt action rifle such as Oswald's does not leave gunshot residue on the
shooter's cheek.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 11:08:25?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
(41) A paraffin test on Oswald's hands showed he'd fired a revolver
just before his arrest.
(Don't do it, "Bud"... don't do it!)
No, this simply isn't true, and Bugliosi *knows* it. Common materials
that can *also* cause a positive result is paper - and where did
Oswald work?? Anyone remember?
Oswald showed negative in the paraffin test of his cheek - and no-one
will scream louder than the Warren Commission believers when it comes
to denigrating the Paraffin test - yet Bugliosi still brings it out as
if it showed that Oswald was a murderer. It would have been far more
convincing had they also ran the same test on Frazier, and other TSBD
workers - just as a control.
(David Von Pein was asked the perfectly reasonable question of what he
thought the chances were that Givens would have tested "positive" on
the paraffin test, he repeatedly refused to answer. The answer, of
course, is obvious... if David were honest - he'd have been forced to
admit that it was likely.)
But the object wasn't to discover the truth, but to find anything they
could use to bolster their weak case. It's quite disingenuous to
proclaim the veracity of the paraffin test in one instance, and
denigrate it in the next.
The paraffin evidence would be raised by the defense, not by the
prosecution... since it shows that Oswald never fired a rifle, and
didn't necessarily show that he fired a pistol.
The odds of all 53 of these items....
They lied and said Oswald fired the rifle.
Were there nitrates on his cheek ?
Chief Curry said he didn't know.
https://youtu.be/3c8_7gNwI8o
But he knew about the positive readings on the hands.
The same report that concluded the hands were positive also said the right cheek was negative and the left cheek was never checked.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217807#relPageId=577
https://youtu.be/3c8_7gNwI8o
He knew. He lied to newsmen.
And the officials continued to lie by avoiding mentioning the results of the test on the cheek.
You don't have to falsify ALL of the evidence if the suspect is never going to make it trial.
Welcome to the real world.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 11:08:25?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
(41) A paraffin test on Oswald's hands showed he'd fired a revolver
just before his arrest.
(Don't do it, "Bud"... don't do it!)
No, this simply isn't true, and Bugliosi *knows* it. Common materials >>>>> that can *also* cause a positive result is paper - and where did
Oswald work?? Anyone remember?
Oswald showed negative in the paraffin test of his cheek - and no-one >>>>> will scream louder than the Warren Commission believers when it comes >>>>> to denigrating the Paraffin test - yet Bugliosi still brings it out as >>>>> if it showed that Oswald was a murderer. It would have been far more >>>>> convincing had they also ran the same test on Frazier, and other TSBD >>>>> workers - just as a control.
(David Von Pein was asked the perfectly reasonable question of what he >>>>> thought the chances were that Givens would have tested "positive" on >>>>> the paraffin test, he repeatedly refused to answer. The answer, of
course, is obvious... if David were honest - he'd have been forced to >>>>> admit that it was likely.)
But the object wasn't to discover the truth, but to find anything they >>>>> could use to bolster their weak case. It's quite disingenuous to
proclaim the veracity of the paraffin test in one instance, and
denigrate it in the next.
The paraffin evidence would be raised by the defense, not by the
prosecution... since it shows that Oswald never fired a rifle, and
didn't necessarily show that he fired a pistol.
Careful. You're using too much common sense.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 11:08:25?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
(41) A paraffin test on Oswald's hands showed he'd fired a revolver
just before his arrest.
(Don't do it, "Bud"... don't do it!)
No, this simply isn't true, and Bugliosi *knows* it. Common materials
that can *also* cause a positive result is paper - and where did
Oswald work?? Anyone remember?
Oswald showed negative in the paraffin test of his cheek - and no-one
will scream louder than the Warren Commission believers when it comes
to denigrating the Paraffin test - yet Bugliosi still brings it out as >>>> if it showed that Oswald was a murderer. It would have been far more
convincing had they also ran the same test on Frazier, and other TSBD
workers - just as a control.
