JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on January 06, 2018, 10:28:48 PM
-
The problem with a lot of newer CTs is that they have never explored the full story from both sides, the following anecdote from Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi shows why it's important to take a detailed look at both sides.
Before I go on, I?d like to relate an incident I feel may strike home with many readers of this book. Back in early 1992, a few months after the strongly pro-conspiracy movie JFK came out, I was speaking to around six hundred lawyers at a trial lawyers? convention on the East Coast. My subject was ?Tactics and Techniques in the Trial of a Criminal Case,? not the Kennedy assassination, but during the question-and-answer period that followed, the assassination came up, and I could tell from the rhetorical nature of the questions that the questioners believed there was a conspiracy in the assassination.
I asked for a show of hands as to how many did not accept the findings of the Warren Commission. A forest of hands went up, easily 85 to 90 percent of the audience. So I said to them, ?What if I could prove to you in one minute or less that although you are all intelligent people you are not thinking intelligently about the Kennedy case?? I could sense an immediate stirring in the audience. My challenge sounded ridiculous. How could I prove in one minute or less that close to six hundred lawyers were not thinking intelligently? A voice from my right front shouted out, ?We don?t think you can do it.? I responded, ?Okay, start looking at your watches.? With the clock ticking, I asked for another show of hands as to those who had seen the recent movie JFK or at any time in the past had ever read any book or magazine article propounding the conspiracy theory or otherwise rejecting the findings of the Warren Commission. Again, a great number of hands went up?about the same, it seemed to me, as the previous hand count. I proceeded to tell the group that I didn?t need a show of hands for my next point. ?I?m sure you will all agree,? I said, ?that before you form an intelligent opinion on a matter in dispute you should hear both sides of the issue. As the old West Virginia mountaineer said, ?No matter how thin I make my pancakes they always have two sides.? With that in mind, how many of you have read the Warren Report?? It was embarrassing. Only a few people raised their hands. In less than a minute (one member ofthe audience later told me it was forty-seven seconds) I had proved my point. The overwhelming majority in the audience had formed an opinion rejecting the findings of the Warren Commission without bothering to read the Commission?s report. And mind you, I hadn?t even asked them how many had read the twenty-six volumes of the Warren Commission, just the single-volume Warren Report.
Well over a hundred million Americans reject the findings of the Warren Commission, whose report at least ninety-nine out of a hundred have never read.
So for a refresher take a look at the accumulated evidence by Bugliosi.
Link to the Warren Commission Report.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report
JohnM
-
Why don't you actually put links to the evidence like I do? Or quote it? Bugliosi put nothing forward beyond his opinion.
Huh, your threads are jammed full of your self serving opinion???
JohnM
-
The problem with a lot of newer CTs is that they have never explored the full story from both sides, the following anecdote from Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi shows why it's important to take a detailed look at both sides.
Before I go on, I?d like to relate an incident I feel may strike home with many readers of this book. Back in early 1992, a few months after the strongly pro-conspiracy movie JFK came out, I was speaking to around six hundred lawyers at a trial lawyers? convention on the East Coast. My subject was ?Tactics and Techniques in the Trial of a Criminal Case,? not the Kennedy assassination, but during the question-and-answer period that followed, the assassination came up, and I could tell from the rhetorical nature of the questions that the questioners believed there was a conspiracy in the assassination.
