JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Dr. E. Forrest Chapman
Jack Nessan:
--- Quote from: Charles Collins on June 15, 2026, 11:08:30 PM ---
Jack, what you just posted is not what I posted earlier. You changed the wording in order to try to distort what I wrote. Shame on you!
Also, I should have been more clear about what I meant by “both dents”. It wasn’t two different dents on the same cartridge. It was the two dents on the necks of two different cartridges (CE 543 & the HSCA test cartridge #2) that I had previously specified in the immediately prior sentence. Both cartridges were fired in the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD on 11/22/63. Therefore, I believe that the same rear bridge could have caused the two different but similar dents on the necks of these two different cartridges.
--- End quote ---
It is exactly what you posted earlier. It is called copy and paste. I bet you do want to distance yourself from it.
If you think it is wrong, you can repost what you wrote in Reply #58 and show this terrible transgression.
Jack Nessan:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on June 15, 2026, 09:11:10 PM ---I must say, this thread has completely lost me. Isn't the dishing of the primer, as observed by Chapman and as seen in the HSCA composite, the more significant issue? It would be conclusive evidence that CE 543 was a dry-firing shell, yes? The dent could be why CE 543 became a dry-firing shell - i.e., it was no longer suitable for reloading. The dent could have happened during practice with the M-C or CE 543 could have simply been picked up someplace by Oswald. Yes, the dent perhaps could have happened when CE 543 was fired on 11-22 - but not if the primer shows evidence of more than one firing pin impact. What am I missing?
--- End quote ---
That is what I thought too. It did not take long to change.
The thread turned into debunking CE 543 and dry firing so as to keep validating and promoting an early missed shot. CE 543 as a snap cap casts a huge doubt on that scenario. You saw the lengths he went through and conclusions he reached trying to prove a third shot. Everything but the obvious is being believed. Going as far as replicating a sniper's nest to... I don’t really know why someone would do that. I am not much better. I fired a carcano from inside of an old farmhouse and then stuck the barrel outside of the window while having Mike stand outside to see if there was a difference in the sound. The only thing I learned was don't shoot a rifle inside of a dusty old farmhouse. It took an hour to get the dust out of my eyes.
Given your dabbling into religious beliefs, something you would understand is people seem to hold onto the third shot like a religion. A third shot cannot be proven, and it makes no sense when described in any scenario. A religious fervor about a third shot is what you are seeing here. I have watched it for a decade on the forum. Charles and John are just the latest.
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on June 16, 2026, 04:29:05 AM ---
Given your dabbling into religious beliefs, something you would understand is people seem to hold onto the third shot like a religion.
--- End quote ---
Religion is faith based. The three shot scenario is based on the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. The only way you can make the case for your two shot scenario is to lie about what numerous witnesses have said. You do this because you are a troll.
Charles Collins:
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on June 16, 2026, 04:16:50 AM ---It is exactly what you posted earlier. It is called copy and paste. I bet you do want to distance yourself from it.
If you think it is wrong, you can repost what you wrote in Reply #58 and show this terrible transgression.
--- End quote ---
Jack you are confusing two different responses. Here’s what I wrote in reply #42 regarding the slight indentations:
“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.”
My reply #59 is regarding the two dents in the necks of CE 543 and the HSCA test cartridge.
“I am now of the strong opinion that the rear bridge caused both dents.”
When you wrote in reply #67 that “… but Charles claimed came from the rear receiver of the rifle” you were referring to the slight indentations some believe are chamber marks.
What I wrote about the slight indentations some believe are chamber marks in reply #59 is obviously not a claim so I objected in reply #69 and specified what I actually wrote.
Then in reply #71 you have mistakenly tried to apply the words in reply #59 to the slight indentations some believe are chamber marks. Again, reply #59 is about the two dents in the necks of two different cartridges (CE 543 and the HSCA test cartridge) it is not about the slight indentations some believe are chamber marks.
Whether or not your mistake was intentional is debatable. But regardless of the intent, your mistake confused matters. If this was intentional, I still say shame on you. If it was unintentional, you might want to consider an apology for your mistake.
Lance Payette:
--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 12:08:23 PM ---Religion is faith based. The three shot scenario is based on the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. The only way you can make the case for your two shot scenario is to lie about what numerous witnesses have said. You do this because you are a troll.
--- End quote ---
You really should find a niche on a religion forum, because so many of your statements are right out of the atheist playbook. Either atheism or religion can be "faith based" in the sense of an entirely mindless adoption of a position for reasons having little or nothing to do with the ontological truth of that position. It is the atheist playbook that religion is entirely faith-based - i.e., nothing but delusional or "magical" thinking. In fact, serious believers - such as myself - have evaluated a vast body of scientific, anecdotal and testimonial evidence, as well as philosophical and theological arguments, in arriving at convictions that can be described as religious. The "leap of faith" in the direction of religion is not markedly different from the "leap of faith" toward atheism because the ontological truth of either position cannot be known in this lifetime. The comparison between a believer and unbeliever is simply a matter of how much diligence the individual has exercised in reaching his or her convictions and the depth of those convictions. Once one has reached a set of religious convictions and is inside the religious framework, then the term "faith" is indeed used in a slightly different and uniquely religious sense that is something along the lines of "internal knowledge."
At this point, the three-shot scenario is not unlike a religious conviction. The ontological truth will never be known. What you call "an overwhelming preponderance of the evidence" others who are equally informed do not find so overwhelming. I do not find it overwhelming. When no one can tell us when the first shot was even fired, and there is no physical evidence apart from a shell with an oddly shaped primer indentation and a dented lip, to refer to "overwhelming" evidence sounds very much like the claim of a religious zealot. You find the evidence sufficient to reach some level of conviction, while others find it sufficient to reach a different conviction or end up holding an "agnostic" position on the issue. That's just the reality - it's a matter of how one interprets the evidence.
Your persistence in calling Jack a troll is exactly what a religious zealot or militant atheist does. "Only I know God, and if you disagree with me and [my interpretation of] the Bible you're going to hell!" "If you persist in believing there is a deity, you're just a delusional magic thinker!" The number of shots fired by Oswald is an open issue as to which intelligent and diligent people can hold different views. There is no certainty and at this point can never be. Before reading Phantom Shot, I had never considered the possibility of only two shots. Having read it and looked into the issue more deeply myself, it is a theory that has a lot of merit. What further underscores that your position is akin to a religious one is that, ironically, the two-shot scenario doesn't challenge the LN narrative at all! It is only a threat to your "dogma." The Great Schism of 1054 AD that forever split the Eastern Orthodox Church from the Catholic Church was largely over the filioque - i.e., whether the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from only the Father or both the Father and the Son. It sounds completely goofy to me, but this "three shot or two shot" debate is strikingly similar: did three shots (orthodoxy!) or only two (heresy!) proceed from Oswald's rifle in the religion we call the LN narrative?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version