JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Tom Graves on May 05, 2026, 03:02:54 AM

Title: What about that dent?
Post by: Tom Graves on May 05, 2026, 03:02:54 AM
ME: Were any of the shells that were found in the "Sniper's Nest" on 11/22/63 dented? If so, does it present a problem for the official conclusion of the Warren Commission?

Thought for 23s

GROK: Yes, one of the three spent cartridge cases (shells) found in the "sniper's nest" on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository had a dent. The three cases recovered by Dallas police on November 22, 1963, were designated as Warren Commission Exhibits (CE) 543, 544, and 545. CE 543 had a noticeable inward dent on the mouth (the open lip where the bullet had been seated).

educationforum.ipbhost.com +1

This dent has been documented in photographs taken at the scene (and later in Commission exhibits) and was examined by the FBI and, later, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Firearms Panel. The other two cases (CE 544 and CE 545) were undamaged in this way.

aarclibrary.org

No, this does not present a problem for the Warren Commission's official conclusion (that Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots from a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in the sniper's nest, with the three cartridge cases ejected from that rifle). The Warren Commission itself relied on FBI ballistic analysis showing that all three cases had been fired in Oswald's rifle (CE 139), based on matching firing-pin impressions, extractor marks, and bolt-face marks.

archives.gov

The dent on CE 543 prompted criticism from some researchers, who argued it was so severe that the case could not have held a live bullet beforehand (implying it could not have been one of the three shots fired during the assassination, or that the case was planted or previously damaged).

jfk.boards.net +1

However, the HSCA Firearms Panel (a team of independent firearms experts) directly addressed this in 1977–1978.

They concluded:

The dent on the mouth of CE 543 was produced during ejection from the rifle (specifically, from rapid operation of the bolt/ejector mechanism), not before firing or from manufacturing/loading.

They duplicated an identical dent in test firings with Oswald’s rifle (one of four test cases showed a comparable dent when the bolt was worked quickly).
Microscopic comparison confirmed that all three cases (including the dented CE 543) were fired in the CE 139 rifle, with no evidence of multiple chamberings or prior firings.

aarclibrary.org +1

The panel explicitly rejected the idea that the dent would have prevented the case from being fired in the rifle (or any rifle).

ronaldjlilek.medium.com

The Warren Commission (1964) did not dwell on the dent as an issue—the FBI’s initial matching of the cases to the rifle was sufficient for their conclusion of three shots from the sniper’s nest. The later HSCA analysis reinforced this by resolving the dent question through direct experimentation. While some conspiracy-oriented analyses continue to dispute the replication or point to minor chain-of-custody details (e.g., CE 543 was turned over to the FBI a few days later than the others), the official forensic examinations found the dent fully consistent with the three-shot scenario.

documents3.theblackvault.com

In short, the dent is real and well-documented, but it has been explained as post-firing ejection damage and does not contradict (or undermine) the Warren Commission’s ballistics findings or lone-gunman conclusion.

Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Benjamin Cole on May 05, 2026, 03:19:57 AM
In general, the HSCA was skeptical and reasonable in their JFKA findings.

While the WC/FBI may have leaned on evidence, I think the HSCA mostly played it down the middle.

I accept the HSCA conclusions regarding the dent.
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Tom Graves on May 05, 2026, 04:16:40 AM
In general, the HSCA was skeptical and reasonable in their JFKA findings.

While the WC/FBI may have leaned on evidence, I think the HSCA mostly played it down the middle.

I accept the HSCA conclusions regarding the dent.

Do you agree with its analysis of the Dictabelt sounds or "sounds"?
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: John Corbett on May 05, 2026, 04:23:17 AM
In general, the HSCA was skeptical and reasonable in their JFKA findings.

While the WC/FBI may have leaned on evidence, I think the HSCA mostly played it down the middle.

I accept the HSCA conclusions regarding the dent.

The WC/FBI leaned on evidence to reach its conclusions? What a novel idea. What did the HSCA use. A Ouija Board?
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Bill Brown on May 05, 2026, 06:22:49 AM
ME: Were any of the shells that were found in the "Sniper's Nest" on 11/22/63 dented? If so, does it present a problem for the official conclusion of the Warren Commission?

Thought for 23s

GROK: Yes, one of the three spent cartridge cases (shells) found in the "sniper's nest" on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository had a dent. The three cases recovered by Dallas police on November 22, 1963, were designated as Warren Commission Exhibits (CE) 543, 544, and 545. CE 543 had a noticeable inward dent on the mouth (the open lip where the bullet had been seated).

educationforum.ipbhost.com +1

This dent has been documented in photographs taken at the scene (and later in Commission exhibits) and was examined by the FBI and, later, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Firearms Panel. The other two cases (CE 544 and CE 545) were undamaged in this way.

aarclibrary.org

No, this does not present a problem for the Warren Commission's official conclusion (that Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots from a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in the sniper's nest, with the three cartridge cases ejected from that rifle). The Warren Commission itself relied on FBI ballistic analysis showing that all three cases had been fired in Oswald's rifle (CE 139), based on matching firing-pin impressions, extractor marks, and bolt-face marks.

archives.gov

The dent on CE 543 prompted criticism from some researchers, who argued it was so severe that the case could not have held a live bullet beforehand (implying it could not have been one of the three shots fired during the assassination, or that the case was planted or previously damaged).

jfk.boards.net +1

However, the HSCA Firearms Panel (a team of independent firearms experts) directly addressed this in 1977–1978.

They concluded:

The dent on the mouth of CE 543 was produced during ejection from the rifle (specifically, from rapid operation of the bolt/ejector mechanism), not before firing or from manufacturing/loading.

They duplicated an identical dent in test firings with Oswald’s rifle (one of four test cases showed a comparable dent when the bolt was worked quickly).
Microscopic comparison confirmed that all three cases (including the dented CE 543) were fired in the CE 139 rifle, with no evidence of multiple chamberings or prior firings.

aarclibrary.org +1

The panel explicitly rejected the idea that the dent would have prevented the case from being fired in the rifle (or any rifle).

ronaldjlilek.medium.com

The Warren Commission (1964) did not dwell on the dent as an issue—the FBI’s initial matching of the cases to the rifle was sufficient for their conclusion of three shots from the sniper’s nest. The later HSCA analysis reinforced this by resolving the dent question through direct experimentation. While some conspiracy-oriented analyses continue to dispute the replication or point to minor chain-of-custody details (e.g., CE 543 was turned over to the FBI a few days later than the others), the official forensic examinations found the dent fully consistent with the three-shot scenario.

documents3.theblackvault.com

In short, the dent is real and well-documented, but it has been explained as post-firing ejection damage and does not contradict (or undermine) the Warren Commission’s ballistics findings or lone-gunman conclusion.

Short cycle.  Shooter error.

Oswald fired off a shot and in the act of operating the bolt, did not pull the bolt back far enough (focusing only on speed instead of operating the bolt properly).  This caused the spent shell casing to not eject as it should, getting caught and therefore dented before a second action of operating the bolt finally ejected the shell casing.
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Benjamin Cole on May 05, 2026, 06:26:44 AM
TG-

I could never make heads nor tails out of what any of the audio experts said on the dictabelt, on any side of the issue.