(David Von Pein was asked the perfectly reasonable question of what he >>>> thought the chances were that Givens would have tested "positive" on
the paraffin test, he repeatedly refused to answer. The answer, of
course, is obvious... if David were honest - he'd have been forced to
admit that it was likely.)
But the object wasn't to discover the truth, but to find anything they >>>> could use to bolster their weak case. It's quite disingenuous to
proclaim the veracity of the paraffin test in one instance, and
denigrate it in the next.
The paraffin evidence would be raised by the defense, not by the
prosecution... since it shows that Oswald never fired a rifle, and
didn't necessarily show that he fired a pistol.
The alternative explanation...
They cite Operation Mockingbird...
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 6:38:34?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 6:16:58?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Have you ever read the WCR, Gil? You seem to be ignorant of the tests conducted by the FBINo, I knew that. So they gave him a test that they knew was inconclusive. Brilliant.
that showed firing a bolt action rifle such as Oswald's does not leave gunshot residue on the
shooter's cheek.
In 1963, paraffin testing for nitrates was still a relatively new technology and it was given far
more credibility then than it is now.
Its probative value was still not fully understood.
Very few
murders are committed with rifles so the DPD might not have even been aware of the fact a
bolt action rifle does not release nitrates onto the shooter's skin.
But the reliability of the tests are not what I'm talking about. That's a completely different issue.
I'm talking about what the Chief was saying and not saying. How he was framing the narrative to imply Oswald's guilt.
What I'm talking about is that the Chief knowingly made public evidence that implied Oswald's guilt, while
hiding evidence that may have left that guilt in doubt in the mids of the public.
Welcome to the real world, Gil.
All of that after he told newsmen he couldn't discuss the evidence in public.
Then he told the newsmen about the results of the positive paraffin tests on the hands.
Then he told newsmen that the ballistics report, "it is...I understand it will be positive."
Then he told the newsmen that the records had been found at Klein's and the rifle was ordered under the alias A Hidell.
Boy, Oswald was never going to get a fair trial in Dallas with this Chief was giving out evidence to the public
like he had diarrhea of the mouth.
No police official or prosecutor worth his salt is going to release to the public specific evidence in a homicide case.
No one's going to risk having a conviction thrown out on appeal because the defendant couldn't get a fair trial.
This Chief was a real piece of work. And a Lyndon Johnson man, too.Maybe he didn't know or maybe he didn't think there was anything to be gained by releasing that
I guess he must have just forgot to mention the negative results of the cheek.
information. In any case, it should have no bearing on how we look at the evidence in the case
now.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 4:12:11 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:this but not falsify this test? Lie and say he tested positive. Lie and say the bullets from Tippit matched the revolver. Lie and have witnesses in Dealey Plaza say they saw Oswald shoot JFK.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 3:30:01 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
The alternative explanation for these pieces of evidence beggars belief. And logic. Reason. Evidence.
It is kind of interesting that the same people who say all of this was manufactured, that Oswald was framed with corrupt evidence, also said the people who did these other corrupt acts *didn't* falsify the paraffin results. Why would they do all of
leaked to friendly press allies for publication.It's illogical. Once again, we have the brilliant conspirators and the dullard conspirators.They lied and said Oswald fired the rifle.
Were there nitrates on his cheek ?
Chief Curry said he didn't know.
https://youtu.be/3c8_7gNwI8o
But he knew about the positive readings on the hands.
The same report that concluded the hands were positive also said the right cheek was negative and the left cheek was never checked.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217807#relPageId=577
https://youtu.be/3c8_7gNwI8o
He knew. He lied to newsmen.
And the officials continued to lie by avoiding mentioning the results of the test on the cheek.
You don't have to falsify ALL of the evidence if the suspect is never going to make it trial.You don't have to falsify anything if you play hardball with him and tell him either he doesn't seek a second term, or everything known about his womanizing with prostitutes, his affairs with actresses, his Addison's disease, his drug use etc. all gets
Welcome to the real world.
