JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on June 11, 2026, 01:02:41 AM
-
A couple of snips from “Phantom Shot” by Mike Majerus and Jack Nessan:
Dr. E. Forrest Chapman was a Deputy Medical Examiner in the State of Michigan who had a background in forensic pathology. In 1973, he was allowed to examine some of the Kennedy assassination evidence in the National Archives.
The Warren Commission firearms experts who examined CE 543 failed to mention one other curious thing about the shell casing, something Dr. Chapman referred to as the "dishing effect." When the trigger is pulled and the firing pin strikes the primer at the base of the shell casing, the firing pin makes a small indentation in the soft metal of the primer. Dr. Chapman noticed that the indentation on the CE 543 primer was larger than the indentations on the other shell casings found in the sniper's nest. This indicated that the firing pin had struck CE 543 more than once. The second time the pin struck, the indentation became larger. This was another indication that the shell casing had been used for dry firing. Chapman also noticed that the primer on CE 543 was pushed inward in a concave fashion, and was curved like a bowl or a contact lens. His tests showed that this effect only occurred when the firing pin struck the primer of an empty shell casing. The absence of an explosion meant that it had much less resistance than it did when it was a live shell. As a result, the firing pin pushed deeper into the soft metal of the primer when the shell was empty, causing the concave indentation.
Here is an image from the above referenced book:
(https://i.vgy.me/Af7KO8.png)
And here is an image of CE 543 that (to my eyes) doesn’t show any evidence of dishing or anything else I might associate with dry-firing:
(https://i.vgy.me/nVwQwM.jpg)
I have been reading the expert WC testimony of FBI agent Robert Frazier and looking at the related images. I cannot imagine that Frazier and his team would have missed any dishing effect and other disfiguring to the primer caused by LHO dry firing the rifle with CE 543 in the chamber as Chapman claims.
Has anyone here researched this subject or know of any evidence that might shed more light on this claim?
-
Here are two highly magnified photographs (taken through a microscope) by the FBI firearms experts. On the left side of each image is the primer of the test cartridge, and on the right side of each image is the primer of CE 543.
(https://i.vgy.me/G7k03Z.png)
(https://i.vgy.me/oSI2U9.png)
The FBI experts identified CE 543 as being fired in the Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD on 11/22/63 by viewing the magnified cartridge primers through the microscope and comparing them. I do not see how CE 543’s primer would not be deformed by subsequent dry-firing with the rifle. I believe that this deformation would be obvious and would make CE 543 so different that the FBI would not be able to identify it as being fired in the rifle. Just look at the first image in the original post above that shows two cartridges that were dry-fired once and twice respectively. The primers in both cartridges look quite different than the one that was only fired once and never dry-fired.
-
Chapman died at age 60 (nothing mysterious) in 1991. I see that much of the conspiracy literature describes him as a "forensic scientist," perhaps to disguise that his expertise was medical (he was a medical examiner and pathologist). However, I did find one newspaper article describing him as an expert in ballistics. He was not a fan of the Magic Bullet, referring to it as "utter rubbish" (https://www.archives.gov/files/research/rfk/releases/2025/0612/00419462_newspaper_articles_concer_104-10068-10053.pdf).
There seems to be remarkably little discussion of his claims regarding CE 543. Michael Kurtz, in Crime of the Century, claimed that CE 557, an FBI test shell, confirmed Chapman's claims: "The F.B.I. also reproduced the effect. Commission Exhibit 557 is a test cartridge case, fired empty from Oswald's rifle by the F.B.I. for ballistics comparison purposes. It, too, contains the dent in the lip and deep primer impression similar to Case 543." (557 can't be right. He must be referring to 559, which is what Charles has posted. https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0138b.htm.)
(https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?user=684869&id=389552029&clippingId=54117029&width=820&height=740&crop=2568_1589_1260_1138&rotation=0)
-
Chapman died at age 60 (nothing mysterious) in 1991. I see that much of the conspiracy literature describes him as a "forensic scientist," perhaps to disguise that his expertise was medical (he was a medical examiner and pathologist). However, I did find one newspaper article describing him as an expert in ballistics. He was not a fan of the Magic Bullet, referring to it as "utter rubbish" (https://www.archives.gov/files/research/rfk/releases/2025/0612/00419462_newspaper_articles_concer_104-10068-10053.pdf).
There seems to be remarkably little discussion of his claims regarding CE 543. Michael Kurtz, in Crime of the Century, claimed that CE 557, an FBI test shell, confirmed Chapman's claims: "The F.B.I. also reproduced the effect. Commission Exhibit 557 is a test cartridge case, fired empty from Oswald's rifle by the F.B.I. for ballistics comparison purposes. It, too, contains the dent in the lip and deep primer impression similar to Case 543." (557 can't be right. He must be referring to 559, which is what Charles has posted. https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0138b.htm.)
(https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?user=684869&id=389552029&clippingId=54117029&width=820&height=740&crop=2568_1589_1260_1138&rotation=0)
Thanks for the reply. Maybe I need to do some research on CE 557 and/or CE 559.
-
Chapman died at age 60 (nothing mysterious) in 1991. I see that much of the conspiracy literature describes him as a "forensic scientist," perhaps to disguise that his expertise was medical (he was a medical examiner and pathologist). However, I did find one newspaper article describing him as an expert in ballistics. He was not a fan of the Magic Bullet, referring to it as "utter rubbish" (https://www.archives.gov/files/research/rfk/releases/2025/0612/00419462_newspaper_articles_concer_104-10068-10053.pdf).
There seems to be remarkably little discussion of his claims regarding CE 543. Michael Kurtz, in Crime of the Century, claimed that CE 557, an FBI test shell, confirmed Chapman's claims: "The F.B.I. also reproduced the effect. Commission Exhibit 557 is a test cartridge case, fired empty from Oswald's rifle by the F.B.I. for ballistics comparison purposes. It, too, contains the dent in the lip and deep primer impression similar to Case 543." (557 can't be right. He must be referring to 559, which is what Charles has posted. https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0138b.htm.)
(https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?user=684869&id=389552029&clippingId=54117029&width=820&height=740&crop=2568_1589_1260_1138&rotation=0)
Here’s a snippet from Robert Frazuer’s WC testimony. CE 557 is a photograph of the only two test cartridges used for identification comparison purposes. So far, Frazier doesn’t say anything about dry-firing one of them. And I cannot imagine that they would want to dry-fire one of them. My guess is than one was intended to be a backup for the other one in case something bad happened to one of them.
Mr. EISENBERG - After receiving the cartridge cases, did you examine them to determine whether they had been fired in Commission Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - When did you make the examinations?
Mr. FRAZIER - On the dates I mentioned, that is, November 23, 1963, and November 27, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG - And what were your conclusions, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - I found all three of the cartridge cases had been fired in this particular weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe the examination which you conducted to reach these conclusions?
Mr. FRAZIER - The first step was to fire test cartridge cases in this rifle to pick up the microscopic marks which are left on all cartridge cases fired in this weapon by the face of the bolt. Then those, test cartridge cases were mounted on a comparison microscope, on the right-hand side, and on the left-hand side of the comparison microscope was mounted one of the three submitted cartridge cases, so that you could magnify the surfaces of the test and the evidence and compare the marks left on the cartridge cases by the belt face and the firing pin of the rifle.