I asked for a show of hands as to how many did not accept the findings of the Warren Commission. A forest of hands went up, easily 85 to 90 percent of the audience. So I said to them, ?What if I could prove to you in one minute or less that although you are all intelligent people you are not thinking intelligently about the Kennedy case?? I could sense an immediate stirring in the audience. My challenge sounded ridiculous. How could I prove in one minute or less that close to six hundred lawyers were not thinking intelligently? A voice from my right front shouted out, ?We don?t think you can do it.? I responded, ?Okay, start looking at your watches.? With the clock ticking, I asked for another show of hands as to those who had seen the recent movie JFK or at any time in the past had ever read any book or magazine article propounding the conspiracy theory or otherwise rejecting the findings of the Warren Commission. Again, a great number of hands went up?about the same, it seemed to me, as the previous hand count. I proceeded to tell the group that I didn?t need a show of hands for my next point. ?I?m sure you will all agree,? I said, ?that before you form an intelligent opinion on a matter in dispute you should hear both sides of the issue. As the old West Virginia mountaineer said, ?No matter how thin I make my pancakes they always have two sides.? With that in mind, how many of you have read the Warren Report?? It was embarrassing. Only a few people raised their hands. In less than a minute (one member ofthe audience later told me it was forty-seven seconds) I had proved my point. The overwhelming majority in the audience had formed an opinion rejecting the findings of the Warren Commission without bothering to read the Commission?s report. And mind you, I hadn?t even asked them how many had read the twenty-six volumes of the Warren Commission, just the single-volume Warren Report.
Well over a hundred million Americans reject the findings of the Warren Commission, whose report at least ninety-nine out of a hundred have never read.
So for a refresher take a look at the accumulated evidence by Bugliosi.
Link to the Warren Commission Report.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report
JohnM
And the misrepresentations and propaganda go on and on....
-
My posts use the actual evidence. I quote it and put links to it. Why do you avoid the evidence?
Sure, I offer opinion occasionally, but for the part I use the actual evidence. You use nothing but your opinion.
Sure, I offer opinion occasionally
No, you continually interpret the evidence to your own devious end, just witness your McDonald thread where even though contrary to the mountain of actual evidence you can't stop keep pushing your misinterpretation of a single newspaper article, that's just Nuts!
You use nothing but your opinion.
I told you a million times, don't exaggerate!
JohnM
-
(https://image.ibb.co/iM4tsG/1_C914_FDA_2_CFB_4_E28_AC5_A_90_EA15_F0_ED88.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
-
(https://image.ibb.co/iM4tsG/1_C914_FDA_2_CFB_4_E28_AC5_A_90_EA15_F0_ED88.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
Yeah, it's people like you who hack Forums because they can't stand any evidence that contradicts their limited shaky viewpoint.
Colin if you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen.
JohnM
-
Yeah, it's people like you who hack Forums because they can't stand any evidence that contradicts their limited shaky viewpoint.
Colin if you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen.
JohnM
Pathetic, but oh so expected from Mytton....
13 posts already and nothing of any kind of value or interest.....
-
I can tell you that I don't have to read the Bible to form an opinion as to whether it is full of baloney or not. ::)
-
Pathetic, but oh so expected from Mytton....
13 posts already and nothing of any kind of value or interest.....
In 13 posts I have stimulated conversation in a number of areas relevant to this Forum and in return your posts are 100% on goal of Ad Homm attacks, Congrats!
JohnM
-
In 13 posts I have stimulated conversation in a number of areas relevant to this Forum and in return your posts are 100% on goal of Ad Homm attacks, Congrats!
JohnM
In 13 posts I have stimulated conversation in a number of areas relevant to this Forum
Yeah, like accussing Colin of possibly being somebody who would hack this forum and spreading the same old and long debunked Bugliosi propaganda crap.
-
In 13 posts I have stimulated conversation in a number of areas relevant to this Forum
Yeah, like accussing Colin of possibly being a hacker of this forum and spreading the same old and long debunked Bugliosi propaganda crap.
like accussing Colin of possibly being a hacker of this forum
I never accused Colin of anything, retract this comment or I will take this further.
JohnM
-
I never accused Colin of anything, retract this comment or I will take this further.
JohnM
Take it further.... Hypocrite!
Yeah, it's people like you who hack Forums because they can't stand any evidence that contradicts their limited shaky viewpoint.
Colin if you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen.
JohnM
-
Yeah, it's people like you who hack Forums because they can't stand any evidence that contradicts their limited shaky viewpoint.
Colin if you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen.
JohnM
And what would my limited shaky viewpoint be?
And what was my meme referring to?
-
Take it further.... Hypocrite!
Reported!
JohnM
-
And what was my meme referring to?