No wacky "triangulation of fire" conspiracy needed.They cite Operation Mockingbird to show that the CIA controlled the media and then argue the media didn't run stories about sex and politicians so they couldn't have undermined his presidency by exposing his affairs. See, they control the media and they
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 6:16:58 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Have you ever read the WCR, Gil? You seem to be ignorant of the tests conducted by the FBINo, I knew that. So they gave him a test that they knew was inconclusive. Brilliant.
that showed firing a bolt action rifle such as Oswald's does not leave gunshot residue on the
shooter's cheek.
But the reliability of the tests are not what I'm talking about. That's a completely different issue.
I'm talking about what the Chief was saying and not saying. How he was framing the narrative to imply Oswald's guilt.
What I'm talking about is that the Chief knowingly made public evidence that implied Oswald's guilt, while
hiding evidence that may have left that guilt in doubt in the mids of the public.
All of that after he told newsmen he couldn't discuss the evidence in public.
Then he told the newsmen about the results of the positive paraffin tests on the hands.
Then he told newsmen that the ballistics report, "it is...I understand it will be positive."
Then he told the newsmen that the records had been found at Klein's and the rifle was ordered under the alias A Hidell.
Boy, Oswald was never going to get a fair trial in Dallas with this Chief was giving out evidence to the public
like he had diarrhea of the mouth.
No police official or prosecutor worth his salt is going to release to the public specific evidence in a homicide case.
No one's going to risk having a conviction thrown out on appeal because the defendant couldn't get a fair trial.
This Chief was a real piece of work. And a Lyndon Johnson man, too.
I guess he must have just forgot to mention the negative results of the cheek.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 2:30:01 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:merely saying that "For what it's worth" this too is against him! As Holmes has been informed endlessly, very little of he 53 reasons prove anything completely *BY THEMSELVES*. But *cumulatively* they are impossible to all be true and Oswald be innocent!
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 2:34:24 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 2:01:16 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 11:08:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
(41) A paraffin test on Oswald's hands showed he'd fired a revolver just before his arrest.
(Don't do it, "Bud"... don't do it!)
No, this simply isn't true, and Bugliosi *knows* it. Common materials
that can *also* cause a positive result is paper - and where did Oswald work?? Anyone remember?
Oswald showed negative in the paraffin test of his cheek - and no-one
will scream louder than the Warren Commission believers when it comes
to denigrating the Paraffin test - yet Bugliosi still brings it out as
if it showed that Oswald was a murderer. It would have been far more convincing had they also ran the same test on Frazier, and other TSBD
workers - just as a control.
(David Von Pein was asked the perfectly reasonable question of what he
thought the chances were that Givens would have tested "positive" on the paraffin test, he repeatedly refused to answer. The answer, of course, is obvious... if David were honest - he'd have been forced to
admit that it was likely.)
The last comment is *rich* with irony, given how often Holmes ever admits to anything!
But the object wasn't to discover the truth, but to find anything they
could use to bolster their weak case. It's quite disingenuous to proclaim the veracity of the paraffin test in one instance, and denigrate it in the next.
The paraffin evidence would be raised by the defense, not by the prosecution... since it shows that Oswald never fired a rifle, and didn't necessarily show that he fired a pistol.So what do you want? To credit it for showing he definitely could have fired a revolver or for *exonerating* him of firing a rifle. Seems you too want to have your cake and eat it too. But if bebsy cared about truth, he would *know* Bugliosi is
a spade every time. It wouldn't beThe odds of all 53 of these items falsely indicating Oswald's guilt are so remote as to be not
worth considering. Each of the 53 pieces of evidence has varying degrees of probative value
of Oswald's guilt. Oswald's guilt is consistent with all of them and in most cases is the most
likely explanation for them. The odds of the least likely explanation being the correct one for all 53 of the items on Bugliosi's list is a remote as to be not worth considering. It would be like cutting a deck of cards 53 times and coming up with
this but not falsify this test? Lie and say he tested positive. Lie and say the bullets from Tippit matched the revolver. Lie and have witnesses in Dealey Plaza say they saw Oswald shoot JFK.remarkable if it happened once, twice, or even three times but it is ridiculous to think that could happen 53 times in a row.