Unlike the Z-film, where a layman can make a reasonable educated guess what happened, I suspect almost no one in the JFKA research community has any idea what the audio experts are talking about.

Who knows?

Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Tom Graves on May 05, 2026, 07:35:55 AM
TG-

I could never make heads nor tails out of what any of the audio experts said on the dictabelt, on any side of the issue.

Unlike the Z-film, where a layman can make a reasonable educated guess what happened, I suspect almost no one in the JFKA research community has any idea what the audio experts are talking about.

Who knows?

Maybe? Maybe not?

ME: Was H. B. McLain's motorcycle's radio stuck in the "on" position when he was travelling on Houston Street a few seconds before the first shot rang out?

Thought for 4s

GROK: No, according to H.B. McLain himself and significant later analysis; the HSCA initially concluded yes, but this is heavily disputed.

en.wikipedia.org

H.B. McLain (sometimes spelled McLain or McLean) was a Dallas Police Department motorcycle officer riding in the JFK motorcade on November 22, 1963. He was positioned on the left rear of the motorcade (near Vice President Johnson's car) and testified that he was on Houston Street, approaching the turn onto Elm Street, when he heard the first shot.

aarclibrary.org

HSCA Position (1978–1979)The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) used acoustic analysis of a Dallas Police Dictabelt recording (Channel 1) to argue there was a fourth shot from the grassy knoll, implying a conspiracy. They identified a ~5.5-minute "stuck microphone" transmission—where the mic button stayed open—as coming from McLain's motorcycle.

en.wikipedia.org

Timing and location match: The HSCA placed the open-mic motorcycle on Houston Street seconds before the first shot (impulses analyzed as gunshots), consistent with McLain's position and testimony.

jfk-records.com

McLain acknowledged in testimony that his microphone could stick open (it had happened before due to worn gaskets or relays), though he had no specific memory of it doing so that day. He normally used Channel 1 and didn't recall using his radio during the motorcade.

aarclibrary.org

McLain's Denial and Counter-EvidenceMcLain strongly disputed the HSCA's identification after hearing the recording:He said it was not his motorcycle because the tape lacks sounds of him revving his engine at high speed or activating his siren immediately after the shots (as he recalled doing while racing to Parkland Hospital).

youtube.com

The engine sounds on the tape reportedly match a three-wheeled motorcycle better than his two-wheeler.

en.wikipedia.org

Later Dallas Police analysis and critics argued his bike was not in the right position or that the acoustic matches were flawed. McLain maintained the stuck mic was someone else's.

independent.org

Subsequent reviews (e.g., by the National Academy of Sciences and others) have criticized the HSCA acoustics as unreliable due to issues with synchronization, crosstalk, and identification of the bike. The "stuck mic" theory remains controversial and is not universally accepted.

en.wikipedia.org

In short: The HSCA said yes (McLain's bike on Houston Street with stuck "on" mic), but McLain and many analysts said no—the evidence doesn't hold up under scrutiny of his actions and the audio. This remains a debated piece of JFK assassination lore tied to the conspiracy vs. lone-gunman arguments.


ME: After he listened to the Dictabelt recording, did he say that the motorcycle with the stuck radio sounded like a three-wheeler?

Thought for 3s

Yes.

en.wikipedia.org

After listening to the Dictabelt recording (following his 1978 HSCA testimony, where he had acknowledged the possibility of a stuck mic but lacked specific recall), H.B. McLain explicitly stated that the engine sounds on the tape came from a three-wheeled motorcycle, not his two-wheeled Harley-Davidson solo bike.

kenrahn.com

Key quotes and details:

McLain told author Dale Myers (in an interview recounted in Myers' work): “I told him, ‘It’s a three-wheeler that’s stuck.’ You can tell very clearly the difference between the sound of a solo motorcycle that we rode and a three-wheel motorcycle; it’s like daylight and dark. The solo engine has kind of a thump to it: CHUKE.. CHUKE.. CHUKE.., while the three-wheeler has more of a thrashing sound.. AAANG.. AAANG.. AAANG!”

kenrahn.com

He also said: "There's no comparison to the two sounds."

en.wikipedia.org

This was one of his main reasons for rejecting the HSCA's identification of his motorcycle as the one with the stuck-open microphone. He further noted the absence of his engine revving at high speed or his siren activating as he raced toward Parkland Hospital, and he believed the recording likely came from a different officer on a three-wheeler (possibly near the Trade Mart).

en.wikipedia.org

This point has been cited in Wikipedia summaries, books, and discussions of the Dictabelt evidence, reinforcing McLain's consistent post-recording denial. The three-wheeler distinction remains a key element in critiques of the acoustic evidence for a grassy knoll shot.


ME: Did he say that the three-wheeler must have been near another motorcycle that didn't have a stuck mic?

Thought for 5s

GROK: No, there is no record of H.B. McLain saying that.

kenrahn.com

In his detailed accounts (including interviews recounted by author Dale Myers and in The Deed by Gerald Posner), McLain consistently identified the stuck-mic sounds as coming from a single three-wheeled motorcycle (a Harley Servi-Car) operated by an officer known for whistling—likely Leslie "Les" Beilharz—stationed near the Dallas Trade Mart, about three miles from Dealey Plaza.

kenrahn.com

Key points from McLain's statements:He emphasized the distinct engine sound ("thrashing" AAANG.. AAANG.. vs. his solo bike's "thump" CHUKE.. CHUKE..) and other audio cues like the rider whistling, a loose manhole cover ("Bong...Bong"), and a sheriff’s car radio also assigned to the Trade Mart area.

kenrahn.com

He described the stuck mic as isolated to that three-wheeler, far from the motorcade and Dealey Plaza, which explained why no shots or relevant motorcade sounds (like his own siren or high-speed revving) appeared on the Dictabelt.

en.wikipedia.org

There is no mention by McLain (or in associated analyses citing him) of the three-wheeler being near another motorcycle whose mic was not stuck. He and dispatcher J.C. Bowles used the clues to pinpoint one specific officer and location, ruling out the motorcade entirely.

kenrahn.com

This aligns with broader critiques of the HSCA acoustics: the open-mic recording originated elsewhere, not from McLain's position on Houston Street. McLain's focus was always on disproving it was his bike by highlighting the mismatch with a solitary three-wheeler elsewhere.


ME: He said that in a January 4, 1979, interview to Helmer Reenberg which can be watched on YouTube.