It's your Meme that you posted, how about you tell us what you meant?
JohnM
-
Reported!
JohnM
Wow... now run to mommy, little man.
When you use the words "people like you who hack forums" you include the person you are talking to. In this case it was Colin!
-
It's your Meme that you posted, how about you tell us what you meant?
JohnM
Dear John,
Some thoughts regarding your response to my meme in the thread.
It was not in reply to your original post, although I suspect you thought it was. If it was I would have posted I as a reply to yours....it was not.
My first thought to your response was that you got out of the bed the wrong side this morning. I imagine you (as I) are disappointed at the realisation of loss of years of posts by forum members. A lot of valuable information gone forever it seems, although I suspect that you have alternative means of sourcing some of the information posted by you (and others) by way of some form of backup. I have but by pure chance and most of my original research posted here is lost.....I?m thinking of the analysis of the DPD radio logs and movements of police after the shots, the NAA relating to the Walker bullet and Oswald?s employment at JCS. Oh well....we live and learn.
I must admit I was taken aback at your response and thought it harsh and accusatory (as Martin did). I read and post at this forum to share and learn. When I have been proven to be in error I have had no problem in admitting so. I was considering not registering again after the attack but decided to rejoin. Perhaps I might reconsider and leave the kitchen, not because of the heat but because of the quality of the dishes served. Particularly their regurgitation.
I would appreciate honest answers to both of my previous questions, not simply with another question.
Regards
Colin
-
You LNers are desperate. If what I was doing was contrary to what the evidence actually showed all you have to do is cite the evidence so others can see that I am wrong, but you never do this. The reason why is simple -- the evidence doesn't show that my comments are wrong as you claim.
There is NO mountain of evidence showing that LHO is guilty of the crimes the WC accused him of. This has been explained to you hundreds of times. Your failure to cite any of this "mountain" just confirms that it doesn't exist.
You're a desperate lot. It was allowed for one of you LNers to register as "Bob Caprio". Ridiculous.
You LNers are desperate.
No, our case was proved over 54 years ago and then proved again 40 years ago, so clearly the burden of proof for conspiracy is now your problem.
If what I was doing was contrary to what the evidence actually showed all you have to do is cite the evidence so others can see that I am wrong, but you never do this.
Hahahaha, constantly you have evidence thrust in your face that shows your origianal conclusion to be null and void yet you never give up, just witness the brother of Benavides saga.
The reason why is simple -- the evidence doesn't show that my comments are wrong as you claim.
Rob or Bob or whatever your name is, no researcher on the previous forum was more prolific than Rob Caprio, so where does all your research go? You have accumulated so much personally tainted evidence which surely must lead to some sort of conclusion, what is it?
There is NO mountain of evidence showing that LHO is guilty of the crimes the WC accused him of.
Besides the Mountain of Evidence against Oswald the most important evidence which has never been refuted is that Oswald who had no alibi was seen with a rifle on the 6th floor, in fact at the same window that contained the shells from Oswald's rifle. Case Closed!
And let's not forget that upon a search of the same floor Oswald's rifle which he ordered, received and was photographed with was found with his prints and fibers which by prohibitive probability came from the shirt Oswald was wearing.
Then Oswald Killed a Cop, why would Oswald need to kill a Cop?
JohnM
-
Dear John,
Some thoughts regarding your response to my meme in the thread.
It was not in reply to your original post, although I suspect you thought it was. If it was I would have posted I as a reply to yours....it was not.
My first thought to your response was that you got out of the bed the wrong side this morning. I imagine you (as I) are disappointed at the realisation of loss of years of posts by forum members. A lot of valuable information gone forever it seems, although I suspect that you have alternative means of sourcing some of the information posted by you (and others) by way of some form of backup. I have but by pure chance and most of my original research posted here is lost.....I?m thinking of the analysis of the DPD radio logs and movements of police after the shots, the NAA relating to the Walker bullet and Oswald?s employment at JCS. Oh well....we live and learn.