What the paraffin test showed is exactly what we would expect it to show if Oswald had fired a
revolver. A positive test for nitrates doesn't prove someone fired a gun but it is the excected
result if somebody had fired a revolver, which disperses nitrates through the openings in the
frame. FBI tests showed the someone firing the revolver should test positive for nitrates. It
would have been highly significant if Oswald had tested negative for nitrates because the would
have been inconsistent with someone having recently fired a revolver.
The WC explained the limitations of paraffin testing and how they can yield false positiveThe alternative explanation for these pieces of evidence beggars belief. And logic. Reason. Evidence.
results. Bugliosi never claimed the tests proved Oswald fired a revolver, only that they are
consistent with Oswald having fired a revolver.
It is kind of interesting that the same people who say all of this was manufactured, that Oswald was framed with corrupt evidence, also said the people who did these other corrupt acts *didn't* falsify the paraffin results. Why would they do all of
It's illogical. Once again, we have the brilliant conspirators and the dullard conspirators.Careful. You're using too much common sense.
On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 12:29:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 11:08:25?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
(41) A paraffin test on Oswald's hands showed he'd fired a revolver >>>> just before his arrest.
(Don't do it, "Bud"... don't do it!)
No, this simply isn't true, and Bugliosi *knows* it. Common materials >>>> that can *also* cause a positive result is paper - and where did
Oswald work?? Anyone remember?
Oswald showed negative in the paraffin test of his cheek - and no-one >>>> will scream louder than the Warren Commission believers when it comes >>>> to denigrating the Paraffin test - yet Bugliosi still brings it out as >>>> if it showed that Oswald was a murderer. It would have been far more >>>> convincing had they also ran the same test on Frazier, and other TSBD >>>> workers - just as a control.
(David Von Pein was asked the perfectly reasonable question of what he >>>> thought the chances were that Givens would have tested "positive" on >>>> the paraffin test, he repeatedly refused to answer. The answer, of
course, is obvious... if David were honest - he'd have been forced to >>>> admit that it was likely.)
But the object wasn't to discover the truth, but to find anything they >>>> could use to bolster their weak case. It's quite disingenuous to
proclaim the veracity of the paraffin test in one instance, and
denigrate it in the next.
The paraffin evidence would be raised by the defense, not by the
prosecution... since it shows that Oswald never fired a rifle, and
didn't necessarily show that he fired a pistol.
The alternative explanation...
Tut tut tut, Steven... if you cannot refute what I stated, simply
admit it.
Everyone knows
you're a coward who cannot directly address what I
post. You keep getting spanked.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:03:53?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 12:29:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 11:08:25?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
(41) A paraffin test on Oswald's hands showed he'd fired a revolver >>>>>> just before his arrest.
(Don't do it, "Bud"... don't do it!)
No, this simply isn't true, and Bugliosi *knows* it. Common materials >>>>>> that can *also* cause a positive result is paper - and where did
Oswald work?? Anyone remember?
Oswald showed negative in the paraffin test of his cheek - and no-one >>>>>> will scream louder than the Warren Commission believers when it comes >>>>>> to denigrating the Paraffin test - yet Bugliosi still brings it out as >>>>>> if it showed that Oswald was a murderer. It would have been far more >>>>>> convincing had they also ran the same test on Frazier, and other TSBD >>>>>> workers - just as a control.
(David Von Pein was asked the perfectly reasonable question of what he >>>>>> thought the chances were that Givens would have tested "positive" on >>>>>> the paraffin test, he repeatedly refused to answer. The answer, of >>>>>> course, is obvious... if David were honest - he'd have been forced to >>>>>> admit that it was likely.)
But the object wasn't to discover the truth, but to find anything they >>>>>> could use to bolster their weak case. It's quite disingenuous to
proclaim the veracity of the paraffin test in one instance, and
denigrate it in the next.
