Dr. E. Forrest Chapman

[Lance Payette]

Just to state the obvious: The dent and the firing pin impression are two different issues. The dent is WHY CE 543 would have been used as a dry-firing round. It couldn't be reloaded and had no value.

[John Corbett]

What Lutz's demonstration showed is that a spent shell could be dented when rapidly ejected from the rifle. It's a little unreasonable to expect Lutz to replicate the exact amount of force Oswald did and produce the same dent.

[Charles Collins]

Just to state the obvious: The dent and the firing pin impression are two different issues. The dent is WHY CE 543 would have been used as a dry-firing round. It couldn't be reloaded and had no value.

FWIW:

Another snip from “Phantom Shot” by Mike Majerus and Jack Nessan:

It is very possible that the dent in CE 543 occurred as a result of Oswald using the shell casing multiple times for dry firing. During one of those times, it could have snagged while being rechambered or ejected. When the FBI examined CE 543, it found marks that indicated it had been loaded into and extracted from a weapon at least three times. (26WH:449; CE 2968). Warren Commission firearms expert Joseph Nicol did tests on CE 543 confirming this. He said the marks could definitely have been made by dry firing the shell casing. (3WH:509-510).

[Lance Payette]

And to further state the obvious (my specialty!), it seems to me the WC and HSCA experts were focusing on "Can CE 543 be attributed to Oswald's M-C?" (yes) and not "Can it be attributed to Oswald's M-C but more plausibly explained as a dry-firing shell?" (possibly).

[Jack Nessan]

Combine the above AI answers with the HSCA testimony from the link that Lance posted earlier in this thread, and I believe we have the answer as to how the dent in CE 543 most likely occurred.


Mr. MCDONALD. Are you saying then when your panel test fired
CE-139, out of four fired cartridges, one was ejected with a dented
mouth? Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir, that occurred during the ejection proc-
ess in firing the weapon.
If I may.
Mr. McDONALD. Yes, please.
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. The ejection is that process whereby the bolt
handle is moved to the rear to eject the expended cartridge case,
ejecting the cartridge case out of the weapon.
Mr. MCDONALD. Now, when you tested the rifle, the panel tested
the rifle, ofyour panel members, who ejected the shell or cartridge
case that came out with the dent?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Mr. Lutz.
Mr. MCDONALD. Would Mr. Lutz please come forward and dem-
onstrate to us how you ejected to cause a dent in the test cartridge
case. Mr. LUTZ. The particular amount of force that I used to extract
and eject the cartridge case from the weapon was much in the
manner that I would consider to be employed during anattempt to
rapidly fire the firearm. The cartridge was fired with the bolt being
closed and then with considerable speed and pressure being ap-
plied, opening it and pulling the bolt to the rear and holding it to
my side, and in a manner very rapidly, kicking the cartridge back
and ejecting the cartridge and causing it fall to the floor.
Mr. PREYER. Mr. Edgar.
Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Lutz, would you turn so we can see it.
Mr. LUTZ. In this manner, where I have grasped the bolt for-
ward, the cartridge had been fired, moved away from the firing
tube holding the bolt handle and then pulling it back with a
violent move duplicating what I deemed to be a rapid sequence of
firing, operating the handle to rapid sequence of
firing, operating the handle to rapidly fire the firearm.

CE 543 was not fired in the rifle. 

Just look at the dent in CE 543 and compare it to the dents people are claiming are the same. They are not even remotely the same. The dent in CE 543 has a dimple in the center of the dent and below the rim. The dent Lutz was claiming has a rounded downward bent over dent on the rim. That is not the same dent. The interesting thing about Lutz is he stated the shell hit the floor but he doesn’t seem to clue in on how that could have put the rounded dent on the lip of the shell. No one has ever replicated the dent in CE 543. No one is sure how it was done.

Mr. Lutz....  “kicking the cartridge back
and ejecting the cartridge and causing it fall to the floor.”
--------------------

 Just personally messing around with the carcanos’, I do not see how the ejection process can cause a dent no matter how stupid a person gets pulling the bolt back. The shell is not released from the bolt until it bottoms out on the back ejector.

In Lutz’s testimony he gives the most likely cause for the dent in his statement that the shell hit the floor.

[Jack Nessan]

That’s interesting Jack, thanks.

What seems preposterous to me about the dry-firing theory is that: if an empty cartridge were to be used for dry fire and the firing pin struck the primer for a second time, I believe that the initial impressions stamped into the primer by the firing pin when the live bullet was fired would be obliterated such that an identification would not be feasible.

Have you taken any of the test cartridges that you dry-fired to a firearms expert and asked if they could be identified as being fired from the rifle you used?

No. I have not and won't. I don't question whether Frazier or Dr. Chapman are being dishonest. How many times it could be erased and replaced would be totally hypothetical if it even can be. Obviously from what I have seen, how hard the firing pin strikes the primer varies dramatically from rifle to rifle.

The firing pin impression is the best way they used to place the shell in Oswald’s carcano. It is like a fingerprint.

Oswald did not have to actually fire CE 543 to have a snap cap. Just pull the bullet out and pour the powder out and touch off the primer in the gun with the firing pin. The remaining powder residue flares out of the rifle barrel when the primer is ignited.

Important to remember is CE 543 does not have the chamber mark on the side of the shell casing that all the other shells associated with the rifle, as noted by the FBI in their analysis of the assassination shells and also noted by Josiah Thompson in his book, have exhibited on the side of the shell casing. 

[Jack Nessan]

JBC reacted. Glen Bennett reacted. Most people reported hearing 3 shots. Because that shot didn't hit anybody (except maybe Tague), many people did not realize it was a gunshot. At first some said they thought it was a firecracker or a motorcycle backfire. Charles Brehm can be seen in the Z-film clapping his hands even after JFK had been hit by the second shot, apparently oblivious to the fact JFK had just been shot. There is a wide disparity how people perceived that first shot. Some didn't even remember hearing the first shot and only remember hearing two, but the consensus of witnesses is that there were three which matches the number of spent shells found in the sniper's nest. Jarman, Norman, and Williams who were directly below Oswald when the shots were fired all testified to hearing three shots. Jarman and Williams both said they thought the first shot was a motorcycle backfire or a cop saluting the President.

No. JBC did not react until JFK has been hit and only heard two shots. Bennett is a two shot witness. Brehm is a two shot witness. Williams is a two shot witness, Jarman is a second shot was the headshot witness. Norman does not make a statement for four days. Eventually he even states he was only aware of two shots.
 
Seriously, does it not bother you that no one in Dealey Plaza heard this supposed early shot? Your only witness is a young girl on the sidewalk. Weren't there pigeons?