Dr. E. Forrest Chapman

[John Corbett]

Given your dabbling into religious beliefs, something you would understand is people seem to hold onto the third shot like a religion.

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]

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 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]

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.

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?

[Jack Nessan]

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.

Where in any of your replies did you clarify how wrong you were to make the claim that the rear bridge of the rifle caused all the dents on all the shells? You appeared to just skedaddle from such an ignorant statement.

What mistake? Nobody even cares about the dent in the HSCA shell casing, it is not even similar to CE 543. I guess someone desperate would.

There are two dents on CE 543, not just one. Have you not been following the discussion at all? The dented lip and the indent in the center of it that caused the dent. The rear bridge of the rifle could never have caused either of the dents. That was explained to for which you had no explanation at all. You have never explained how that was even possible or could have happened other than your opinion about some grainy photo.

Remember you obscured the center dimple on CE 543 with your line. Was that on purpose or inadvertent. If this was intentional, I still say shame on you. If it was unintentional, you might want to consider an apology for your mistake. Either way, there are two dents not just one. You know, the reason the HSCA was never able to replicate it, or anyone else and definitely not you.

While we are at it. You obviously believe the mouth of CE 543 is pushed in, but you posted a picture claiming it is virtually undetectable because of your yellow line.  To add insult to injury you then claim there is minimal flaring if any at all. If it is not flared how about explain the picture showing the dent with the blue line and how this is even possible without flaring. Maybe you need to rectify all the dents and your pictures so that it does not look like so much deception.

[Jack Nessan]

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?

Amen, Father. You and Mike Majerus have a lot in common, religious zealots and the study of the church being one of them. I am sure he would enjoy talking to you about religious believers.