What about that dent?

[Lance Payette]

Oh? Maybe you misspoke:

Do you not see the contradiction?

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]

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.

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.