(At this point, Mr. McCloy left the hearing room.)
Mr. EISENBERG - I now hand you two cartridge cases, and ask you whether you can identify these cartridge cases?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; these are the two cartridge cases we fired for test purposes in Exhibit 139.
Mr. EISENBERG - Do they have your mark on them?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, they do.
Mr. EISENBERG - Commissioner Boggs, may I introduce these as 557?
Representative BOGGS - They may be admitted.
(The items referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 557 for identification and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG - These were the only two cartridge cases fired as tests in Exhibit 139--as tests for the purpose of identification of the cartridge cases which you examined before, 543, 544, and 545?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; these two were used in those tests. There were many other cartridge cases fired, but not for that purpose.
-
It looks like this is destined to be yet another JFKA loose end. You would think that Chapman's claim would have been a bombshell that would have generated more discussion than it did and led to further examination of CE 543. It seems like the basic issue is simply "Does CE 543 show evidence of having been struck with a firing pin more than once?"
The newspaper article I linked said Chapman was "recently interviewed" by the HSCA, but I didn't find anything relating to that. The HSCA firearms panel report deals with the "dent" issue but not really the "firing pin" issue.
-
It looks like this is destined to be yet another JFKA loose end. You would think that Chapman's claim would have been a bombshell that would have generated more discussion than it did and led to further examination of CE 543. It seems like the basic issue is simply "Does CE 543 show evidence of having been struck with a firing pin more than once?"
The newspaper article I linked said Chapman was "recently interviewed" by the HSCA, but I didn't find anything relating to that. The HSCA firearms panel report deals with the "dent" issue but not really the "firing pin" issue.
Agreed, also there were other firearms experts that verified the FBI’s conclusions, etc. As far as I know, none of them indicated anything either.
-
It looks like this is destined to be yet another JFKA loose end. You would think that Chapman's claim would have been a bombshell that would have generated more discussion than it did and led to further examination of CE 543. It seems like the basic issue is simply "Does CE 543 show evidence of having been struck with a firing pin more than once?"
The newspaper article I linked said Chapman was "recently interviewed" by the HSCA, but I didn't find anything relating to that. The HSCA firearms panel report deals with the "dent" issue but not really the "firing pin" issue.
After 62 years of research, all the CTs have to show for it is a pile of loose ends.
-
It drives me nuts when I cannot nail something down. At Steve Duffy's "JFK Assassination Index" blog, the entry for Chapman refers to "Re Access to Autopsy Materials by Dr. E. Forrest Chapman" as though this is a document. The citation is to "JFK Collection List, pg. 27 (AMKW 65)." AMKW is a three-part collection of documents compiled by indefatigable researcher Anna Marie Kuhns-Walko following the 1992 document release. AMKW 65 would be document 65 in that collection. Discussions in the 1990s say the collection is "marketed commercially by such organizations as JFK/Lancer" and is "easily accessible" - but darned if I can find it.
At the MFF website, I found a reference to the Rockefeller Commission Report that quotes Chapman as saying in a telephone interview that if there were GK shooters they must have been very poor shots because they missed everything. MFF also has the AMKW 65 reference but apparently not the document.
It sounds like Chapman was closely aligned with Cyril Wecht and mostly shared his views. With that, I think I've reached a dead end.
-
After 62 years of research, all the CTs have to show for it is a pile of loose ends.
Neither Mike Majerus or Jack Nessan seem to be CTs. Their theory that there were only two shots fired does seem to have substantial and reasonable evidence to back it up. But for me that theory would be much more credible if CE 543 did show signs of being struck more than once by the firing pin. So far I haven’t found anything to support Dr. Chapman’s claim.
-
It drives me nuts when I cannot nail something down. At Steve Duffy's "JFK Assassination Index" blog, the entry for Chapman refers to "Re Access to Autopsy Materials by Dr. E. Forrest Chapman" as though this is a document. The citation is to "JFK Collection List, pg. 27 (AMKW 65)." AMKW is a three-part collection of documents compiled by indefatigable researcher Anna Marie Kuhns-Walko following the 1992 document release. AMKW 65 would be document 65 in that collection. Discussions in the 1990s say the collection is "marketed commercially by such organizations as JFK/Lancer" and is "easily accessible" - but darned if I can find it.
At the MFF website, I found a reference to the Rockefeller Commission Report that quotes Chapman as saying in a telephone interview that if there were GK shooters they must have been very poor shots because they missed everything. MFF also has the AMKW 65 reference but apparently not the document.
It sounds like Chapman was closely aligned with Cyril Wecht and mostly shared his views. With that, I think I've reached a dead end.
That's never stopped a dedicated CT in the past. All you need to do is find another rabbit hole to explore.
-
That's never stopped a dedicated CT in the past. All you need to do is find another rabbit hole to explore.
Are you possibly just slightly ... unhinged?
Could Duncan possibly carve out a subforum for more-or-less normal people?
-
It drives me nuts when I cannot nail something down. At Steve Duffy's "JFK Assassination Index" blog, the entry for Chapman refers to "Re Access to Autopsy Materials by Dr. E. Forrest Chapman" as though this is a document. The citation is to "JFK Collection List, pg. 27 (AMKW 65)." AMKW is a three-part collection of documents compiled by indefatigable researcher Anna Marie Kuhns-Walko following the 1992 document release. AMKW 65 would be document 65 in that collection. Discussions in the 1990s say the collection is "marketed commercially by such organizations as JFK/Lancer" and is "easily accessible" - but darned if I can find it.
At the MFF website, I found a reference to the Rockefeller Commission Report that quotes Chapman as saying in a telephone interview that if there were GK shooters they must have been very poor shots because they missed everything. MFF also has the AMKW 65 reference but apparently not the document.
It sounds like Chapman was closely aligned with Cyril Wecht and mostly shared his views. With that, I think I've reached a dead end.
CE 543 FBI FRAZIER
The article about Dr Chapman came from this magazine. I believe this is the predecessor of The New American Magazine
They Killed the President, by Alan Stang (American Opinion, February 1976).pdf (archive.org)
------------------------
Military primers in military rounds are different in makeup than the civilian market primers. Much harder and designed different. Comparing the row of pictures to CE 543 is really an apples to oranges scenario. At the time we did not have any Western Cartridge cartridges and only used what was available to make the point. The reason for the second row or additional row of pictures was to show individual carcano rifles were not the same as far as how hard the firing pin struck the shell casing primer. The second row is far less dented in.
The best we could do was to use two Terni 1940 M38 rifles but the way these rifles were prepared for the American market was to just put them together and make sure they fired the round and ejected it.
Personally, I can’t believe the FBI missed so much about these shells. Not only did they miss the dished in primer but the Chamber Mark on just 5 of the 6 shells. They had six shells in their possession and noted the chamber mark in the analysis of some of them but not all. It would have been easy to look and see what was in the chamber causing the indentation and maybe did look but did not note it other than to state it about some of them in the analysis. I have wondered if they realized to declare that only two of the shells showed to have been fired would that information have fueled a conspiracy belief with Merriman Smith’s/ Walter Cronkite’s three shot News Bulletin.
A conspiracy is exactly how Dr Chapman and Josiah Thompson viewed the information.
-
Are you possibly just slightly ... unhinged?
Could Duncan possibly carve out a subforum for more-or-less normal people?