Thought for 5s

GROK: Yes, in that specific January 4, 1979, interview with Helmer Reenberg (available on YouTube), H.B. McLain stated exactly that.

youtube.com

Relevant excerpt from the interview (transcribed from the video):"...it's going to have to come from some place where you've got two vehicles sitting fairly close together with one of them stuck because they have two tapes one of them is on channel one [and] one is on channel two and you can hear the same voice on channel one as [on] channel two..."
McLain was explaining why the Dictabelt recording could not have come from his motorcycle (or any near the motorcade in Dealey Plaza). He theorized the stuck mic was on one police vehicle (a three-wheeler, per his other statements) located near a second vehicle whose radio was operating normally on Channel 2, allowing cross-hearing of the same voice on both channels. This placed the source far from Dealey Plaza (e.g., near the Trade Mart), consistent with his rejection of the HSCA acoustics.

youtube.com

This detail aligns with his broader critique (distinct engine sounds, no siren/revving, etc.) but specifically addresses the dual-channel aspect in this early post-HSCA interview. Earlier and later accounts (e.g., with Dale Myers) focus more on the three-wheeler identification and location without always repeating the "two vehicles" point.
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on June 03, 2026, 09:16:06 PM
ME: Were any of the shells that were found in the "Sniper's Nest" on 11/22/63 dented? If so, does it present a problem for the official conclusion of the Warren Commission?

Thought for 23s

GROK: Yes, one of the three spent cartridge cases (shells) found in the "sniper's nest" on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository had a dent. The three cases recovered by Dallas police on November 22, 1963, were designated as Warren Commission Exhibits (CE) 543, 544, and 545. CE 543 had a noticeable inward dent on the mouth (the open lip where the bullet had been seated).

educationforum.ipbhost.com +1

This dent has been documented in photographs taken at the scene (and later in Commission exhibits) and was examined by the FBI and, later, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Firearms Panel. The other two cases (CE 544 and CE 545) were undamaged in this way.

aarclibrary.org

No, this does not present a problem for the Warren Commission's official conclusion (that Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots from a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in the sniper's nest, with the three cartridge cases ejected from that rifle). The Warren Commission itself relied on FBI ballistic analysis showing that all three cases had been fired in Oswald's rifle (CE 139), based on matching firing-pin impressions, extractor marks, and bolt-face marks.

archives.gov

The dent on CE 543 prompted criticism from some researchers, who argued it was so severe that the case could not have held a live bullet beforehand (implying it could not have been one of the three shots fired during the assassination, or that the case was planted or previously damaged).

jfk.boards.net +1

However, the HSCA Firearms Panel (a team of independent firearms experts) directly addressed this in 1977–1978.

They concluded:

The dent on the mouth of CE 543 was produced during ejection from the rifle (specifically, from rapid operation of the bolt/ejector mechanism), not before firing or from manufacturing/loading.

They duplicated an identical dent in test firings with Oswald’s rifle (one of four test cases showed a comparable dent when the bolt was worked quickly).
Microscopic comparison confirmed that all three cases (including the dented CE 543) were fired in the CE 139 rifle, with no evidence of multiple chamberings or prior firings.

aarclibrary.org +1

The panel explicitly rejected the idea that the dent would have prevented the case from being fired in the rifle (or any rifle).

ronaldjlilek.medium.com

The Warren Commission (1964) did not dwell on the dent as an issue—the FBI’s initial matching of the cases to the rifle was sufficient for their conclusion of three shots from the sniper’s nest. The later HSCA analysis reinforced this by resolving the dent question through direct experimentation. While some conspiracy-oriented analyses continue to dispute the replication or point to minor chain-of-custody details (e.g., CE 543 was turned over to the FBI a few days later than the others), the official forensic examinations found the dent fully consistent with the three-shot scenario.

documents3.theblackvault.com

In short, the dent is real and well-documented, but it has been explained as post-firing ejection damage and does not contradict (or undermine) the Warren Commission’s ballistics findings or lone-gunman conclusion.

It is sad, and really inexcusable, to see anyone repeating these long-since debunked claims. The dented shell, CE 543, is hard evidence of conspiracy because the shell could not have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination.

No, the HSCA firearms experts did not duplicate the CE 543 dent in any of their test shells. Anyone can look at the shells they produced and see that they are not nearly as dented as CE 543. The same goes for Chad Zimmerman's supposed duplication of the dent in CE 543.

A few other important facts:

-- CE 543 has three sets of marks on the base that are not found on the two other shells and that were not made on any of the numerous shells that were ejected from the alleged murder weapon during firing tests.

-- CE 543 does not have the characteristic chambering impression along the side exhibited by the other cartridges we know to have been seated in the chamber of the alleged murder weapon, i.e.,, CE 544 and CE 545, and also CE 141 (the live round found in the chamber of the rifle. The impression on CE 141 is in the same location but is not as pronounced as on CEs 544 and 545, almost certainly due to the fact that it was not fired.

-- CE 543 could not have been marked by the alleged murder weapon’s magazine follower during the assassination because there was a live round left in the rifle’s chamber and only the last shell in the clip is marked by the magazine follower. This fact alone discredits the HSCA firearms experts' claims about the dented shell, as research scientist Dr. Don Thomas has explained:

Furthermore, according to the FBI experts, the casing had been marked by the magazine follower. This fact is especially relevant because only the last cartridge in the clip is marked by the magazine follower, and inasmuch as the Oswald rifle still had one live round in the chamber, CE 543 could not have been marked by the magazine follower as an operation of the rifle during the assassination. The failure of the HSCA Firearms Panel to disclose or discuss the discrepancy between their conclusion and the FBI findings forces the conclusion that the Firearms Panel analysis of this problem was less than forthright and certainly less than thorough. (Hear No Evil: Politics, Science, and the Forensic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination, New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2010, p. 141)

I discuss the dented shell at length in my book A Comforting Lie: They Myth That a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy. A condensed version of that discussion is available on my website:

The Dented Bullet Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ihue8a0GmN_Ptl38bPjpu1F99nqU0Z6f/view





Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Lance Payette on June 03, 2026, 11:30:08 PM
MTG: "Because if that cartridge case could not have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination, then there must have been more than one gunman."

Dented shell: Dry firing round in the chamber of the disassembled M-C in Ruth Paine's garage. JFKA: Two shots. Case closed. You're welcome.

Helpful freebie advice: I notice MTG's paper says "@ All Rights Reserved." Obviously "@" is incorrect and looks goofy. The copyright symbol may be found on your keyboard by holding the Alt key and typing 0169 on the numeric keyboard, to wit:

© 2022 Michael T. Griffith. All rights reserved.

There, now you don't look like a goofball. Actually, none of that is necessary. Copyright protection is automatic. You do need to register the copyright to sue for infringement, but you can do that just before you sue and there is little risk of anyone even wanting to infringe your work anyway. I did some copyright and trademark work when I was an in-house attorney at Xerox. Anyone want to hear about the Berne Convention?
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: John Corbett on June 04, 2026, 01:19:35 AM
MTG: "Because if that cartridge case could not have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination, then there must have been more than one gunman."

Dented shell: Dry firing round in the chamber of the disassembled M-C in Ruth Paine's garage. JFKA: Two shots. Case closed. You're welcome.

Helpful freebie advice: I notice MTG's paper says "@ All Rights Reserved." Obviously "@" is incorrect and looks goofy. The copyright symbol may be found on your keyboard by holding the Alt key and typing 0169 on the numeric keyboard, to wit:

© 2022 Michael T. Griffith. All rights reserved.

There, now you don't look like a goofball. Actually, none of that is necessary. Copyright protection is automatic. You do need to register the copyright to sue for infringement, but you can do that just before you sue and there is little risk of anyone even wanting to infringe your work anyway. I did some copyright and trademark work when I was an in-house attorney at Xerox. Anyone want to hear about the Berne Convention?

