Dr. E. Forrest Chapman

[Charles Collins]

Below is a screenshot of the video showing an ejected empty cartridge just after it bounced off of the rear bridge.




Based on what I can see in this video, I think that there is reason to believe that the slight indentations on the other empty cartridges besides CE 543 might have also been caused by an impact with the rear bridge. The reason that CE 543 didn’t have one of those marks (that some have assumed are some unexplained chamber marks) is that CE 543’s impact with the rear bridge was closer to the mouth of the cartridge.

[Jack Nessan]

In what world does his handwritten two shot statement translate into an early missed shot


Your reading comprehension is exceptionally poor. Bennett clearly describes two separate events, the shot he heard and the one he saw strike JFK's back. He "looked at the boss's care" AFTER hearing the first shot.
--------------
Brehm 11/22 Dallas Herald

The witness Brehm was shaking uncontrollably as he further described the shooting. "The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped. Then on the second shot he seemed to fall back." Brehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if he would have after being shot from the rear. The book depository building stands in the rear of the President's location at the time of the shooting.

Another two shot witness. First shot and JFK slumped.

Brehm can be seen clapping after JFK had slumped over after the second shot struck him. He obviously had no clue as to what was going on. He didn't figure that out until he saw JFK's head explode.
Plenty of witnesses have been cited and you just lie about what they have to say. That tells us all we need to know about you.

No, both men clearly describe two shots total. That is why people use words like first and second or immediately. You know words like that. That way nobody is left wondering or in your case creating your own narrative.

J Corbett ---“Brehm can be seen clapping after JFK had slumped over after the second shot struck him”

Really. You purposely changed Brehm's words to try and support this goofy theory? He never said the second shot hit him. 

Brehm said “"The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped.” ----- There is no second shot to it. He could not have made it any clearer, first shot struck JFK. Unbelievable that you would do that.

Maybe you don't think Brehm was close enough to be a good witness.

[Jack Nessan]

Take a look at this slow-motion video starting at ~7:20. The cartridge definitely hits the rear receiver bridge. And if there had been only a slight bit more rotation of the cartridge, the mouth of the cartridge would have hit it.

Nothing has changed. The mouth of the shell casing never remotely comes near striking the rear receiver bridge. Hitting a flat surface is not going to create a dent like what is on CE 543.

It is a physical impossibility for the shell to flip beyond a 180 degrees that would be needed to overcome the shell body and then strike anything on the receiver bridge that can put a dent in the mouth of the shell as described by the AI.

The HSCA test‑fired dent was “in at the top” and sloped downward — a downward‑angled inward crush — whereas CE 543’s dent is a compound deformation with an inward dimple and an outward flare.

What is it about this that makes you want to enter the Twilight Zone in an attempt to create a bizarre scenario? The HSCA did not duplicate the dent in the CE 543 shell casing. Nobody has. It has a dimple in the middle of it and the top lip is flared back. 

Try loading an empty shell casing into the rifle. It does not go smoothly and the lip hangs up.

[Charles Collins]

Nothing has changed. The mouth of the shell casing never remotely comes near striking the rear receiver bridge. Hitting a flat surface is not going to create a dent like what is on CE 543.

It is a physical impossibility for the shell to flip beyond a 180 degrees that would be needed to overcome the shell body and then strike anything on the receiver bridge that can put a dent in the mouth of the shell as described by the AI.

The HSCA test‑fired dent was “in at the top” and sloped downward — a downward‑angled inward crush — whereas CE 543’s dent is a compound deformation with an inward dimple and an outward flare.

What is it about this that makes you want to enter the Twilight Zone in an attempt to create a bizarre scenario? The HSCA did not duplicate the dent in the CE 543 shell casing. Nobody has. It has a dimple in the middle of it and the top lip is flared back. 

Try loading an empty shell casing into the rifle. It does not go smoothly and the lip hangs up.

The mouth of the shell came within a fraction of an inch and a few degrees of rotation of striking the bridge. That’s pretty darned close. Hitting the edge of the bridge could create the dent in CE 543. Duplicating the dent isn’t necessary to show the likelihood that it did happen.

[Jack Nessan]

Below is a screenshot of the video showing an ejected empty cartridge just after it bounced off of the rear bridge.




Based on what I can see in this video, I think that there is reason to believe that the slight indentations on the other empty cartridges besides CE 543 might have also been caused by an impact with the rear bridge. The reason that CE 543 didn’t have one of those marks (that some have assumed are some unexplained chamber marks) is that CE 543’s impact with the rear bridge was closer to the mouth of the cartridge.

So, it happened repeatedly but just with Oswald's rifle and on every one of the shells, 30+, that was produced while testing the rifle in time trials, also including both shells listed as CE 557 and the unfired cartridge, CE 141, ejected after the rifle was found on the 6th floor. As absolutely incredible as this proposed idea is, and to take the disbelief to a new level, the depth of the chamber mark is different depending on when in the firing sequence the chamber mark on the shell was produced and the shells landed on the bridge of the receiver in exactly the same spot on every shell casing, no variance. As preposterous as all of this is, CE 543 still has no chamber mark and a dented lip that cannot be explained, both deformities indicating it was not fired in the rifle.

[John Corbett]

No, both men clearly describe two shots total. That is why people use words like first and second or immediately. You know words like that. That way nobody is left wondering or in your case creating your own narrative.

J Corbett ---“Brehm can be seen clapping after JFK had slumped over after the second shot struck him”

Really. You purposely changed Brehm's words to try and support this goofy theory? He never said the second shot hit him. 

Brehm said “"The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped.” ----- There is no second shot to it. He could not have made it any clearer, first shot struck JFK. Unbelievable that you would do that.

Maybe you don't think Brehm was close enough to be a good witness.

I didn't even cite Brehm's words. I cited what he was seen doing on the Z-film.

Sometimes a witness can be too close. It can create tunnel vision and lack of perspective.

[Jack Nessan]

The mouth of the shell came within a fraction of an inch and a few degrees of rotation of striking the bridge. That’s pretty darned close. Hitting the edge of the bridge could create the dent in CE 543. Duplicating the dent isn’t necessary to show the likelihood that it did happen.

You are not explaining the dent, you are just hoping you stumbled onto an alternative explanation. You didn't. What on the rear bridge of the receiver can cause a dent with a dimple in the middle that makes the top of the lip flare out.