Forgive me, but I've been at this too long to take you guys and your never-ending snipe hunt seriously. It never ceases to amaze me that despite 62 years of futility, you're still pursuing the white whale.
-
Forgive me, but I've been at this too long to take you guys and your never-ending snipe hunt seriously. It never ceases to amaze me that despite 62 years of futility, you're still pursuing the white whale.
If only the early missed shot theory that was not so full of holes. Exactly how does a theory work again, that lacks having any eyewitnesses in an area full of eyewitnesses standing shoulder to shoulder. It is not like you have any answers.
-
Forgive me, but I've been at this too long to take you guys and your never-ending snipe hunt seriously. It never ceases to amaze me that despite 62 years of futility, you're still pursuing the white whale.
This is why Dan O'Meara aptly called you a tinfoil hat LNer.
The condition of CE 543 is a straightforward factual issue that Charles, whom I don't believe is a CTer, raised. It is neither an LN or CT issue per se, just a factual issue.
Jack Nessan is not a CTer. He believes Oswald fired two shots, which is entirely consistent with Oswald being the sole gunman.
I am not a CTer. I am simply open to where the evidence may lead. CE 543 is simply a piece of evidence.
Dr. Chapman was a qualified forensic pathologist and possibly a ballistics expert. His opinion is worth exploring.
So who are these "you guys" strawmen you are addressing? On what basis other than your tinfoil hat LN opinion does the discussion of CE 543 qualify as a snipe hunt?
The fact that you literally CANNOT STAND any discussion that varies from your opinion, including even Jack's two-shot LN scenario, and that you CANNOT REFRAIN from snide and irrelevant comments even on threads in which you have no interest, is pretty much the mark of a tinfoil-hat crank.
-
CE 543 FBI FRAZIER
The article about Dr Chapman came from this magazine. I believe this is the predecessor of The New American Magazine
They Killed the President, by Alan Stang (American Opinion, February 1976).pdf (archive.org)
------------------------
Military primers in military rounds are different in makeup than the civilian market primers. Much harder and designed different. Comparing the row of pictures to CE 543 is really an apples to oranges scenario. At the time we did not have any Western Cartridge cartridges and only used what was available to make the point. The reason for the second row or additional row of pictures was to show individual carcano rifles were not the same as far as how hard the firing pin struck the shell casing primer. The second row is far less dented in.
The best we could do was to use two Terni 1940 M38 rifles but the way these rifles were prepared for the American market was to just put them together and make sure they fired the round and ejected it.
Personally, I can’t believe the FBI missed so much about these shells. Not only did they miss the dished in primer but the Chamber Mark on just 5 of the 6 shells. They had six shells in their possession and noted the chamber mark in the analysis of some of them but not all. It would have been easy to look and see what was in the chamber causing the indentation and maybe did look but did not note it other than to state it about some of them in the analysis. I have wondered if they realized to declare that only two of the shells showed to have been fired would that information have fueled a conspiracy belief with Merriman Smith’s/ Walter Cronkite’s three shot News Bulletin.
A conspiracy is exactly how Dr Chapman and Josiah Thompson viewed the information.
Thanks Jack, I don’t remember seeing a second row of images in the Kindle version of the book that I purchased recently. I have been researching further trying to understand more about the action of the Carcano rifle. Below please find a Q&A that I think might be pertinent.
For what it is worth:
Question to Google AI:
if the bolt handle of a Carcano model 91-38 rifle is slightly not completely down in the closed position can the trigger still be pulled and the rifle fire and if so, can this cause a variation in the depth of the firing pin depression in the primer of the cartridge?
Google AI answer:
Yes, a Carcano Model 91/38 can be fired with the bolt handle slightly unlatched. Because of the design of the cocking cams, pulling the trigger releases the firing pin even if the bolt is not fully locked down.
The Mechanics:
Trigger Pull and Firing: Most bolt-action rifles are designed with an "out of battery" safety that disconnects the sear or physically blocks the firing pin if the bolt is not fully closed. However, the historic Carcano M91 design lacks this modern feature. When the bolt handle is slightly raised:The trigger can still be pulled, releasing the cocking piece and firing pin. As the firing pin drives forward, its energy is often spent camming the bolt handle downward into the locked position before the pin hits the primer. Alternatively, if the bolt is held firmly in place so it cannot self-close, the firing pin will release and strike the primer while the bolt remains partially out of battery.
Effect on Firing Pin Depth (Primer Indentation):
If the bolt fails to fully lock down, it fundamentally alters the headspacing of the firearm. When the trigger is pulled:Inconsistent Depth: You will likely notice a variation in the depth of the firing pin depression. If the firing pin's forward energy is robbed by the effort of forcing the bolt to cam into battery, the indent will often be shallow, light, or off-center.
Safety Risks: Firing a rifle "out of battery" (when the bolt lugs are not fully seated and locked into the receiver) is extremely dangerous. It exposes the unsupported or partially supported cartridge case to high pressures, which can cause ruptured brass, blown primers, and escaping gas that could damage the firearm or injure the shooter.
For more context on how these components function, you can view the Carcano Bolt Disassembly and Reassembly guide.
-
FWIW, the firing pin impression issue was addressed by Donald Champagne at page 455 of the HSCA firearms panel's testimony.
https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0908_6_Firearms.pdf
This is HSCA Figure 21A, "Photomicrograph showing the correspondence between the individual identifying characteristics on the CE 543 cartridge case (L) and on panel Kennedy T-1 (R), produced by the firing pin of the CE 139 rifle." Hmm ... does the indentation on CE 543 (L portion) not look somewhat different, along the lines of what Chapman was talking about?
(https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/jfk7/7firingpinmarkp394.jpg)
-
If only the early missed shot theory that was not so full of holes. Exactly how does a theory work again, that lacks having any eyewitnesses in an area full of eyewitnesses standing shoulder to shoulder. It is not like you have any answers.
Do you think eyewitnesses would have seen a missed shot?
-
FWIW, the firing pin impression issue was addressed by Donald Champagne at page 455 of the HSCA firearms panel's testimony.
https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0908_6_Firearms.pdf
This is HSCA Figure 21A, "Photomicrograph showing the correspondence between the individual identifying characteristics on the CE 543 cartridge case (L) and on panel Kennedy T-1 (R), produced by the firing pin of the CE 139 rifle." Hmm ... does the indentation on CE 543 (L portion) not look somewhat different, along the lines of what Chapman was talking about?
(https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/jfk7/7firingpinmarkp394.jpg)
Thanks Lance, based on the testimony, it seems that the comparison microscope manipulates the images via prisms, etc in order to line up similarities on both sides. I wouldn’t expect that comparing the remainders of the two sides would be apples to apples due to angles, lighting, etc.
One thing about the testimonies that I have read so far that stands out to me is the firearms expert who explained exactly what he was doing when the dent in the test cartridge happened. I have seen a lot of different guesses over the years as to how it might could have happened. Now I have finally seen sworn testimony as to how that type of dent on a cartridge actually did happen. I plan to take a closer look at the ejector mechanism on the Carcano to see if I can tell why this might happen.
-
Thanks Jack, I don’t remember seeing a second row of images in the Kindle version of the book that I purchased recently. I have been researching further trying to understand more about the action of the Carcano rifle. Below please find a Q&A that I think might be pertinent.