I must admit I was taken aback at your response and thought it harsh and accusatory (as Martin did). I read and post at this forum to share and learn. When I have been proven to be in error I have had no problem in admitting so. I was considering not registering again after the attack but decided to rejoin. Perhaps I might reconsider and leave the kitchen, not because of the heat but because of the quality of the dishes served. Particularly their regurgitation.
I would appreciate honest answers to both of my previous questions, not simply with another question.
Regards
Colin
Colin,
I think you can wait for a very long time before you get an honest answer from John Mytton to any of your questions.
-
Dear John,
Some thoughts regarding your response to my meme in the thread.
It was not in reply to your original post, although I suspect you thought it was. If it was I would have posted I as a reply to yours....it was not.
My first thought to your response was that you got out of the bed the wrong side this morning. I imagine you (as I) are disappointed at the realisation of loss of years of posts by forum members. A lot of valuable information gone forever it seems, although I suspect that you have alternative means of sourcing some of the information posted by you (and others) by way of some form of backup. I have but by pure chance and most of my original research posted here is lost.....I?m thinking of the analysis of the DPD radio logs and movements of police after the shots, the NAA relating to the Walker bullet and Oswald?s employment at JCS. Oh well....we live and learn.
I must admit I was taken aback at your response and thought it harsh and accusatory (as Martin did). I read and post at this forum to share and learn. When I have been proven to be in error I have had no problem in admitting so. I was considering not registering again after the attack but decided to rejoin. Perhaps I might reconsider and leave the kitchen, not because of the heat but because of the quality of the dishes served. Particularly their regurgitation.
I would appreciate honest answers to both of my previous questions, not simply with another question.
Regards
Colin
Sadly it appears that Martin was a better judge than me and it appears that John has far better things to do than prepare a reply to my post.
-
(https://image.ibb.co/iM4tsG/1_C914_FDA_2_CFB_4_E28_AC5_A_90_EA15_F0_ED88.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
"Stone the crows": Colin's back.
-
I never accused Colin of anything, retract this comment or I will take this further.
JohnM
Easy, big boy. Remember what the doctor told you about getting worked up.
-
So for a refresher take a look at the accumulated evidence by Bugliosi.
"Evidence". LOL. This is what Bugliosi and Mytton call "evidence" of murder:
- Leaving his wedding ring behind at the Paine house
- Not reading the newspaper in the domino room that morning
- Going to the second floor to get a Coke when he preferred Dr. Pepper
- Not being chatty with the cab driver
- Showing reporters his handcuffed hands
- Marina thinking his eyes looked guilty
- Leaving his blue jacket in the domino room
- Leaving a clipboard on the sixth floor
-
Besides the Mountain of Evidence against Oswald
LOL
the most important evidence which has never been refuted
LOL
is that Oswald who had no alibi
Neither did at least 5 other people in the TSBD alone.
was seen with a rifle on the 6th floor,
By whom?
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/failedtoidentify.jpg)
And let's not forget that upon a search of the same floor Oswald's rifle
LOL
which he ordered,
Unproven.
received
Unproven.
and was photographed with
Unproven.
was found with his prints
Unproven.
and fibers which by prohibitive probability came from the shirt Oswald was wearing.
"prohibitive probability" is Bugliosi-ese for "similar".
Then Oswald Killed a Cop
Unproven.
Claims aren't evidence.
-
My posts use the actual evidence. I quote it and put links to it. Why do you avoid the evidence?
Sure, I offer opinion occasionally, but for the part I use the actual evidence. You use nothing but your opinion.
To prove any form of conspiracy exists you need evidence to support that specific conspiracy. Be very specific. Using your own words that YOU use "actual evidence", post this "actual evidence" for ANY conspiracy. Put up or stfu. Your choice.
-
Neither did at least 5 other people in the TSBD alone.
If one of these 5 or more people was tied to the rifle which was found on the 6th floor then you could have an argument, well?
JohnM
-
If one of these 5 or more people was tied to the rifle which was found on the 6th floor then you could have an argument, well?