A two shot scenario is akin to the likelihood Oswald had accomplices, theoretcially possible but highly unlikely.
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on June 04, 2026, 02:08:11 PM
MTG: "Because if that cartridge case could not have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination, then there must have been more than one gunman."

Dented shell: Dry firing round in the chamber of the disassembled M-C in Ruth Paine's garage. JFKA: Two shots. Case closed. You're welcome.

The scenario of anyone dry-firing a round in a disassembled rifle seems like quite a stretch to begin with.

Anyway, it seems you simply did not grasp the fact that CE 543 could not have been chambered in the alleged murder weapon because it does not have the characteristic chambering impression that we see on CE 141 (and also on CEs 544 and 545). The impression on CE 141 is in the same location as the impression on CEs 544 and 545, but is not as pronounced because it was not fired. If CE 543 had been dry-fired in the alleged murder weapon, or had been fired during the assassination, it would have that same chambering impression on its side, but it does not.

Beyond this fact, if CE 543 was dry-fired in Ruth Paine's garage, how in the world did it end up on the floor of the sixth-floor sniper's nest? 

A two-shot lone-gunman scenario is absurd. We have the curb shot that sprayed concrete and cut Tague's face. We have the shot that scraped the curb near the manhole cover on Elm Street and then burrowed in the grass near the manhole cover and was seen and reported by a police officer. We have the pre-Z190 shot that numerous witnesses saw strike the pavement near JFK's limo. We have the pre-Z313 hit on JFK and the pre-Z313 hit on Connally. And we have the Z313 head shot. BTW, the Zapruder film shows reactions to six shots:

Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view

See also:

Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view

Tom Graves: As for your repetition of the standard lone-gunman arguments against the HSCA's acoustical evidence, apparently you are unaware that new testing done by BBN scientists in 2019-2020 proves that the acoustical evidence is valid, that the Decker crosstalk is merely an overdub that occurred during the copying process, and that the Fisher "I'll check" transmission is genuine crosstalk, which proves that the gunshot impulses on the tape occurred during the assassination.

Here are the major points of the acoustical evidence:

* At least four sets of gunshot impulse patterns with echo patterns unique to Dealey Plaza occur on the dictabelt recording. This was confirmed by two separate groups of acoustical scientists.

* The gunshot impulse patterns occur on the dictabelt recording at the time of the shooting, and nowhere else on the recording.

* The echo patterns indicate that the microphone (i.e., the motorcycle with the stuck mike) was moving at nearly the same average speed at which we know JFK’s limousine was moving on Elm Street. The open-mike motorcycle was moving at an average speed of 11.7 mph during the shooting. The limousine was moving at an average speed of 11.3 mph on Elm Street.

* Remarkable timing-movement correlations were found between the dictabelt gunshots and the test-firing gunshots. The BBN scientists determined that the probability that chance caused these correlations was “less than 1%.” Even the NRC panel admitted that their own calculations showed there was a 93% probability that the correlations were not the result of chance.

* The dictabelt contains N-waves from supersonic rifle fire, and those N-waves occur only among the identified gunshot impulse patterns, and only in the two impulse patterns that were recorded when the motorcycle’s microphone was in position to record them.

* The dictabelt not only contains N-waves but it also contains muzzle blasts and muzzle-blast echoes, and those N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes occur in the correct order and interval.

* Windshield distortions occur in the dictabelt's gunshot impulse patterns when they should and do not occur when they should not.

I again suggest you read my article on the acoustical evidence:

The HSCA’s Acoustical Evidence: Proof of a Second Gunman
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view

Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Lance Payette on June 04, 2026, 02:16:57 PM
Not dry-firing in a disassembled rifle. Leaving it there for convenience because mostly what he did with the rifle was dry-fire it. It was simply there when he repackaged the disassembled rifle and took it into the TSBD.
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Jack Nessan on June 04, 2026, 03:01:10 PM
The scenario of anyone dry-firing a round in a disassembled rifle seems like quite a stretch to begin with.

Anyway, it seems you simply did not grasp the fact that CE 543 could not have been chambered in the alleged murder weapon because it does not have the characteristic chambering impression that we see on CE 141 (and also on CEs 544 and 545). The impression on CE 141 is in the same location as the impression on CEs 544 and 545, but is not as pronounced because it was not fired. If CE 543 had been dry-fired in the alleged murder weapon, or had been fired during the assassination, it would have that same chambering impression on its side, but it does not.

Beyond this fact, if CE 543 was dry-fired in Ruth Paine's garage, how in the world did it end up on the floor of the sixth-floor sniper's nest? 

A two-shot lone-gunman scenario is absurd. We have the curb shot that sprayed concrete and cut Tague's face. We have the shot that scraped the curb near the manhole cover on Elm Street and then burrowed in the grass near the manhole cover and was seen and reported by a police officer. We have the pre-Z190 shot that numerous witnesses saw strike the pavement near JFK's limo. We have the pre-Z313 hit on JFK and the pre-Z313 hit on Connally. And we have the Z313 head shot. BTW, the Zapruder film shows reactions to six shots:

Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view

See also:

Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view

Tom Graves: As for your repetition of the standard lone-gunman arguments against the HSCA's acoustical evidence, apparently you are unaware that new testing done by BBN scientists in 2019-2020 proves that the acoustical evidence is valid, that the Decker crosstalk is merely an overdub that occurred during the copying process, and that the Fisher "I'll check" transmission is genuine crosstalk, which proves that the gunshot impulses on the tape occurred during the assassination.

Here are the major points of the acoustical evidence:

* At least four sets of gunshot impulse patterns with echo patterns unique to Dealey Plaza occur on the dictabelt recording. This was confirmed by two separate groups of acoustical scientists.

* The gunshot impulse patterns occur on the dictabelt recording at the time of the shooting, and nowhere else on the recording.

* The echo patterns indicate that the microphone (i.e., the motorcycle with the stuck mike) was moving at nearly the same average speed at which we know JFK’s limousine was moving on Elm Street. The open-mike motorcycle was moving at an average speed of 11.7 mph during the shooting. The limousine was moving at an average speed of 11.3 mph on Elm Street.

* Remarkable timing-movement correlations were found between the dictabelt gunshots and the test-firing gunshots. The BBN scientists determined that the probability that chance caused these correlations was “less than 1%.” Even the NRC panel admitted that their own calculations showed there was a 93% probability that the correlations were not the result of chance.

* The dictabelt contains N-waves from supersonic rifle fire, and those N-waves occur only among the identified gunshot impulse patterns, and only in the two impulse patterns that were recorded when the motorcycle’s microphone was in position to record them.

* The dictabelt not only contains N-waves but it also contains muzzle blasts and muzzle-blast echoes, and those N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes occur in the correct order and interval.

* Windshield distortions occur in the dictabelt's gunshot impulse patterns when they should and do not occur when they should not.