For what it is worth:
Question to Google AI:
if the bolt handle of a Carcano model 91-38 rifle is slightly not completely down in the closed position can the trigger still be pulled and the rifle fire and if so, can this cause a variation in the depth of the firing pin depression in the primer of the cartridge?
Google AI answer:
Yes, a Carcano Model 91/38 can be fired with the bolt handle slightly unlatched. Because of the design of the cocking cams, pulling the trigger releases the firing pin even if the bolt is not fully locked down.
The Mechanics:
Trigger Pull and Firing: Most bolt-action rifles are designed with an "out of battery" safety that disconnects the sear or physically blocks the firing pin if the bolt is not fully closed. However, the historic Carcano M91 design lacks this modern feature. When the bolt handle is slightly raised:The trigger can still be pulled, releasing the cocking piece and firing pin. As the firing pin drives forward, its energy is often spent camming the bolt handle downward into the locked position before the pin hits the primer. Alternatively, if the bolt is held firmly in place so it cannot self-close, the firing pin will release and strike the primer while the bolt remains partially out of battery.
Effect on Firing Pin Depth (Primer Indentation):
If the bolt fails to fully lock down, it fundamentally alters the headspacing of the firearm. When the trigger is pulled:Inconsistent Depth: You will likely notice a variation in the depth of the firing pin depression. If the firing pin's forward energy is robbed by the effort of forcing the bolt to cam into battery, the indent will often be shallow, light, or off-center.
Safety Risks: Firing a rifle "out of battery" (when the bolt lugs are not fully seated and locked into the receiver) is extremely dangerous. It exposes the unsupported or partially supported cartridge case to high pressures, which can cause ruptured brass, blown primers, and escaping gas that could damage the firearm or injure the shooter.
For more context on how these components function, you can view the Carcano Bolt Disassembly and Reassembly guide.
I guess it depends on which AI is being used. This is COPILOT.
JN “can a M38 carcano rifle be discharged without the bolt fully closed”
Short answer: No. An M38 Carcano cannot discharge unless the bolt is fully closed and locked. This is a hard mechanical rule of the Carcano action — not something that varies by model.
🔧 Why the M38 cannot fire out of battery
The M38 uses the same fundamental Carcano turn‑bolt system as the M91/38 and earlier long rifles. Three mechanical interlocks prevent firing unless the bolt is fully rotated down:
1. Front locking lugs
The firing pin cannot reach the primer unless the bolt lugs are fully engaged in their recesses. If the bolt is even slightly up, the lugs block firing‑pin travel.
2. Firing‑pin cam block
The cam track on the bolt body physically stops the firing pin from moving forward until the bolt handle is fully down. This is a positive mechanical stop, not a soft interference.
3. Cocking piece/sear alignment
The sear only releases the cocking piece when the bolt is in the locked position. If the bolt is not fully closed, the trigger may “click,” but the firing pin cannot travel.
🧪 What happens if you try to fire with the bolt slightly open
On a Carcano (including the M38):
The trigger can release the cocking piece.
The firing pin begins to move forward.
The cam block stops it before it reaches the primer.
Result: a dry click, no ignition.
There is no known case — in military testing, civilian use, or forensic examination — of a Carcano firing out of battery.
---------------------------
It looks like the difference is really does the firing pin release even though you are hearing the click. One AI says it does the other says it does not. The ones I messed with I could not tell. I did notice when the bolt is rotated and the spring is engaged the bolt can no longer move and is tight to the chamber.
-
FWIW, the firing pin impression issue was addressed by Donald Champagne at page 455 of the HSCA firearms panel's testimony.
https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0908_6_Firearms.pdf
This is HSCA Figure 21A, "Photomicrograph showing the correspondence between the individual identifying characteristics on the CE 543 cartridge case (L) and on panel Kennedy T-1 (R), produced by the firing pin of the CE 139 rifle." Hmm ... does the indentation on CE 543 (L portion) not look somewhat different, along the lines of what Chapman was talking about?
(https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/jfk7/7firingpinmarkp394.jpg)
Lance, good eye, this is a really good point. CE 543 is not only slightly dished in, but the firing pin impression is a little “larger”, as described by Dr. Chapman, or wider from multiple firing pin strikes. That would make sense from the stand point chambers are a little bigger than shell casings for ease of introduction of the cartridge and extraction of the shell casing. What that means is the shell casing can be slightly loose in the chamber and on the bolt, especially without a bullet to help center it. Basically, the shell can be a little off center in the bolt.
Dr. Chapman mentions this himself in his observations.
Dr. Chapman noticed that the indentation on the CE 543 primer was larger than the indentations on the other shell casings found in the sniper's nest.
Dr Chapman is describing a wider firing pin impression. Really, nice work Lance.
-
Do you think eyewitnesses would have seen a missed shot?
I am sure they would have heard one. Not one person, crowd or cars, reacted to anything at Z150 or whatever it is this week. Maybe it is time to update from this failed theory.
-
Here’s an interesting animation showing how the Carcano action works:
-
I guess it depends on which AI is being used. This is COPILOT.
JN “can a M38 carcano rifle be discharged without the bolt fully closed”
Short answer: No. An M38 Carcano cannot discharge unless the bolt is fully closed and locked. This is a hard mechanical rule of the Carcano action — not something that varies by model.
🔧 Why the M38 cannot fire out of battery
The M38 uses the same fundamental Carcano turn‑bolt system as the M91/38 and earlier long rifles. Three mechanical interlocks prevent firing unless the bolt is fully rotated down:
1. Front locking lugs
The firing pin cannot reach the primer unless the bolt lugs are fully engaged in their recesses. If the bolt is even slightly up, the lugs block firing‑pin travel.
2. Firing‑pin cam block
The cam track on the bolt body physically stops the firing pin from moving forward until the bolt handle is fully down. This is a positive mechanical stop, not a soft interference.
3. Cocking piece/sear alignment
The sear only releases the cocking piece when the bolt is in the locked position. If the bolt is not fully closed, the trigger may “click,” but the firing pin cannot travel.
🧪 What happens if you try to fire with the bolt slightly open
On a Carcano (including the M38):
The trigger can release the cocking piece.
The firing pin begins to move forward.
The cam block stops it before it reaches the primer.
Result: a dry click, no ignition.
There is no known case — in military testing, civilian use, or forensic examination — of a Carcano firing out of battery.
---------------------------
It looks like the difference is really does the firing pin release even though you are hearing the click. One AI says it does the other says it does not. The ones I messed with I could not tell. I did notice when the bolt is rotated and the spring is engaged the bolt can no longer move and is tight to the chamber.
That’s interesting Jack, thanks.
What seems preposterous to me about the dry-firing theory is that: if an empty cartridge were to be used for dry fire and the firing pin struck the primer for a second time, I believe that the initial impressions stamped into the primer by the firing pin when the live bullet was fired would be obliterated such that an identification would not be feasible.
Have you taken any of the test cartridges that you dry-fired to a firearms expert and asked if they could be identified as being fired from the rifle you used?
-
I am sure they would have heard one. Not one person, crowd or cars, reacted to anything at Z150 or whatever it is this week. Maybe it is time to update from this failed theory.