...except for the small problem of you never actually tying Oswald to the rifle.
-
To prove any form of conspiracy exists you need evidence to support that specific conspiracy. Be very specific.
True enough.
And to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, you need compelling evidence to support that claim. Be very specific.
-
...except for the small problem of you never actually tying Oswald to the rifle.
Awesome, let me get this straight you're going with the "naughty but brilliant incompetent Conspirators" setup Oswald with a rifle that cannot be tied to Oswald, WOW!
JohnM
-
Awesome, let me get this straight you're going with the "naughty but brilliant incompetent Conspirators" setup Oswald with a rifle that cannot be tied to Oswald, WOW!
No, I'm going with the "you've never demonstrated that Oswald ordered, received, or ever possessed that particular rifle".
-
No, I'm going with the "you've never demonstrated that Oswald ordered, received, or ever possessed that particular rifle".
Why setup Oswald with a rifle that cannot be linked to him?
JohnM
-
Why setup Oswald with a rifle that cannot be linked to him?
Why don't you ask someone who claims that Oswald was "setup with a rifle"?
-
2 words - 'Paraffin' and 'test'!
There is the proof that LHO didn't fire any rifle that day - so assuming the rifle was 'owned' by him naturally infers conspiracy and patsy.
-
2 words - 'Paraffin' and 'test'!
There is the proof that LHO didn't fire any rifle that day - so assuming the rifle was 'owned' by him naturally infers conspiracy and patsy.
From the WC testimony of FBI SA Cortlandt Cunningham:
Mr. EISENBERG. A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I personally wouldn't expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.
-------------------------------------
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make a test with the exhibit, with the rifle, 139, to determine whether that left a powder residue on the right cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Will you describe that test?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; this time we ran a control. We were interested in running a control to find out just what the possibility was of getting a positive reaction after a person has thoroughly washed their hands. Mr. Killion used green soap and washed his hands, and we ran a control, both of the right cheek and of both hands.
We got many reactions on both the right hand and the left hand, and he had not fired a gun that day.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. That was before firing the rifle. We got no reaction on the cheek.
Mr. EISENBERG. Also before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.
Mr. EISENBERG. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber--in other words, so he wouldn't pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.
Simon, so much for your proof that LHO didn't fire any rifle that day.
-
I'll see your Cortlandt Cunningham and raise you a Vincent Guinn.
"Today, Dr. Vincent P. Guinn called the FBI Laboratory and spoke to SA John F. Gallagher. He advised that since the assassination a large part of their efforts have been directed to the determination of powder residues taken from the hands and cheeks of individuals who have shot a rifle similar to the one reportedly owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. He advised that there appears that triple firing of this rifle will leave unambiguous positive tests every time on the paraffin casts. It further appears that washing the casts with diphenylbenzidine does remove one of the characteristic elements (barium) but such washings do not remove all of the other characteristic element in powder residues (antimony). 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. It appears, he added, that these results can be obtained even if the paraffin casts are made 2 1/2 hours after shooting the rifle providing that the skin of the shooter has not been washed in the meantime."
-
I'll see your Cortlandt Cunningham and raise you a Vincent Guinn.
"Today, Dr. Vincent P. Guinn called the FBI Laboratory and spoke to SA John F. Gallagher. He advised that since the assassination a large part of their efforts have been directed to the determination of powder residues taken from the hands and cheeks of individuals who have shot a rifle similar to the one reportedly owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. He advised that there appears that triple firing of this rifle will leave unambiguous positive tests every time on the paraffin casts. It further appears that washing the casts with diphenylbenzidine does remove one of the characteristic elements (barium) but such washings do not remove all of the other characteristic element in powder residues (antimony). 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. It appears, he added, that these results can be obtained even if the paraffin casts are made 2 1/2 hours after shooting the rifle providing that the skin of the shooter has not been washed in the meantime."
"We fired the rifle[CE-139]. Mr. Killion fired it [CE-139] three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts."
VS
"powder residues taken from the hands and cheeks of individuals who have shot a rifle similar to the one reportedly owned by Lee Harvey Oswald."