I again suggest you read my article on the acoustical evidence:

The HSCA’s Acoustical Evidence: Proof of a Second Gunman
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view


Anyway, it seems you simply did not grasp the fact that CE 543 could not have been chambered in the alleged murder weapon because it does not have the characteristic chambering impression that we see on CE 141 (and also on CEs 544 and 545). The impression on CE 141 is in the same location as the impression on CEs 544 and 545, but is not as pronounced because it was not fired. If CE 543 had been dry-fired in the alleged murder weapon, or had been fired during the assassination, it would have that same chambering impression on its side, but it does not.
 
Beyond this fact, if CE 543 was dry-fired in Ruth Paine's garage, how in the world did it end up on the floor of the sixth-floor sniper's nest? 
 
A two-shot lone-gunman scenario is absurd. We have the curb shot that sprayed concrete and cut Tague's face. We have the shot that scraped the curb near the manhole cover on Elm Street and then burrowed in the grass near the manhole cover and was seen and reported by a police officer. We have the pre-Z190 shot that numerous witnesses saw strike the pavement near JFK's limo. We have the pre-Z313 hit on JFK and the pre-Z313 hit on Connally. And we have the Z313 head shot. BTW, the Zapruder film shows reactions to six shots:


Is this all part of the same poor understanding of the JFKA that is represented in your medical analysis and continuously demonstrated in your posts.

CE 543 was matched to the rifle and noted by several firearms experts as having been dryfired. Maybe write a paper on how the evidence in the JFKA always seems to escape your simple minded understanding.

 
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Jack Nessan on June 04, 2026, 03:07:26 PM
A two shot scenario is akin to the likelihood Oswald had accomplices, theoretcially possible but highly unlikely.

Any breakthrough on proving your early missed shot fantasy yet? A rifle shot described by the HSCA Sound Analysis as being too loud to miss, is missed by all the eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza and you are totally OK with that belief. Unbelievable.
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on June 04, 2026, 03:13:45 PM
Not dry-firing in a disassembled rifle. Leaving it there for convenience because mostly what he did with the rifle was dry-fire it. It was simply there when he repackaged the disassembled rifle and took it into the TSBD.

Just SMH. So now you're changing your story. Just think about this ludicrous scenario, especially in light of the hard ballistics evidence I've presented about CE 543. You have no idea if Oswald "mostly" dry-fired the alleged murder weapon. Even WC staffer Wesley Liebeler doubted that unsubstantiated tale. Here's what Liebeler said on the matter in internal memos (all the memos are reprinted in 11 HSCA):

1. I do not believe there is any real authority for the proposition that Oswald sighted through the telescopic sight on the porch in New Orleans. Marina Oswald first said she did not know what he did with the rifle out on the porch, and then was led into a statement which might be thought to support the instant proposition. It is not very convincing. . . .

I should add that when first questioned, Marina said she'd never seen the rifle with a scope on it. She knew nothing about weapons anyway. If she didn't know what Oswald did with the rifle, this is just further proof that the dry-fire story is pure speculation.

Again:

-- CE 543 has three sets of marks on the base that are not found on the two other shells and that were not made on any of the numerous shells that were ejected from the alleged murder weapon during firing tests.

-- CE 543 does not have the characteristic chambering impression along the side exhibited by the other cartridges we know to have been seated in the chamber of the alleged murder weapon, i.e.,, CE 544 and CE 545, and also CE 141 (the live round found in the chamber of the rifle. The impression on CE 141 is in the same location but is not as pronounced as on CEs 544 and 545, almost certainly due to the fact that it was not fired.

-- CE 543 could not have been marked by the alleged murder weapon’s magazine follower during the assassination because there was a live round left in the rifle’s chamber and only the last shell in the clip is marked by the magazine follower. This fact alone discredits the HSCA firearms experts' claims about the dented shell, as research scientist Dr. Don Thomas has explained:

Furthermore, according to the FBI experts, the casing had been marked by the magazine follower. This fact is especially relevant because only the last cartridge in the clip is marked by the magazine follower, and inasmuch as the Oswald rifle still had one live round in the chamber, CE 543 could not have been marked by the magazine follower as an operation of the rifle during the assassination. The failure of the HSCA Firearms Panel to disclose or discuss the discrepancy between their conclusion and the FBI findings forces the conclusion that the Firearms Panel analysis of this problem was less than forthright and certainly less than thorough. (Hear No Evil: Politics, Science, and the Forensic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination, New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2010, p. 141)

I discuss the dented shell at length in my book A Comforting Lie: They Myth That a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy. A condensed version of that discussion is available on my website:

The Dented Bullet Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ihue8a0GmN_Ptl38bPjpu1F99nqU0Z6f/view

Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Jack Nessan on June 04, 2026, 04:22:16 PM
Just SMH. So now you're changing your story. Just think about this ludicrous scenario, especially in light of the hard ballistics evidence I've presented about CE 543. You have no idea if Oswald "mostly" dry-fired the alleged murder weapon. Even WC staffer Wesley Liebeler doubted that unsubstantiated tale. Here's what Liebeler said on the matter in internal memos (all the memos are reprinted in 11 HSCA):

1. I do not believe there is any real authority for the proposition that Oswald sighted through the telescopic sight on the porch in New Orleans. Marina Oswald first said she did not know what he did with the rifle out on the porch, and then was led into a statement which might be thought to support the instant proposition. It is not very convincing. . . .

I should add that when first questioned, Marina said she'd never seen the rifle with a scope on it. She knew nothing about weapons anyway. If she didn't know what Oswald did with the rifle, this is just further proof that the dry-fire story is pure speculation.

Again:

-- CE 543 has three sets of marks on the base that are not found on the two other shells and that were not made on any of the numerous shells that were ejected from the alleged murder weapon during firing tests.

-- CE 543 does not have the characteristic chambering impression along the side exhibited by the other cartridges we know to have been seated in the chamber of the alleged murder weapon, i.e.,, CE 544 and CE 545, and also CE 141 (the live round found in the chamber of the rifle. The impression on CE 141 is in the same location but is not as pronounced as on CEs 544 and 545, almost certainly due to the fact that it was not fired.

-- CE 543 could not have been marked by the alleged murder weapon’s magazine follower during the assassination because there was a live round left in the rifle’s chamber and only the last shell in the clip is marked by the magazine follower. This fact alone discredits the HSCA firearms experts' claims about the dented shell, as research scientist Dr. Don Thomas has explained:

Furthermore, according to the FBI experts, the casing had been marked by the magazine follower. This fact is especially relevant because only the last cartridge in the clip is marked by the magazine follower, and inasmuch as the Oswald rifle still had one live round in the chamber, CE 543 could not have been marked by the magazine follower as an operation of the rifle during the assassination. The failure of the HSCA Firearms Panel to disclose or discuss the discrepancy between their conclusion and the FBI findings forces the conclusion that the Firearms Panel analysis of this problem was less than forthright and certainly less than thorough. (Hear No Evil: Politics, Science, and the Forensic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination, New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2010, p. 141)

I discuss the dented shell at length in my book A Comforting Lie: They Myth That a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy. A condensed version of that discussion is available on my website:

The Dented Bullet Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ihue8a0GmN_Ptl38bPjpu1F99nqU0Z6f/view

Do you honestly not understand the evidence you have presented here.