JBC reacted. Glen Bennett reacted. Most people reported hearing 3 shots. Because that shot didn't hit anybody (except maybe Tague), many people did not realize it was a gunshot. At first some said they thought it was a firecracker or a motorcycle backfire. Charles Brehm can be seen in the Z-film clapping his hands even after JFK had been hit by the second shot, apparently oblivious to the fact JFK had just been shot. There is a wide disparity how people perceived that first shot. Some didn't even remember hearing the first shot and only remember hearing two, but the consensus of witnesses is that there were three which matches the number of spent shells found in the sniper's nest. Jarman, Norman, and Williams who were directly below Oswald when the shots were fired all testified to hearing three shots. Jarman and Williams both said they thought the first shot was a motorcycle backfire or a cop saluting the President.
-
Apparently, the dented cartridge neck is a fairly common issue and has a straightforward cause:
Question to Google AI:
on a Carcano M38 rifle can the extractor, if the bolt is pulled back very quickly and forcefully, begin the ejection process of the empty case prematurely?
Google AI answer:
No. The Carcano's extractor is designed as a spring-tensioned claw that firmly grips the casing rim. It holds the cartridge securely during the entire rearward travel of the bolt until it hits the fixed ejector.Here is why premature ejection does not occur:Controlled Push: The fixed ejector (a rigid metal tongue inside the receiver) requires the bolt to be pulled all the way to the rear before it can physically strike the casing and flip it out of the ejection port.Extractor Limits: Even if you pull the bolt with extreme force, the extractor maintains its grip until the bolt reaches the end of its stroke. Forceful, rapid cycling will typically just result in a more energetic and reliable ejection, rather than a premature one.What might feel like premature ejection is often a worn extractor spring, a damaged extractor claw, or damaged casing rims (usually caused by poor-quality reproduction en-bloc clips).If you are experiencing cycling issues, tell me more about what is happening:Does the empty case drop out of the action before clearing the port, or fail to leave the chamber at all?Is the issue happening with live rounds or spent brass?Knowing this can help determine if it is a feed issue, an extractor failure, or a dirty chamber.
You said: the cartridge neck gets dented during the ejection process:
Dented cartridge necks are caused by the brass slamming into the receiver wall as it flips out of the action. Pulling the bolt back very quickly and forcefully makes this problem much worse because it dramatically increases the rotational speed of the cartridge during ejection.
Accurate Shooter +2The Mechanics of the Carcano DentWhen you cycle a Carcano M38 rifle, the bolt face moves backwards until the rim of the cartridge hits the rigid, fixed ejector. This impact creates a pivot point:The extractor claw holds the right side of the rim.The fixed ejector pushes the left side forward.This combined force violently swings the front of the cartridge case to the right to clear the receiver. If you pull the bolt back with extreme speed, the cartridge pivots with so much momentum that the hot, pliable brass neck is whipped directly into the right edge of the receiver bridge or the ejection port opening. The metal-on-metal impact leaves a characteristic flat spot or crescent-shaped dent right at the case mouth.
Accurate Shooter +1How to Fix or Prevent ItModerate Your Force: The most straightforward solution is to pull the bolt back with a smooth, deliberate motion rather than a violent yank. You only need enough speed to clear the port, not maximum velocity. Buffer the Receiver: If you want to cycle quickly without ruining your brass, place a small strip of electrical tape, painters tape, or the soft side of adhesive velcro on the right side of the receiver where the brass strikes. This cushions the blow and stops the denting. Inspect the Extractor: If the problem occurs even during slow extraction, check the extractor hook for burrs or sharp edges. A malformed extractor can grip the rim unevenly, throwing off the intended angle of ejection.
-
Apparently, the dented cartridge neck is a fairly common issue and has a straightforward cause:
Question to Google AI:
on a Carcano M38 rifle can the extractor, if the bolt is pulled back very quickly and forcefully, begin the ejection process of the empty case prematurely?
Google AI answer:
No. The Carcano's extractor is designed as a spring-tensioned claw that firmly grips the casing rim. It holds the cartridge securely during the entire rearward travel of the bolt until it hits the fixed ejector.Here is why premature ejection does not occur:Controlled Push: The fixed ejector (a rigid metal tongue inside the receiver) requires the bolt to be pulled all the way to the rear before it can physically strike the casing and flip it out of the ejection port.Extractor Limits: Even if you pull the bolt with extreme force, the extractor maintains its grip until the bolt reaches the end of its stroke. Forceful, rapid cycling will typically just result in a more energetic and reliable ejection, rather than a premature one.What might feel like premature ejection is often a worn extractor spring, a damaged extractor claw, or damaged casing rims (usually caused by poor-quality reproduction en-bloc clips).If you are experiencing cycling issues, tell me more about what is happening:Does the empty case drop out of the action before clearing the port, or fail to leave the chamber at all?Is the issue happening with live rounds or spent brass?Knowing this can help determine if it is a feed issue, an extractor failure, or a dirty chamber.
You said: the cartridge neck gets dented during the ejection process:
Dented cartridge necks are caused by the brass slamming into the receiver wall as it flips out of the action. Pulling the bolt back very quickly and forcefully makes this problem much worse because it dramatically increases the rotational speed of the cartridge during ejection.
Accurate Shooter +2The Mechanics of the Carcano DentWhen you cycle a Carcano M38 rifle, the bolt face moves backwards until the rim of the cartridge hits the rigid, fixed ejector. This impact creates a pivot point:The extractor claw holds the right side of the rim.The fixed ejector pushes the left side forward.This combined force violently swings the front of the cartridge case to the right to clear the receiver. If you pull the bolt back with extreme speed, the cartridge pivots with so much momentum that the hot, pliable brass neck is whipped directly into the right edge of the receiver bridge or the ejection port opening. The metal-on-metal impact leaves a characteristic flat spot or crescent-shaped dent right at the case mouth.
Accurate Shooter +1How to Fix or Prevent ItModerate Your Force: The most straightforward solution is to pull the bolt back with a smooth, deliberate motion rather than a violent yank. You only need enough speed to clear the port, not maximum velocity. Buffer the Receiver: If you want to cycle quickly without ruining your brass, place a small strip of electrical tape, painters tape, or the soft side of adhesive velcro on the right side of the receiver where the brass strikes. This cushions the blow and stops the denting. Inspect the Extractor: If the problem occurs even during slow extraction, check the extractor hook for burrs or sharp edges. A malformed extractor can grip the rim unevenly, throwing off the intended angle of ejection.
Combine the above AI answers with the HSCA testimony from the link that Lance posted earlier in this thread, and I believe we have the answer as to how the dent in CE 543 most likely occurred.
Mr. MCDONALD. Are you saying then when your panel test fired
CE-139, out of four fired cartridges, one was ejected with a dented
mouth? Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir, that occurred during the ejection proc-
ess in firing the weapon.
If I may.
Mr. McDONALD. Yes, please.
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. The ejection is that process whereby the bolt
handle is moved to the rear to eject the expended cartridge case,
ejecting the cartridge case out of the weapon.
Mr. MCDONALD. Now, when you tested the rifle, the panel tested
the rifle, ofyour panel members, who ejected the shell or cartridge
case that came out with the dent?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Mr. Lutz.
