David Von Pein Lies About Guinn.

David Von Pein Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:You can keep right on trying to compare the paraffin test with the NAA test...and you'll *KNOW* that you're lying. Apparently it doesn't matter at all to you. 

I wasn't comparing the paraffin tests to the NAA tests, Holmes. I just took notice of that interesting "7 out of 8 were NEGATIVE" stat regarding the paraffin/nitrate tests that Dr. Guinn performed, and so I just threw that in as a "bonus" for you to chew on (and spit out). 

Of course, David is lying, and he KNOWS he's lying... because he's quoted the full text on his site. 

He continues to evade the fact that the NAA tests were all positive, WHEN DONE ON THE SAME CASTS THAT WERE NEGATIVE IN THE PARAFFIN TEST. 

Guinn wasn't supporting the Warren Commission's false & misleading test, HE WAS POINTING OUT WHY IT WAS A BAD TEST! 

Here's the full quote: 

Pat Speers Website Wrote:On 8-31 the Dallas Morning News runs their own article on Guinn's statements in Scotland about the use of NAA, entitled "New Test May Tell if Oswald Shot a Gun." The FBI's Special Agent in Charge for Dallas, J. Gordon Shanklin, who'd previously told the New York Times that the paraffin tests performed in Dallas proved Oswald's guilt, calls Laboratory Director Conrad and warns him about the article, written by Hugh Aynesworth. Beyond the statements by Guinn already cited, Aynesworth relates that Guinn "said when it was concluded that Oswald's guilt could not be proved or disproved from paraffin tests made by the Dallas Police, he asked the FBI to try the neutron activation analysis technique. Guinn described the experiment in this manner: A rifle similar to the one that killed the president was used. One person fired the rifle on eight different occasions and each time was given the paraffin test. 'Only one out of the eight experiments gave a positive identification,' Guinn said. Then they repeated the experiment using radioactivity. 'It was positive in all eight  cases, and showed a primer on both hands and cheeks,' he said. 'Then we took the casts of Oswald's cheek and put them in a nuclear reactor.  Remember that they already had been through the chemical tests which would wash particles away. I can say for the moment that we found no barium but we found antimony in every case,' Guinn added." 

Now, any intelligent and HONEST person will realize that Guinn was pointing out that the paraffin test will often give a false negative, while the NAA test was accurate each time. Here's how David summarized the above statement on his website: 

David Von Peins Website Wrote:"A rifle similar to the one that killed the president was used. One person fired the rifle on eight different occasions and each time was given the paraffin test. 'Only one out of the eight experiments gave a positive identification,' Guinn said." 

Therefore, after performing EIGHT separate standard paraffin (nitrate) tests on a person who definitely HAD fired a rifle similar to Lee Harvey Oswald's Carcano rifle, SEVEN of the eight tests revealed just exactly the same thing that the FBI's 1964 test revealed after FBI agent Charles Killion had fired Oswald's rifle three times --- a negative result for the presence of any nitrates. 

So much for the FBI/Killion test being a big fat lie (which is what some conspiracy theorists have told me they think that FBI test was---a lie). 

Or do CTers also think Dr. Guinn lied SEVEN times too about the nitrate/paraffin tests he says he performed? 

Notice that David simply lied. The FBI/Killion test WAS INDEED A LIE... one that Guinn POINTED OUT in the full text that David doesn't understand. (and that would be a kind way of putting it!) 

Now, David can't answer this - the only possible answer would be "I read it too fast, and didn't understand it" 

But even that answer fails to the point that I labeled this claim of his about Guinn's tests as an outright lie, and he failed to defend his lie. 
 

HE KNOWS HE GOT CAUGHT LYING AGAIN!! 

And an honest man would admit it, and remove that material from his website, AND STOP LYING ABOUT GUINN'S TESTS... But David Von Pein isn't an honest man. 

And his website will NEVER be corrected - because it's not truth that David is after. 

(This post was originally posted on alt.conspiracy.jfk, and as of the time of this posting, has not been answered by David Von Pein - although he's read it.)

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-David-Von-Pein-Lies-About-Guinn

David Von Pein Asks A Simple Question...

David Von Pein Wrote:How did the Klein's "Pay To The Order" stamp get on the back of the Hidell money order if that money order was never handled by anyone at Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago? 

It didn't NEED to be handled by anyone at Klein's. 

It WAS PROVABLY handled by the FBI. 

The same FBI that sent three agents to Klein's on the evening of 11/22/63. This was roughly 24 hours BEFORE the money order was allegedly found. 

Do I have to explain this in any more detail? 

Can David Von Pein actually ask a question that cannot be answered CREDIBLY by a knowledgeable critic? 

Can David Von Pein PUBLICLY ADMIT that there's an easy, credible answer to his challenge?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-David-Von-Pein-Asks-A-Simple-Question

It's Easy To Do... Just FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE!

Boz Wrote:Research- studious inquiry or examination; especially :  investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws 

How can someone be a researcher when he comes to the conclusion that there were 5 shots fired at JFK?

Anyone who bothers to read the testimony knows that doctors stated Connally ALONE could have been hit by up to three separate bullets. Add a minimum of two bullets for JFK - and even my simplistic math skills manage to make it to five. I don't see a problem here...

The real question is: How can someone be a researcher and not know the testimony?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-It-s-Easy-To-Do-Just-FOLLOW-THE-EVIDENCE

Historical Fact? NOT!!!

Boz Wrote:It is an historical fact that Oswald shot and killed Kennedy.  It is a waste of time debating a fact. It's like debating whether 2 plus 1 equals three. 

This amusing admission was posted on John McAdam's censored forum.

Believers simply cannot debate the "facts" in this case - the evidence doesn't support their "facts".

So they simply assert that it's a "waste of time" - when in fact, it has nothing to do with wasting time, it has to do with the fact that believers CANNOT defend the Warren Commission without ad hominem and outright lying.

Such as Patrick Collins repeated assertion that the majority of witnesses documented IN PRINT in the first two days pointed, not to the Grassy Knoll, but to the TSBD.

Yet he continues to refuse to cite for that "fact"... what does that tell the intelligent lurker?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Historical-Fact-NOT

NOT ONE EYEWITNESS!!!

No matter how many times I bring this up, believers run for the hills every single time - and absolutely REFUSE to answer.

Name even a SINGLE eyewitness whom you believe completely in their 1963-1964 statements about what they saw and heard.

Still unanswered.

This demonstrates beyond any possible refutation that believers have faith, not evidence...

For while there are provable liars among the eyewitnesses, *MOST* of the witnesses in this case are quite credible indeed.

Unfortunately for believers, their testimony simply doesn't support the Warren Commission's case - which is why the Warren Commission simply lied about some of that testimony.

And no explanation for this fact has ever been forthcoming from believers...

What AMAZING cowardice!

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-NOT-ONE-EYEWITNESS

Another Vincent Bugliosi Lie...

Vincent Bugliosi Wrote:The single most important discovery, and one that establishes with 
absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs have not 
been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when combined in 
pairs, produce stereoscopic images.

On what PERSONAL basis can Bugliosi assert this? 

Of course, those who don't accept the Warren Commission's theory have refuted this... in particular, the BOH photo which they've seen in stereo, and deny this claim of Bugliosi's... 

The BOH photos DO NOT present a three dimensional view...

There's a reason why the autopsy photos still haven't been released to the public.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Another-Vincent-Bugliosi-Lie