-- CE 543 has three sets of marks on the base that are not found on the two other shells and that were not made on any of the numerous shells that were ejected from the alleged murder weapon during firing tests.
 
The marks are the result of the shell being pressed against the extractor when the trigger is pulled during the process of dry firing. You know Joseph Nicols' testimony to the WC. He was a real life expert, not this pretend nonsense presented here.


-- CE 543 does not have the characteristic chambering impression along the side exhibited by the other cartridges we know to have been seated in the chamber of the alleged murder weapon, i.e.,, CE 544 and CE 545, and also CE 141 (the live round found in the chamber of the rifle. The impression on CE 141 is in the same location but is not as pronounced as on CEs 544 and 545, almost certainly due to the fact that it was not fired.
 
That is the point. Josiah Thompson understood the ramifications of it very well. Wrote about it in his book. It seems the importance of it has gone right over your head. 

You presented CE 141 as evidence but don’t understand the mechanics of how the chamber mark was impressed into the shell casing? You know heat from the other cartridges having been fired before its introduction. Maybe if you had ever been around a firearm, you would know that.


-- CE 543 could not have been marked by the alleged murder weapon’s magazine follower during the assassination because there was a live round left in the rifle’s chamber and only the last shell in the clip is marked by the magazine follower. This fact alone discredits the HSCA firearms experts' claims about the dented shell, as research scientist Dr. Don Thomas has explained:

Your belief is that rifles cannot be loaded and unloaded. They have to be fired to empty the magazine. Again, maybe if you had ever been around a firearm, you would know that is wrong.

Seriously, you are posting about your supposed military training and you don't understand any of the info you presented here?
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Jarrett Smith on June 04, 2026, 04:40:45 PM
Any breakthrough on proving your early missed shot fantasy yet? A rifle shot described by the HSCA Sound Analysis as being too loud to miss, is missed by all the eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza and you are totally OK with that belief. Unbelievable.

What fantasy? The first shot was fired around Z-157, the second Z-223

The acoustics is incorrect. IF there were 2 head shots right together his head was pushed forward first then back, not the opposite. 

Many witnesses heard 3 shots the first when JFK slumped, and the third at Z-313. No way Oswald could fire 3 shots in 5 seconds.
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Jack Nessan on June 04, 2026, 04:46:46 PM
What fantasy? The first shot was fired around Z-157, the second Z-223

The acoustics is incorrect. IF there were 2 head shots right together his head was pushed forward first then back, not the opposite. 

Many witnesses heard 3 shots the first when JFK slumped, and the third at Z-313. No way Oswald could fire 3 shots in 5 seconds.

Which one is it. The first shot at Z157 or the first shot when JFK slumped.

What witness to a first shot before JFK slumped. That is the point.
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on June 04, 2026, 05:06:53 PM
Do you honestly not understand the evidence you have presented here.

I do, but you clearly don't. You always pretend to know more than anyone else but then make one blundering statement after another.

-- CE 543 has three sets of marks on the base that are not found on the two other shells and that were not made on any of the numerous shells that were ejected from the alleged murder weapon during firing tests.
 
The marks are the result of the shell being pressed against the extractor when the trigger is pulled during the process of dry firing. You know Joseph Nicols' testimony to the WC. He was a real life expert, not this pretend nonsense presented here.

LOL! One, CE 543 was supposedly fired during the assassination, but obviously it was not, even according to your amateurish take on Nicols' testimony. Two, this does not explain why there are no chambering impressions on CE 543. 

-- CE 543 does not have the characteristic chambering impression along the side exhibited by the other cartridges we know to have been seated in the chamber of the alleged murder weapon, i.e.,, CE 544 and CE 545, and also CE 141 (the live round found in the chamber of the rifle. The impression on CE 141 is in the same location but is not as pronounced as on CEs 544 and 545, almost certainly due to the fact that it was not fired.
 
That is the point. Josiah Thompson understood the ramifications of it very well. Wrote about it in his book. It seems the importance of it has gone right over your head.

This is just silly, not to mention dishonest. Yes, that is indeed the point, which I made clear. I tend to doubt that you've even read Thompson's analysis of CE 543. If you did, you didn't understand it.

You presented CE 141 as evidence but don’t understand the mechanics of how the chamber mark was impressed into the shell casing? You know heat from the other cartridges having been fired before its introduction. Maybe if you had ever been around a firearm, you would know that.

This is another one of your silly and dishonest strawman attacks. Why don't you quote from Thompson's analysis, hey? I wonder if you just don't know that Thompson argues that at least four shots were fired.

-- CE 543 could not have been marked by the alleged murder weapon’s magazine follower during the assassination because there was a live round left in the rifle’s chamber and only the last shell in the clip is marked by the magazine follower. This fact alone discredits the HSCA firearms experts' claims about the dented shell, as research scientist Dr. Don Thomas has explained:

Your belief is that rifles cannot be loaded and unloaded. They have to be fired to empty the magazine. Again, maybe if you had ever been around a firearm, you would know that is wrong.

LOL! Are you in junior high or something? The level of silliness and dishonesty in your strawman arguments is pitiful. I notice you snipped Dr. Thomas's comments. Gee, I wonder why.

Seriously, you are posting about your supposed military training and you don't understand any of the info you presented here?

I know far more than you do about firearms. You're a silly troll who pretends to understand issues that you clearly don't understand. Your tactic is to make ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments because you can't deal credibly with the evidence.

Why don't you address the arguments about CE 543 made by recognized firearms experts that I present in my article? I'm guessing you still haven't bothered to read my article on CE 543.

People should know that you're a peddler of the fringe two-shots-only lone-gunman scenario, a theory that even 98% of your fellow lone-gunman theorists reject as ridiculous, including Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi, and Jim Moore.



Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Lance Payette on June 04, 2026, 05:36:13 PM
Just SMH. So now you're changing your story. Just think about this ludicrous scenario, especially in light of the hard ballistics evidence I've presented about CE 543. You have no idea if Oswald "mostly" dry-fired the alleged murder weapon. Even WC staffer Wesley Liebeler doubted that unsubstantiated tale. Here's what Liebeler said on the matter in internal memos (all the memos are reprinted in 11 HSCA):

1. I do not believe there is any real authority for the proposition that Oswald sighted through the telescopic sight on the porch in New Orleans. Marina Oswald first said she did not know what he did with the rifle out on the porch, and then was led into a statement which might be thought to support the instant proposition. It is not very convincing. . . .

What on earth are you talking about? I didn't "change my story" - I've said the same thing on here 15 times. I'm not sure what Liebeler's doubt about sighting through the scope has to do with anything. Everyone who owns a rifle, including me, does more dry-firing than live firing, and an empty shell in the chamber prevents damage to the firing pin. Live firing with a large-caliber rifle is damn expensive, and Oswald was not only frugal but had limited opportunities for live practice. I simply believe he likely kept a dry-firing shell in the chamber and it was there when he assembled the rifle in the TSBD. A dented shell that cannot be reloaded is typically used for dry-firing - I myself did it.
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on June 04, 2026, 05:48:37 PM
What on earth are you talking about? I didn't "change my story" - I've said the same thing on here 15 times.

