Dr. E. Forrest Chapman

[Jack Nessan]

Jack! Jack! Jack! this is what I wrote:

“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.”

That is simply an off the top of my head idea; it is a far cry from “claiming” it.

How about you show us the 30 different marks that you claim are all in the same exact place?

No, sounded more likes a proclamation. Not just one dent but two dents from the same strike on the rear bridge. Unbelievable is what it is.

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.

Up your game a little bit and reread Six Seconds in Dallas.

[Jack Nessan]

What a ridiculous comment. JBC had no way of knowing of knowing whether the first shot hit JFK. That's something he was led to believe and why he rejected the SBT. He knew he had been hit by the SECOND shot. That fact alone eliminates your two shot scenario.
It's not in that cherry picked quote. You completely ignore his testimony that the first shot did not strike him. Whether the first shot struck JFK or not, that makes your two shot scenario impossible. The only way you can make a two shot scenario work is if you believe JBC just imagined hearing the first shot.
The only thing that is undeniable is that you lie shamelessly. A lot. You lie when you claim there were no 3 shot witnesses. Jarman, Norman, ad Willaims who were one floor below Oswald testified UNDER OATH, that they heard three shots. Glen Bennett's report said the following:

"At this point I heard what sounded like a firecracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head."

That's one shot that he heard, and TWO MORE that he SAW hit JFK. That's three shots, with the first being a missed shot.

You are nothing but a lying troll. I just posted his report which described three shots.
Keep lying about the evidence. It's all you know how to do.

If only you had evidence of your claim.

I think the problem is obvious. You're the “no child left behind” everyone is worried about. How can you make these JBC and Bennett claims knowing what they stated? Incredible.

Here is the Bennett statement you should have posted.

Glenn Bennett: We made a left hand turn and then a quick right. The President's auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, looked at the boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder. A second shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head.

When did JBC start supporting the SBT? In your fantasy tale, you have him supporting it. He is the witness you claim supports the early missed shot.

[Lance Payette]

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?

[Charles Collins]

No, sounded more likes a proclamation. Not just one dent but two dents from the same strike on the rear bridge. Unbelievable is what it is.

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.

Up your game a little bit and reread Six Seconds in Dallas.

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.

[Charles Collins]

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?

Lance, if you haven’t already read it, the article that Jack cited very early on in this thread that includes a bit about Dr. Chapman can be found at this link at archive.org:

https://archive.org/details/they-killed-the-president-by-alan-stang-american-opinion-february-1976


Personally, I wasn’t impressed with Dr. Chapman’s experiments with a Carcano rifle. One of the tests literally backfired in his face and injured him substantially.

If you continue to read the rest of the article you will be treated to one of the most bizarre conspiracy theories that I have read. You seem to like weird stuff. So I thought you might be interested.