How could you possibly conclude that the latter even matches the former, let alone that it raises it?
-
Nitrate test vs NAA.....apples and oranges.
The paraffin/nitrate test was known to be worthless since the 1930's. It was usually used to try and obtain a confession from unknowing suspects.
The NAA analysis of Oswald's cheek cast gave "interesting" results.....
-
Nitrate test vs NAA.....apples and oranges.
True. But why even mention that here?
The NAA analysis of Oswald's cheek cast gave "interesting" results.....
Hmmm....I don't recall the results being all that interesting.
-
True. But why even mention that here?
Thought it easier for those that didn?t know rather than having to plough through tortuous WC testimony.
-
"Is it possible to fire a bolt-action rifle and not get any traces of nitrate on your cheek?"
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%3Acastsofcontention (http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%3Acastsofcontention)
Pat Speer
Chapter 4d: Casts of Contention
What we're not supposed to know
~snip~
The next morning, on 11-23-63, Dr. M.S Mason and Louie Anderson analyze the paraffin casts of Oswald?s cheek (Exhibit #1), left hand (Exhibit #2), and right hand (Exhibit #3) created by Detective Barnes. The request form for this test, found in the Dallas Archives, records the time of the request as 11:05 A.M. The results read as follows: ?No nitrates are found on Exhibit #1. Nitrate patterns consistent with the suspect having discharged a firearm were present on Exhibits #2 and 3. The pattern on Exhibit #3 is typical of the patterns produced in firing
a revolver.? As Oswald is reported to have handled his revolver in the movie theater these results do little to establish that he?d fired a rifle at the President. More clearly, the positive result on Oswald's hands suggests that the elapsed time since the shooting was not the cause of the negative result on Oswald's cheek, and that one might reasonably suspect he did not fire the shots that killed the President. But does the Dallas Police Department admit to itself or the media that there may be suspects still at large?
~snip~
On 2-27, Dr. Vincent Guinn of General Atomic, whose early offers of help had been rebuffed by the FBI, but who'd later been contacted by the AEC, returns to center stage. A Jevons to Conrad memo relates: "Today, Dr. Vincent P. Guinn called the FBI Laboratory and spoke to SA John F. Gallagher. He advised that since the assassination a large part of their efforts have been directed to the determination of powder residues taken from the hands and cheeks of
individuals who have shot a rifle similar to the one reportedly owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. He advised that there appears that triple firing of this rifle will leave unambiguous positive tests every time on the paraffin casts. It further appears that washing the casts with diphenylbenzidine does remove one of the characteristic elements (barium) but such washings do not remove all of the other characteristic element in powder residues (antimony).
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. It appears, he added, that these results can be obtained even if the paraffin casts are made 2 1/2 hours after shooting the rifle providing that the skin of the shooter has not been washed in the meantime. He inquired if any information could be furnished him relating to the actual casts from
Oswald. He stated he read about those casts in the newspapers but has no way to confirm the stories. SA Gallagher advised he was not at liberty to discuss this matter. Dr. Guinn asked who in Dallas might be knowledgeable on this subject. He was advised that he could not be given any information relative to these casts at this time."
~snip~
-
I'll see your Cortlandt Cunningham and raise you a Vincent Guinn.
"Today, Dr. Vincent P. Guinn called the FBI Laboratory and spoke to SA John F. Gallagher. He advised that since the assassination a large part of their efforts have been directed to the determination of powder residues taken from the hands and cheeks of individuals who have shot a rifle similar to the one reportedly owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. He advised that there appears that triple firing of this rifle will leave unambiguous positive tests every time on the paraffin casts. It further appears that washing the casts with diphenylbenzidine does remove one of the characteristic elements (barium) but such washings do not remove all of the other characteristic element in powder residues (antimony). 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. It appears, he added, that these results can be obtained even if the paraffin casts are made 2 1/2 hours after shooting the rifle providing that the skin of the shooter has not been washed in the meantime."
