Dr. E. Forrest Chapman

[Charles Collins]

It is called a fictional story. Maybe your rifle has a point on the bridge, but none of the others do.

Where two circles meet [collide] is a single point. Below is a better image of CE 543. The mouth definitely isn’t flared out. And the dent appears to fit the blue arc of a circle roughly the diameter of the outside of the bridge.

[Jack Nessan]

Where two circles meet [collide] is a single point. Below is a better image of CE 543. The mouth definitely isn’t flared out. And the dent appears to fit the blue arc of a circle roughly the diameter of the outside of the bridge.

As dented in as CE 543 is, your previous post proves it is flared out. Thanks for posting the picture of CE 543 from the top. Clears this up.

Gave up on your chamber mark theory being caused by the rear receiver bridge? Too ridiculous? Too similar to being a believer in an early missed shot?

[Charles Collins]

As dented in as CE 543 is, your previous post proves it is flared out. Thanks for posting the picture of CE 543 from the top. Clears this up.

Gave up on your chamber mark theory being caused by the rear receiver bridge? Too ridiculous? Too similar to being a believer in an early missed shot?

It’s just the opposite Jack, the higher quality photo from a side angle shows us that there is absolutely no flare out on the mouth of CE 543. And furthermore, when we now compare the two top view photos of CE 543 and the HSCA test cartridge #2, we can now see how very similar they actually are. I am now of the strong opinion that the rear bridge caused both dents.

[Jack Nessan]

It’s just the opposite Jack, the higher quality photo from a side angle shows us that there is absolutely no flare out on the mouth of CE 543. And furthermore, when we now compare the two top view photos of CE 543 and the HSCA test cartridge #2, we can now see how very similar they actually are. I am now of the strong opinion that the rear bridge caused both dents.

You started the thread already convinced because you are an early missed shot advocate, desperately trying to salvage the theory. Nothing more. If you can be convinced by what you have posted you can be convinced of anything and already have been. Just look at your track record on other subjects. There is the assassination and then there is your assassination.

The CE 543 shell is flared at the top and on both sides. Maybe you missed that. 

The early missed shot nonsense is never going to work. Look at what that belief has led you to do just on this thread. It is not my lot in life to educate you. It looks like a fool's game to try.

[John Corbett]

You started the thread already convinced because you are an early missed shot advocate, desperately trying to salvage the theory. Nothing more. If you can be convinced by what you have posted you can be convinced of anything and already have been. Just look at your track record on other subjects. There is the assassination and then there is your assassination.

The CE 543 shell is flared at the top and on both sides. Maybe you missed that. 

The early missed shot nonsense is never going to work. Look at what that belief has led you to do just on this thread. It is not my lot in life to educate you. It looks like a fool's game to try.

The way you argue against the early missed shot is by inventing excuses to disregard the clear majority of witnesses who heard three shots and the existence of three spent shells found in the sniper's nest. Yes, a majority of witnesses CAN be wrong but that doesn't mean they were wrong. The way you determine that is to compare their statements with other evidence. In this case we have the three spent shells and the CORROBORATED statements of JBC  and Glen Bennett. JBC heard a shot seconds before he felt a bullet strike him in the back. Bennett heard a shot BEFORE the one he saw strike JFK in the back. Both of these men HEARD a shot before the one that hit both JFK and JBC.

[Michael Capasse]

Yes, a majority of witnesses CAN be wrong but that doesn't mean they were wrong.

  fork tongue.

[John Corbett]

fork tongue.

How is that a "forked tongue". It is a simple recognition of a simple fact that witnesses sometimes get things right and sometimes they get things wrong. It's not an all or nothing proposition.