JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
What about that dent?
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on June 04, 2026, 05:36:13 PM ---What on earth are you talking about? I didn't "change my story" - I've said the same thing on here 15 times.
--- End quote ---
Oh? Maybe you misspoke:
--- Quote ---You: Dented shell: Dry firing round in the chamber of the disassembled M-C in Ruth Paine's garage. JFKA: Two shots. Case closed. You're welcome.
You: Not dry-firing in a disassembled rifle. Leaving it there for convenience because mostly what he did with the rifle was dry-fire it.
--- End quote ---
Do you not see the contradiction?
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on June 04, 2026, 05:36:13 PM ---I'm not sure what Liebeler's doubt about sighting through the scope has to do with anything.
--- End quote ---
Humm, are you ever going to share your basis for claiming that Oswald dry-fired the rifle? So far, this seems to be pure speculation, not to mention the fact that the forensic evidence proves that the ammo that hit JFK's head could not have been FMJ ammo, that the FBI was never able to establish that Oswald ever picked up the rifle, that no A. Hidell was authorized to pick up mail from Oswald's post office box, etc., etc., etc.
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on June 04, 2026, 05:36:13 PM ---Everyone who owns a rifle, including me, does more dry-firing than live firing, and an empty shell in the chamber prevents damage to the firing pin. Live firing with a large-caliber rifle is damn expensive, and Oswald was not only frugal but had limited opportunities for live practice. I simply believe he likely kept a dry-firing shell in the chamber and it was there when he assembled the rifle in the TSBD. A dented shell that cannot be reloaded is typically used for dry-firing - I myself did it.
--- End quote ---
This a load of baseless speculation and dubious a priori assumptions that ignores two key points: (1) that CE 543 was supposedly fired in the alleged murder weapon during the assassination but that ballistics evidence shows this was impossible, and (2) that CE 543 could not have been chambered in the alleged murder weapon because it does not have the weapon's chambering impressions on it.
Lance Payette:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on June 04, 2026, 05:48:37 PM ---Oh? Maybe you misspoke:
Do you not see the contradiction?
--- End quote ---
No, I do not. My first statement was that the dry-firing shell was still in the chamber of the M-C when it was wrapped in the blanket in Ruth's garage. You rather bizarrely stated that dry-firing a disassembled rifle seemed strange to you (as indeed it would be). I clarified that I was not talking about dry-firing the disassembled rifle but merely leaving the dry-firing shell in the rifle when he disassembled it, which would not be unusual, and then ejecting it after he had assembled the rifle in the TSBD.
Marina said Oswald "practiced" with the rifle on the porch. I recall that some neighbor also saw this. To fit your theory, you want to speculate that he was not dry-firing and thus there was not a dented shell in the chamber that became CE 543. Go ahead. I would suggest that for most of us and probably Oswald, "practicing" with a rifle would involve dry-firing. Dry-firing is basic in the Marines and Oswald reportedly spent considerable time doing this.
Jack Nessan:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on June 04, 2026, 05:06:53 PM ---I do, but you clearly don't. You always pretend to know more than anyone else but then make one blundering statement after another.
LOL! One, CE 543 was supposedly fired during the assassination, but obviously it was not, even according to your amateurish take on Nicols' testimony. Two, this does not explain why there are no chambering impressions on CE 543.
This is just silly, not to mention dishonest. Yes, that is indeed the point, which I made clear. I tend to doubt that you've even read Thompson's analysis of CE 543. If you did, you didn't understand it.
This is another one of your silly and dishonest strawman attacks. Why don't you quote from Thompson's analysis, hey? I wonder if you just don't know that Thompson argues that at least four shots were fired.
LOL! Are you in junior high or something? The level of silliness and dishonesty in your strawman arguments is pitiful. I notice you snipped Dr. Thomas's comments. Gee, I wonder why.
I know far more than you do about firearms. You're a silly troll who pretends to understand issues that you clearly don't understand. Your tactic is to make ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments because you can't deal credibly with the evidence.
Why don't you address the arguments about CE 543 made by recognized firearms experts that I present in my article? I'm guessing you still haven't bothered to read my article on CE 543.
People should know that you're a peddler of the fringe two-shots-only lone-gunman scenario, a theory that even 98% of your fellow lone-gunman theorists reject as ridiculous, including Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi, and Jim Moore.
--- End quote ---
The thread is about CE 543. Why does that have to be explained to you. Josiah clearly states LHO only fired two shots in his book. Try reading it.
If you are as knowledgeable about firearms as you claim, how about act like it. Stop posting only half the story.
Josiah can argue there were six shots, as some clowns do on this thread, but it does not change what is known about just two shots from LHO and also what is known about CE 543.
Given how many different subjects you have misrepresented the information, why would anyone care what you have written.
Lance Payette:
One might also add - so I will! - that explaining CE 543 as a dry-firing shell is the explanation most in accord with Occam's Razor. MTG consistently violates Occam's Razor to an almost unbelievable degree. Given two possible explanations, MTG always opts for the most complex, conspiratorially-oriented. and frankly least believable one. ALWAYS. This is precisely why I started my thread encouraging CTers to focus on plausibility. CTers like MTG are embarrassments to rational thought and analysis.
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on June 04, 2026, 06:28:48 PM ---One might also add - so I will! - that explaining CE 543 as a dry-firing shell is the explanation most in accord with Occam's Razor. MTG consistently violates Occam's Razor to an almost unbelievable degree. Given two possible explanations, MTG always opts for the most complex, conspiratorially-oriented. and frankly least believable one. ALWAYS. This is precisely why I started my thread encouraging CTers to focus on plausibility. CTers like MTG are embarrassments to rational thought and analysis.
--- End quote ---
Here is the AI response to the dented shell:
How Warren Commission Exhibit CE543 Got Dented
Commission Exhibit 543 (CE 543) was one of three spent 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge cases found in the “sniper’s nest” on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. It had a noticeable inward dent on the mouth (the open lip where the bullet had been seated) www.jfkassassinationforum.com.
Official and Expert Explanations
The Warren Commission’s own analysis, supported by FBI ballistic testing, concluded that all three cases (CE 543, 544, and 545) had been fired from the same rifle (CE 139) based on matching firing-pin, extractor, and bolt-face marks www.jfkassassinationforum.com.
The dent on CE 543 was examined by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Firearms Panel in the 1970s–1970s. They found that the dent was produced during ejection from the rifle, specifically from the rapid operation of the bolt/ejector mechanism, not before firing or from manufacturing/loading www.jfkassassinationforum.com.
The panel duplicated the dent in test firings with Oswald’s rifle, showing that one of four test cases produced a similar dent when the bolt was worked quickly. Microscopic comparison confirmed all three cases were fired in the CE 139 rifle, with no evidence of multiple chamberings or prior firings
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version