"We fired the rifle[CE-139]. Mr. Killion fired it [CE-139] three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts."
VS
"powder residues taken from the hands and cheeks of individuals who have shot a rifle similar to the one reportedly owned by Lee Harvey Oswald."
How could you possibly conclude that the latter even matches the former, let alone that it raises it?
(https://i.imgur.com/5WIHwcJ.jpg)
Welcome to the new forum, Tim.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/5WIHwcJ.jpg)
Welcome to the new forum, Tim.
So, with conflicting testimony, who is to be believed? We do know that the FBI laboratory ran multiple tests and all yielded a positive reaction on the casts. However, Cunningham never stated how many tests they ran before casts yielded a negative reaction. He only provides the results of a "Mr Killian". Of course the question is never asked "how many times", and thus we are led to believe that there was just one test. If there was only one test and the results were negative, it was clearly a fluke (considering the multiple positive tests). If there were multiple tests with one negative result, how many? We then could play the odds to determine whether or not it was likely that LHOs tests would have a positive reaction.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/5WIHwcJ.jpg)
Welcome to the new forum, Tim.
Thanks for the welcome Bill.
-
So, with conflicting testimony, who is to be believed? We do know that the FBI laboratory ran multiple tests and all yielded a positive reaction on the casts. However, Cunningham never stated how many tests they ran before casts yielded a negative reaction. He only provides the results of a "Mr Killian". Of course the question is never asked "how many times", and thus we are led to believe that there was just one test. If there was only one test and the results were negative, it was clearly a fluke (considering the multiple positive tests). If there were multiple tests with one negative result, how many? We then could play the odds to determine whether or not it was likely that LHOs tests would have a positive reaction.
Larry, Where do you get that the FBI laboratory ran multiple tests with CE-139 that yielded positive reactions?
-
Larry, Where do you get that the FBI laboratory ran multiple tests with CE-139 that yielded positive reactions?
I didn't say CE-139. Their tests used a similar rifle and ammunition.
However, after reading your post again, I noticed that there were multile tests ran with CE-139, yet only mention the negative reaction results. It appears that their first test yeilded positive. Contrived? Hmmm.
"We fired the rifle[CE-139]. Mr. Killion fired it [CE-139] three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts."
-
"We fired the rifle[CE-139]. Mr. Killion fired it [CE-139] three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts."
VS
"powder residues taken from the hands and cheeks of individuals who have shot a rifle similar to the one reportedly owned by Lee Harvey Oswald."
How could you possibly conclude that the latter even matches the former, let alone that it raises it?
First of all, they don't know what ammunition was used in the assassination. Second of all, do you have a plausible reason to accept that Mannlicher Carcano rifles would differ this widely?
-
First of all, they don't know what ammunition was used in the assassination. Second of all, do you have a plausible reason to accept that Mannlicher Carcano rifles would differ this widely?
The ammunition used in the assassination were WCC 6.5 mm bullets.
I have no reason to believe that Carcano rifles would not differ that widely, or that SA Cunningham would lie under oath.
-
Bugliosi and the Warren Commission said that the Parkland Doctors were wrong about where they put the head wounds on JFK . The back of the blown-out head wound is not mentioned by the WC or Bugliosi.
-
Bugliosi and the Warren Commission said that the Parkland Doctors were wrong about where they put the head wounds on JFK . The back of the blown-out head wound is not mentioned by the WC or Bugliosi.
The Clark Panel said the autopsy doctors were wrong about the head wounds.
The HSCA agreed with the Clark Panel.
-
The ammunition used in the assassination were WCC 6.5 mm bullets.
That's an assumption. There's no physical proof of that.
I have no reason to believe that Carcano rifles would not differ that widely, or that SA Cunningham would lie under oath.
Ok, but I could just as easily say that I have no reason to believe that Carcano rifles would differ that widely, or that SA Cunningham was correct.
-
The Clark Panel said the autopsy doctors were wrong about the head wounds.
The HSCA agreed with the Clark Panel.
Neither the Clark Panel nor the HSCA examined the body.