Mr. MCDONALD. Would Mr. Lutz please come forward and dem-
onstrate to us how you ejected to cause a dent in the test cartridge
case. Mr. LUTZ. The particular amount of force that I used to extract
and eject the cartridge case from the weapon was much in the
manner that I would consider to be employed during anattempt to
rapidly fire the firearm. The cartridge was fired with the bolt being
closed and then with considerable speed and pressure being ap-
plied, opening it and pulling the bolt to the rear and holding it to
my side, and in a manner very rapidly, kicking the cartridge back
and ejecting the cartridge and causing it fall to the floor.
Mr. PREYER. Mr. Edgar.
Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Lutz, would you turn so we can see it.
Mr. LUTZ. In this manner, where I have grasped the bolt for-
ward, the cartridge had been fired, moved away from the firing
tube holding the bolt handle and then pulling it back with a
violent move duplicating what I deemed to be a rapid sequence of
firing, operating the handle to rapid sequence of
firing, operating the handle to rapidly fire the firearm.
-
Just to state the obvious: The dent and the firing pin impression are two different issues. The dent is WHY CE 543 would have been used as a dry-firing round. It couldn't be reloaded and had no value.
-
What Lutz's demonstration showed is that a spent shell could be dented when rapidly ejected from the rifle. It's a little unreasonable to expect Lutz to replicate the exact amount of force Oswald did and produce the same dent.
-
Just to state the obvious: The dent and the firing pin impression are two different issues. The dent is WHY CE 543 would have been used as a dry-firing round. It couldn't be reloaded and had no value.
FWIW:
Another snip from “Phantom Shot” by Mike Majerus and Jack Nessan:
It is very possible that the dent in CE 543 occurred as a result of Oswald using the shell casing multiple times for dry firing. During one of those times, it could have snagged while being rechambered or ejected. When the FBI examined CE 543, it found marks that indicated it had been loaded into and extracted from a weapon at least three times. (26WH:449; CE 2968). Warren Commission firearms expert Joseph Nicol did tests on CE 543 confirming this. He said the marks could definitely have been made by dry firing the shell casing. (3WH:509-510).
-
And to further state the obvious (my specialty!), it seems to me the WC and HSCA experts were focusing on "Can CE 543 be attributed to Oswald's M-C?" (yes) and not "Can it be attributed to Oswald's M-C but more plausibly explained as a dry-firing shell?" (possibly).
-
Combine the above AI answers with the HSCA testimony from the link that Lance posted earlier in this thread, and I believe we have the answer as to how the dent in CE 543 most likely occurred.
Mr. MCDONALD. Are you saying then when your panel test fired
CE-139, out of four fired cartridges, one was ejected with a dented
mouth? Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir, that occurred during the ejection proc-
ess in firing the weapon.
If I may.
Mr. McDONALD. Yes, please.
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. The ejection is that process whereby the bolt
handle is moved to the rear to eject the expended cartridge case,
ejecting the cartridge case out of the weapon.
Mr. MCDONALD. Now, when you tested the rifle, the panel tested
the rifle, ofyour panel members, who ejected the shell or cartridge
case that came out with the dent?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Mr. Lutz.
Mr. MCDONALD. Would Mr. Lutz please come forward and dem-
onstrate to us how you ejected to cause a dent in the test cartridge
case. Mr. LUTZ. The particular amount of force that I used to extract
and eject the cartridge case from the weapon was much in the
manner that I would consider to be employed during anattempt to
rapidly fire the firearm. The cartridge was fired with the bolt being
closed and then with considerable speed and pressure being ap-
plied, opening it and pulling the bolt to the rear and holding it to
my side, and in a manner very rapidly, kicking the cartridge back
and ejecting the cartridge and causing it fall to the floor.
Mr. PREYER. Mr. Edgar.
Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Lutz, would you turn so we can see it.
Mr. LUTZ. In this manner, where I have grasped the bolt for-
ward, the cartridge had been fired, moved away from the firing
tube holding the bolt handle and then pulling it back with a
violent move duplicating what I deemed to be a rapid sequence of
firing, operating the handle to rapid sequence of
firing, operating the handle to rapidly fire the firearm.
CE 543 was not fired in the rifle.
Just look at the dent in CE 543 and compare it to the dents people are claiming are the same. They are not even remotely the same. The dent in CE 543 has a dimple in the center of the dent and below the rim. The dent Lutz was claiming has a rounded downward bent over dent on the rim. That is not the same dent. The interesting thing about Lutz is he stated the shell hit the floor but he doesn’t seem to clue in on how that could have put the rounded dent on the lip of the shell. No one has ever replicated the dent in CE 543. No one is sure how it was done.
Mr. Lutz.... “kicking the cartridge back
and ejecting the cartridge and causing it fall to the floor.”
--------------------
Just personally messing around with the carcanos’, I do not see how the ejection process can cause a dent no matter how stupid a person gets pulling the bolt back. The shell is not released from the bolt until it bottoms out on the back ejector.
In Lutz’s testimony he gives the most likely cause for the dent in his statement that the shell hit the floor.
-
That’s interesting Jack, thanks.
What seems preposterous to me about the dry-firing theory is that: if an empty cartridge were to be used for dry fire and the firing pin struck the primer for a second time, I believe that the initial impressions stamped into the primer by the firing pin when the live bullet was fired would be obliterated such that an identification would not be feasible.
Have you taken any of the test cartridges that you dry-fired to a firearms expert and asked if they could be identified as being fired from the rifle you used?
No. I have not and won't. I don't question whether Frazier or Dr. Chapman are being dishonest. How many times it could be erased and replaced would be totally hypothetical if it even can be. Obviously from what I have seen, how hard the firing pin strikes the primer varies dramatically from rifle to rifle.
The firing pin impression is the best way they used to place the shell in Oswald’s carcano. It is like a fingerprint.
Oswald did not have to actually fire CE 543 to have a snap cap. Just pull the bullet out and pour the powder out and touch off the primer in the gun with the firing pin. The remaining powder residue flares out of the rifle barrel when the primer is ignited.
Important to remember is CE 543 does not have the chamber mark on the side of the shell casing that all the other shells associated with the rifle, as noted by the FBI in their analysis of the assassination shells and also noted by Josiah Thompson in his book, have exhibited on the side of the shell casing.
-
JBC reacted. Glen Bennett reacted. Most people reported hearing 3 shots. Because that shot didn't hit anybody (except maybe Tague), many people did not realize it was a gunshot. At first some said they thought it was a firecracker or a motorcycle backfire. Charles Brehm can be seen in the Z-film clapping his hands even after JFK had been hit by the second shot, apparently oblivious to the fact JFK had just been shot. There is a wide disparity how people perceived that first shot. Some didn't even remember hearing the first shot and only remember hearing two, but the consensus of witnesses is that there were three which matches the number of spent shells found in the sniper's nest. Jarman, Norman, and Williams who were directly below Oswald when the shots were fired all testified to hearing three shots. Jarman and Williams both said they thought the first shot was a motorcycle backfire or a cop saluting the President.
No. JBC did not react until JFK has been hit and only heard two shots. Bennett is a two shot witness. Brehm is a two shot witness. Williams is a two shot witness, Jarman is a second shot was the headshot witness. Norman does not make a statement for four days. Eventually he even states he was only aware of two shots.
Seriously, does it not bother you that no one in Dealey Plaza heard this supposed early shot? Your only witness is a young girl on the sidewalk. Weren't there pigeons?