Oh? Maybe you misspoke:

Quote
You: Dented shell: Dry firing round in the chamber of the disassembled M-C in Ruth Paine's garage. JFKA: Two shots. Case closed. You're welcome.

You: Not dry-firing in a disassembled rifle. Leaving it there for convenience because mostly what he did with the rifle was dry-fire it.

Do you not see the contradiction?

I'm not sure what Liebeler's doubt about sighting through the scope has to do with anything.

Humm, are you ever going to share your basis for claiming that Oswald dry-fired the rifle? So far, this seems to be pure speculation, not to mention the fact that the forensic evidence proves that the ammo that hit JFK's head could not have been FMJ ammo, that the FBI was never able to establish that Oswald ever picked up the rifle, that no A. Hidell was authorized to pick up mail from Oswald's post office box, etc., etc., etc.

Everyone who owns a rifle, including me, does more dry-firing than live firing, and an empty shell in the chamber prevents damage to the firing pin. Live firing with a large-caliber rifle is damn expensive, and Oswald was not only frugal but had limited opportunities for live practice. I simply believe he likely kept a dry-firing shell in the chamber and it was there when he assembled the rifle in the TSBD. A dented shell that cannot be reloaded is typically used for dry-firing - I myself did it.

This a load of baseless speculation and dubious a priori assumptions that ignores two key points: (1) that CE 543 was supposedly fired in the alleged murder weapon during the assassination but that ballistics evidence shows this was impossible, and (2) that CE 543 could not have been chambered in the alleged murder weapon because it does not have the weapon's chambering impressions on it.


Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Lance Payette on June 04, 2026, 06:12:07 PM
Oh? Maybe you misspoke:

Do you not see the contradiction?

No, I do not. My first statement was that the dry-firing shell was still in the chamber of the M-C when it was wrapped in the blanket in Ruth's garage. You rather bizarrely stated that dry-firing a disassembled rifle seemed strange to you (as indeed it would be). I clarified that I was not talking about dry-firing the disassembled rifle but merely leaving the dry-firing shell in the rifle when he disassembled it, which would not be unusual, and then ejecting it after he had assembled the rifle in the TSBD.

Marina said Oswald "practiced" with the rifle on the porch. I recall that some neighbor also saw this. To fit your theory, you want to speculate that he was not dry-firing and thus there was not a dented shell in the chamber that became CE 543. Go ahead. I would suggest that for most of us and probably Oswald, "practicing" with a rifle would involve dry-firing. Dry-firing is basic in the Marines and Oswald reportedly spent considerable time doing this.
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Jack Nessan on June 04, 2026, 06:19:35 PM
I do, but you clearly don't. You always pretend to know more than anyone else but then make one blundering statement after another.

LOL! One, CE 543 was supposedly fired during the assassination, but obviously it was not, even according to your amateurish take on Nicols' testimony. Two, this does not explain why there are no chambering impressions on CE 543. 

This is just silly, not to mention dishonest. Yes, that is indeed the point, which I made clear. I tend to doubt that you've even read Thompson's analysis of CE 543. If you did, you didn't understand it.

This is another one of your silly and dishonest strawman attacks. Why don't you quote from Thompson's analysis, hey? I wonder if you just don't know that Thompson argues that at least four shots were fired.

LOL! Are you in junior high or something? The level of silliness and dishonesty in your strawman arguments is pitiful. I notice you snipped Dr. Thomas's comments. Gee, I wonder why.

I know far more than you do about firearms. You're a silly troll who pretends to understand issues that you clearly don't understand. Your tactic is to make ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments because you can't deal credibly with the evidence.

Why don't you address the arguments about CE 543 made by recognized firearms experts that I present in my article? I'm guessing you still haven't bothered to read my article on CE 543.

People should know that you're a peddler of the fringe two-shots-only lone-gunman scenario, a theory that even 98% of your fellow lone-gunman theorists reject as ridiculous, including Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi, and Jim Moore.

The thread is about CE 543. Why does that have to be explained to you. Josiah clearly states LHO only fired two shots in his book. Try reading it.

If you are as knowledgeable about firearms as you claim, how about act like it. Stop posting only half the story. 

Josiah can argue there were six shots, as some clowns do on this thread, but it does not change what is known about just two shots from LHO and also what is known about CE 543.

Given how many different subjects you have misrepresented the information, why would anyone care what you have written.
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Lance Payette on June 04, 2026, 06:28:48 PM
One might also add - so I will! - that explaining CE 543 as a dry-firing shell is the explanation most in accord with Occam's Razor. MTG consistently violates Occam's Razor to an almost unbelievable degree. Given two possible explanations, MTG always opts for the most complex, conspiratorially-oriented. and frankly least believable one. ALWAYS. This is precisely why I started my thread encouraging CTers to focus on plausibility. CTers like MTG are embarrassments to rational thought and analysis.
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: John Corbett on June 05, 2026, 12:52:27 AM
One might also add - so I will! - that explaining CE 543 as a dry-firing shell is the explanation most in accord with Occam's Razor. MTG consistently violates Occam's Razor to an almost unbelievable degree. Given two possible explanations, MTG always opts for the most complex, conspiratorially-oriented. and frankly least believable one. ALWAYS. This is precisely why I started my thread encouraging CTers to focus on plausibility. CTers like MTG are embarrassments to rational thought and analysis.

Here is the AI response to the dented shell:

How Warren Commission Exhibit CE543 Got Dented

Commission Exhibit 543 (CE 543) was one of three spent 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge cases found in the “sniper’s nest” on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. It had a noticeable inward dent on the mouth (the open lip where the bullet had been seated) www.jfkassassinationforum.com.

Official and Expert Explanations
The Warren Commission’s own analysis, supported by FBI ballistic testing, concluded that all three cases (CE 543, 544, and 545) had been fired from the same rifle (CE 139) based on matching firing-pin, extractor, and bolt-face marks www.jfkassassinationforum.com.

The dent on CE 543 was examined by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Firearms Panel in the 1970s–1970s. They found that the dent was produced during ejection from the rifle, specifically from the rapid operation of the bolt/ejector mechanism, not before firing or from manufacturing/loading www.jfkassassinationforum.com.

The panel duplicated the dent in test firings with Oswald’s rifle, showing that one of four test cases produced a similar dent when the bolt was worked quickly. Microscopic comparison confirmed all three cases were fired in the CE 139 rifle, with no evidence of multiple chamberings or prior firings
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Lance Payette on June 05, 2026, 01:07:20 PM
Here is the AI response to the dented shell:

How Warren Commission Exhibit CE543 Got Dented

Commission Exhibit 543 (CE 543) was one of three spent 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge cases found in the “sniper’s nest” on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. It had a noticeable inward dent on the mouth (the open lip where the bullet had been seated) www.jfkassassinationforum.com.

Official and Expert Explanations
The Warren Commission’s own analysis, supported by FBI ballistic testing, concluded that all three cases (CE 543, 544, and 545) had been fired from the same rifle (CE 139) based on matching firing-pin, extractor, and bolt-face marks www.jfkassassinationforum.com.