The paraffin evidence would be raised by the defense, not by the
prosecution... since it shows that Oswald never fired a rifle, and >>>>>> didn't necessarily show that he fired a pistol.
The alternative explanation...
Tut tut tut, Steven... if you cannot refute what I stated, simply
admit it.
Everyone knows you're a coward who cannot directly address what I
post. You keep getting spanked.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:13:58 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:03:53?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:Chickenshit couldn't explain Steven's cowardice...
On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 12:29:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 11:08:25?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> (41) A paraffin test on Oswald's hands showed he'd fired a revolver >>>>>> just before his arrest.
(Don't do it, "Bud"... don't do it!)
No, this simply isn't true, and Bugliosi *knows* it. Common materials >>>>>> that can *also* cause a positive result is paper - and where did >>>>>> Oswald work?? Anyone remember?
Oswald showed negative in the paraffin test of his cheek - and no-one >>>>>> will scream louder than the Warren Commission believers when it comes >>>>>> to denigrating the Paraffin test - yet Bugliosi still brings it out as
if it showed that Oswald was a murderer. It would have been far more >>>>>> convincing had they also ran the same test on Frazier, and other TSBD >>>>>> workers - just as a control.
(David Von Pein was asked the perfectly reasonable question of what he
thought the chances were that Givens would have tested "positive" on >>>>>> the paraffin test, he repeatedly refused to answer. The answer, of >>>>>> course, is obvious... if David were honest - he'd have been forced to >>>>>> admit that it was likely.)
But the object wasn't to discover the truth, but to find anything they
could use to bolster their weak case. It's quite disingenuous to >>>>>> proclaim the veracity of the paraffin test in one instance, and >>>>>> denigrate it in the next.
The paraffin evidence would be raised by the defense, not by the >>>>>> prosecution... since it shows that Oswald never fired a rifle, and >>>>>> didn't necessarily show that he fired a pistol.
The alternative explanation...
Tut tut tut, Steven... if you cannot refute what I stated, simply
admit it.
Everyone knows you're a coward who cannot directly address what I
post. You keep getting spanked.
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:03:14?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:13:58 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:03:53?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 12:29:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 11:08:25?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> (41) A paraffin test on Oswald's hands showed he'd fired a revolver >>>>>>>> just before his arrest.
(Don't do it, "Bud"... don't do it!)
No, this simply isn't true, and Bugliosi *knows* it. Common materials >>>>>>>> that can *also* cause a positive result is paper - and where did >>>>>>>> Oswald work?? Anyone remember?
Oswald showed negative in the paraffin test of his cheek - and no-one >>>>>>>> will scream louder than the Warren Commission believers when it comes >>>>>>>> to denigrating the Paraffin test - yet Bugliosi still brings it out as >>>>>>>> if it showed that Oswald was a murderer. It would have been far more >>>>>>>> convincing had they also ran the same test on Frazier, and other TSBD >>>>>>>> workers - just as a control.
(David Von Pein was asked the perfectly reasonable question of what he >>>>>>>> thought the chances were that Givens would have tested "positive" on >>>>>>>> the paraffin test, he repeatedly refused to answer. The answer, of >>>>>>>> course, is obvious... if David were honest - he'd have been forced to >>>>>>>> admit that it was likely.)
But the object wasn't to discover the truth, but to find anything they >>>>>>>> could use to bolster their weak case. It's quite disingenuous to >>>>>>>> proclaim the veracity of the paraffin test in one instance, and >>>>>>>> denigrate it in the next.
The paraffin evidence would be raised by the defense, not by the >>>>>>>> prosecution... since it shows that Oswald never fired a rifle, and >>>>>>>> didn't necessarily show that he fired a pistol.
The alternative explanation...
Tut tut tut, Steven... if you cannot refute what I stated, simply
admit it.
Everyone knows you're a coward who cannot directly address what I
post. You keep getting spanked.
Chickenshit couldn't explain Steven's cowardice...
You couldn`t establish any.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 124:24:50 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,763 |