-
FWIW:
Another snip from “Phantom Shot” by Mike Majerus and Jack Nessan:
It is very possible that the dent in CE 543 occurred as a result of Oswald using the shell casing multiple times for dry firing. During one of those times, it could have snagged while being rechambered or ejected. When the FBI examined CE 543, it found marks that indicated it had been loaded into and extracted from a weapon at least three times. (26WH:449; CE 2968). Warren Commission firearms expert Joseph Nicol did tests on CE 543 confirming this. He said the marks could definitely have been made by dry firing the shell casing. (3WH:509-510).
That is a theoretical possibility which the WC recognized without endorsing. If CE543 was used for dry firing by Oswald, that would mean only two shots were fired unless CE543 was a reload which seems far fetched to me.
I have read some theorize that somebody in the DPD might have inserted the empty shell into the Carcano to see if it fit the rifle and then dry fired it. That falls into the realm of theoretical possibility although I've never seen any evidence to support that.
-
No. JBC did not react until JFK has been hit and only heard two shots. Bennett is a two shot witness.
You lie. Bennett clearly states he was looking at the crowd to the right of the limo when he HEARD the first shot. He then turned toward JFK in time to see the SECOND shot hit JFK. He then saw the third shot hit JFK in the head. That makes three shots.
Brehm is a two shot witness.
Brehm can still be seen clapping after JFK had been hit by the SECOND shot. That's some witness.
Williams is a two shot witness, Jarman is a second shot was the headshot witness. Norman does not make a statement for four days. Eventually he even states he was only aware of two shots. .
You're making excuses to dismiss all of these three witnesses who were closer to the gunman than anyone in Dealey Plaza and all of whom testified they heard three shots.
Seriously, does it not bother you that no one in Dealey Plaza heard this supposed early shot? Your only witness is a young girl on the sidewalk. Weren't there pigeons?
Your lies don't bother me at all.
-
CE 543 was not fired in the rifle.
Just look at the dent in CE 543 and compare it to the dents people are claiming are the same. They are not even remotely the same. The dent in CE 543 has a dimple in the center of the dent and below the rim. The dent Lutz was claiming has a rounded downward bent over dent on the rim. That is not the same dent. The interesting thing about Lutz is he stated the shell hit the floor but he doesn’t seem to clue in on how that could have put the rounded dent on the lip of the shell. No one has ever replicated the dent in CE 543. No one is sure how it was done.
Mr. Lutz.... “kicking the cartridge back
and ejecting the cartridge and causing it fall to the floor.”
--------------------
Just personally messing around with the carcanos’, I do not see how the ejection process can cause a dent no matter how stupid a person gets pulling the bolt back. The shell is not released from the bolt until it bottoms out on the back ejector.
In Lutz’s testimony he gives the most likely cause for the dent in his statement that the shell hit the floor.
I don’t think that there is any mystery to it Jack. Here’s another AI response:
The Ejection Impact PointsWhen you cycle the action too fast, the physics of the Carcano system cause distinct contact points:The Locking Abutment / Inside Wall: As the case mouth clears the chamber, the fixed ejector violently kicks the base of the brass to the right. If the bolt velocity is high, the pivoting case mouth swings outward so fast that it slaps the inside right wall of the receiver before it can fully clear the action.The Rear Receiver Bridge: Because the cartridge is simultaneously moving backward with the bolt, a rapid cycle can fling the spinning case neck directly into the forward edge of the rear receiver split/bridge (the solid metal loop housing the bolt handle when locked).Optics Mounts: If your Carcano is a modified or scoped sporter model, a fast ejection will frequently slam the case neck into the underside of the scope base or the windage turret.
The two cartridges in question look very similar to me based on the photos I have seen. But if you are right and the dents are drastically different, then the two different potential impact points might explain the differences. In the image below I have drawn an arrow to the rear receiver bridge area. There is an empty cartridge shown flying above the action after turning end for end about 90-degrees. In the case where the bolt is pulled back extremely fast, the cartridge would spin end for end much faster and such that the neck impacts the rear receiver bridge area before it clears the receiver area. For me, that might explain the dent in CE 543.
(https://i.vgy.me/ALD4ko.jpg)
-
You lie. Bennett clearly states he was looking at the crowd to the right of the limo when he HEARD the first shot. He then turned toward JFK in time to see the SECOND shot hit JFK. He then saw the third shot hit JFK in the head. That makes three shots.
Brehm can still be seen clapping after JFK had been hit by the SECOND shot. That's some witness.
You're making excuses to dismiss all of these three witnesses who were closer to the gunman than anyone in Dealey Plaza and all of whom testified they heard three shots.
Your lies don't bother me at all.
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.
In what world does his handwritten two shot statement translate into an early missed shot
--------------
Brehm 11/22 Dallas Herald
The witness Brehm was shaking uncontrollably as he further described the shooting. "The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped. Then on the second shot he seemed to fall back." Brehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if he would have after being shot from the rear. The book depository building stands in the rear of the President's location at the time of the shooting.
Another two shot witness. First shot and JFK slumped.
---------------------------------
If only there was a witness or evidence of some kind to an early missed shot.
-
I don’t think that there is any mystery to it Jack. Here’s another AI response:
The Ejection Impact PointsWhen you cycle the action too fast, the physics of the Carcano system cause distinct contact points:The Locking Abutment / Inside Wall: As the case mouth clears the chamber, the fixed ejector violently kicks the base of the brass to the right. If the bolt velocity is high, the pivoting case mouth swings outward so fast that it slaps the inside right wall of the receiver before it can fully clear the action.The Rear Receiver Bridge: Because the cartridge is simultaneously moving backward with the bolt, a rapid cycle can fling the spinning case neck directly into the forward edge of the rear receiver split/bridge (the solid metal loop housing the bolt handle when locked).Optics Mounts: If your Carcano is a modified or scoped sporter model, a fast ejection will frequently slam the case neck into the underside of the scope base or the windage turret.
The two cartridges in question look very similar to me based on the photos I have seen. But if you are right and the dents are drastically different, then the two different potential impact points might explain the differences. In the image below I have drawn an arrow to the rear receiver bridge area. There is an empty cartridge shown flying above the action after turning end for end about 90-degrees. In the case where the bolt is pulled back extremely fast, the cartridge would spin end for end much faster and such that the neck impacts the rear receiver bridge area before it clears the receiver area. For me, that might explain the dent in CE 543.
(https://i.vgy.me/ALD4ko.jpg)
JN: The HSCA dent was in at the top and downward in appearance
COPILOT: You’re describing the geometry exactly right, and this is the key point most summaries gloss over:
The HSCA test‑fired dent was “in at the top” and sloped downward — a downward‑angled inward crush — whereas CE 543’s dent is a compound deformation with an inward dimple and an outward flare.
----------------------------------------
If the bolt velocity is high, the pivoting case mouth swings outward so fast that it slaps the inside right wall of the receiver
No, There is no inside right wall to be slapped against. The right receiver is below the level of the shell casing. In the picture, you are looking at the inside wall of the left receiver wall, not the outside of the right wall.
--------------------
The Rear Receiver Bridge: Because the cartridge is simultaneously moving backward with the bolt, a rapid cycle can fling the spinning case neck directly into the forward edge of the rear receiver split/bridge (the solid metal loop housing the bolt handle when locked)
It is not even remotely possible for the mouth of the shell casing to hit the rear receiver bridge.
-
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.