The dent on CE 543 was examined by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Firearms Panel in the 1970s–1970s. They found that the dent was produced during ejection from the rifle, specifically from the rapid operation of the bolt/ejector mechanism, not before firing or from manufacturing/loading www.jfkassassinationforum.com.

The panel duplicated the dent in test firings with Oswald’s rifle, showing that one of four test cases produced a similar dent when the bolt was worked quickly. Microscopic comparison confirmed all three cases were fired in the CE 139 rifle, with no evidence of multiple chamberings or prior firings

Well, there is irony for ya: The guy who complains about the use of AI turns around and uses it to bolster his position. When are people going to understand: AI is fine if you want to know some specific fact like the boiling point of water (323° F., my AI tells me) or the date of the JFKA (November 11, 1982). It is not some "separate mind" that analyzes data and reaches a reasoned conclusion. It just scans the internet and regurgitates what seems to be the prevailing opinion. Besides, AI is an alien plot to transform humanity into a non-biological life form, or something like that.
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: John Corbett on June 05, 2026, 03:18:50 PM
Well, there is irony for ya: The guy who complains about the use of AI turns around and uses it to bolster his position. When are people going to understand: AI is fine if you want to know some specific fact like the boiling point of water (323° F., my AI tells me) or the date of the JFKA (November 11, 1982). It is not some "separate mind" that analyzes data and reaches a reasoned conclusion. It just scans the internet and regurgitates what seems to be the prevailing opinion. Besides, AI is an alien plot to transform humanity into a non-biological life form, or something like that.

I did not endorse or refute the AI answer to this question. I merely put it out there for discussion. The important question here is whether the sources AI turned to correctly documented the findings of the HSCA firearms panel on this subject. The source it used for that answer came from this forum so based on that information, the source might or might not have correctly stated the finding. Now if you want to explore this question further, I could delve deeper and find or more credible source but my belief is if the person who posted that had incorrectly stated the findings of the HSCA firearms panel, somebody would have refuted that and AI would have found the refutation as well and made note of that in its answer.
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on June 05, 2026, 03:32:00 PM
This thread is a good example of the refusal of lone-gunman theorists to deal credibly and factually with hard physical evidence that refutes their theory.

One of the things that led firearms expert Howard Donahue to doubt the Warren Commission's version of the shooting was that he realized there was no way CE 543 could have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination. He also realized that the HSCA's firearms experts were blowing smoke when they falsely claimed they had produced shells that were as dented as CE 543 in their test firings (as I've mentioned, anyone can look at the HSCA's shells and see that not of them is dented as severely as CE 543).

A number of other firearms experts have studied the matter and have agreed with Donahue that CE 543 simply could not have been used to fire a bullet during the shooting. I discuss this fact in my article "The Dented Bullet Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ihue8a0GmN_Ptl38bPjpu1F99nqU0Z6f/view).

The evidence that CE 543 could not have fired a bullet on 11/22/63 is so strong that some anti-conspiracy researchers have actually acknowledged it and have proposed the theory that the alleged lone gunman only fired two shots. (However, this theory is rejected even by the vast majority of lone-gunman theorists.)

A few of these commentators have also theorized that the supposed single assassin did not fire the ammo that hit JFK's head but that Secret Service agent George Hickey, riding in the follow-up car, accidentally shot JFK in the head. This is the mortal error theory. It has few adherents, but it is partly based on sound forensic science.

Donahue was the first one to propose the mortal error theory. He did so because he knew there was no way that JFK's head was hit by the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used, i.e., FMJ ammo. He knew that the forensic evidence clearly showed that JFK's head was hit by high-velocity frangible ammo, not by low-/medium-velocity full-metal-jacketed (FMJ) ammo. This fact was confirmed by one of the world's leading forensic pathologists, Dr. Vincent DiMaio, in his highly acclaimed book Gunshot Wounds.

The ammo that hit JFK's head left dozens of tiny fragments in the right-frontal region of the skull, along with a few small fragments near the entry point in the back of the head. An FMJ bullet would have never behaved in this manner. Here's what DiMaio said about FMJ bullets leaving numerous fragments (a "snowstorm") inside a skull (which is what we see in the right front on JFK's lateral autopsy x-ray):

In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.... In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a “lead snowstorm” [Figure 11.4]. In high-quality x-rays, the majority of the fragments visualized have a fine “dust-like” quality. Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999, p. 318, emphasis added).

For more information on the evidence that JFK's head must have been hit by high-velocity frangible ammo, see https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3641.0.html.

The mortal error theory has been debunked. Hickey never fired a shot during the assassination. All of his ammo was accounted for almost immediately after the shooting. No one in the follow-up car saw or heard him fire a shot. However, the mortal error theory at least acknowledges that JFK's head must have been bit by high-velocity frangible ammo.


Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Jack Nessan on June 05, 2026, 03:34:37 PM
Well, there is irony for ya: The guy who complains about the use of AI turns around and uses it to bolster his position. When are people going to understand: AI is fine if you want to know some specific fact like the boiling point of water (323° F., my AI tells me) or the date of the JFKA (November 11, 1982). It is not some "separate mind" that analyzes data and reaches a reasoned conclusion. It just scans the internet and regurgitates what seems to be the prevailing opinion. Besides, AI is an alien plot to transform humanity into a non-biological life form, or something like that.

Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: John Corbett on June 05, 2026, 03:37:28 PM
To follow up on my previous post on this subject, it appears the source for the AI response I cited was the from the OP of this thread posted by Tom Graves. If I understand correctly, he cited an AARC document so it's off to another source for further confirmation or refutation of the statement. My previous search of the HSCA Report did not find a mention of the dented shell in it's findings. It did conclude that CE543 and the other two shells had been fired by Oswald's rifle.
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Jack Nessan on June 05, 2026, 03:39:45 PM
I did not endorse or refute the AI answer to this question. I merely put it out there for discussion. The important question here is whether the sources AI turned to correctly documented the findings of the HSCA firearms panel on this subject. The source it used for that answer came from this forum so based on that information, the source might or might not have correctly stated the finding. Now if you want to explore this question further, I could delve deeper and find or more credible source but my belief is if the person who posted that had incorrectly stated the findings of the HSCA firearms panel, somebody would have refuted that and AI would have found the refutation as well and made note of that in its answer.

No. The dent in CE 543 is not remotely similar to the dent that the HSCA is referencing. It doesn't take an expert to look at them and see the dramatically visible difference. The HSCA dent is a rounded lip. CE 543 has a dent that looks like it was center punched in the middle. Nobody has duplicated it.
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Ted Sager on June 06, 2026, 05:56:14 AM
Dented neck was to hold wadding for a blank round.
Title: Re: What about that dent? It was made to hold wadding for a blank round.
Post by: Ted Sager on June 06, 2026, 05:59:37 AM
To make a blank round.
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: John Corbett on June 06, 2026, 12:17:03 PM
Dented neck was to hold wadding for a blank round.

How do you know this?
Title: Re: What about that dent?
Post by: Ted Sager on June 13, 2026, 12:25:35 AM
A dent could not have come from ejecting a shell or just landing on the ground. shell brass is tough: it had to be made by someone to hold wadding for a blank round.