In what world does his handwritten two shot statement translate into an early missed shot
Your reading comprehension is exceptionally poor. Bennett clearly describes two separate events, the shot he heard and the one he saw strike JFK's back. He "looked at the boss's care" AFTER hearing the first shot.
--------------
Brehm 11/22 Dallas Herald
The witness Brehm was shaking uncontrollably as he further described the shooting. "The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped. Then on the second shot he seemed to fall back." Brehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if he would have after being shot from the rear. The book depository building stands in the rear of the President's location at the time of the shooting.
Another two shot witness. First shot and JFK slumped. [/quote]
Brehm can be seen clapping after JFK had slumped over after the second shot struck him. He obviously had no clue as to what was going on. He didn't figure that out until he saw JFK's head explode.
---------------------------------
If only there was a witness or evidence of some kind to an early missed shot.
Plenty of witnesses have been cited and you just lie about what they have to say. That tells us all we need to know about you.
-
JN: The HSCA dent was in at the top and downward in appearance
COPILOT: You’re describing the geometry exactly right, and this is the key point most summaries gloss over:
The HSCA test‑fired dent was “in at the top” and sloped downward — a downward‑angled inward crush — whereas CE 543’s dent is a compound deformation with an inward dimple and an outward flare.
----------------------------------------
If the bolt velocity is high, the pivoting case mouth swings outward so fast that it slaps the inside right wall of the receiver
No, There is no inside right wall to be slapped against. The right receiver is below the level of the shell casing. In the picture, you are looking at the inside wall of the left receiver wall, not the outside of the right wall.
--------------------
The Rear Receiver Bridge: Because the cartridge is simultaneously moving backward with the bolt, a rapid cycle can fling the spinning case neck directly into the forward edge of the rear receiver split/bridge (the solid metal loop housing the bolt handle when locked)
It is not even remotely possible for the mouth of the shell casing to hit the rear receiver bridge.
Take a look at this slow-motion video starting at ~7:20. The cartridge definitely hits the rear receiver bridge. And if there had been only a slight bit more rotation of the cartridge, the mouth of the cartridge would have hit it.
-
Below is a screenshot of the video showing an ejected empty cartridge just after it bounced off of the rear bridge.
(https://i.vgy.me/TA6Qdg.png)
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. The reason that CE 543 didn’t have one of those marks (that some have assumed are some unexplained chamber marks) is that CE 543’s impact with the rear bridge was closer to the mouth of the cartridge.
-
In what world does his handwritten two shot statement translate into an early missed shot
Your reading comprehension is exceptionally poor. Bennett clearly describes two separate events, the shot he heard and the one he saw strike JFK's back. He "looked at the boss's care" AFTER hearing the first shot.
--------------
Brehm 11/22 Dallas Herald
The witness Brehm was shaking uncontrollably as he further described the shooting. "The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped. Then on the second shot he seemed to fall back." Brehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if he would have after being shot from the rear. The book depository building stands in the rear of the President's location at the time of the shooting.
Another two shot witness. First shot and JFK slumped.
Brehm can be seen clapping after JFK had slumped over after the second shot struck him. He obviously had no clue as to what was going on. He didn't figure that out until he saw JFK's head explode.
Plenty of witnesses have been cited and you just lie about what they have to say. That tells us all we need to know about you.
No, both men clearly describe two shots total. That is why people use words like first and second or immediately. You know words like that. That way nobody is left wondering or in your case creating your own narrative.
J Corbett ---“Brehm can be seen clapping after JFK had slumped over after the second shot struck him”
Really. You purposely changed Brehm's words to try and support this goofy theory? He never said the second shot hit him.
Brehm said “"The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped.” ----- There is no second shot to it. He could not have made it any clearer, first shot struck JFK. Unbelievable that you would do that.
Maybe you don't think Brehm was close enough to be a good witness.
-
Take a look at this slow-motion video starting at ~7:20. The cartridge definitely hits the rear receiver bridge. And if there had been only a slight bit more rotation of the cartridge, the mouth of the cartridge would have hit it.
Nothing has changed. The mouth of the shell casing never remotely comes near striking the rear receiver bridge. Hitting a flat surface is not going to create a dent like what is on CE 543.
It is a physical impossibility for the shell to flip beyond a 180 degrees that would be needed to overcome the shell body and then strike anything on the receiver bridge that can put a dent in the mouth of the shell as described by the AI.
The HSCA test‑fired dent was “in at the top” and sloped downward — a downward‑angled inward crush — whereas CE 543’s dent is a compound deformation with an inward dimple and an outward flare.
What is it about this that makes you want to enter the Twilight Zone in an attempt to create a bizarre scenario? The HSCA did not duplicate the dent in the CE 543 shell casing. Nobody has. It has a dimple in the middle of it and the top lip is flared back.
Try loading an empty shell casing into the rifle. It does not go smoothly and the lip hangs up.
-
Nothing has changed. The mouth of the shell casing never remotely comes near striking the rear receiver bridge. Hitting a flat surface is not going to create a dent like what is on CE 543.
It is a physical impossibility for the shell to flip beyond a 180 degrees that would be needed to overcome the shell body and then strike anything on the receiver bridge that can put a dent in the mouth of the shell as described by the AI.
The HSCA test‑fired dent was “in at the top” and sloped downward — a downward‑angled inward crush — whereas CE 543’s dent is a compound deformation with an inward dimple and an outward flare.
What is it about this that makes you want to enter the Twilight Zone in an attempt to create a bizarre scenario? The HSCA did not duplicate the dent in the CE 543 shell casing. Nobody has. It has a dimple in the middle of it and the top lip is flared back.
Try loading an empty shell casing into the rifle. It does not go smoothly and the lip hangs up.
The mouth of the shell came within a fraction of an inch and a few degrees of rotation of striking the bridge. That’s pretty darned close. Hitting the edge of the bridge could create the dent in CE 543. Duplicating the dent isn’t necessary to show the likelihood that it did happen.
-
Below is a screenshot of the video showing an ejected empty cartridge just after it bounced off of the rear bridge.
(https://i.vgy.me/TA6Qdg.png)
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. The reason that CE 543 didn’t have one of those marks (that some have assumed are some unexplained chamber marks) is that CE 543’s impact with the rear bridge was closer to the mouth of the cartridge.
So, it happened repeatedly but just with Oswald's rifle and on every one of the shells, 30+, that was produced while testing the rifle in time trials, also including both shells listed as CE 557 and the unfired cartridge, CE 141, ejected after the rifle was found on the 6th floor. As absolutely incredible as this proposed idea is, and to take the disbelief to a new level, the depth of the chamber mark is different depending on when in the firing sequence the chamber mark on the shell was produced and the shells landed on the bridge of the receiver in exactly the same spot on every shell casing, no variance. As preposterous as all of this is, CE 543 still has no chamber mark and a dented lip that cannot be explained, both deformities indicating it was not fired in the rifle.
-
No, both men clearly describe two shots total. That is why people use words like first and second or immediately. You know words like that. That way nobody is left wondering or in your case creating your own narrative.
J Corbett ---“Brehm can be seen clapping after JFK had slumped over after the second shot struck him”
Really. You purposely changed Brehm's words to try and support this goofy theory? He never said the second shot hit him.
Brehm said “"The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped.” ----- There is no second shot to it. He could not have made it any clearer, first shot struck JFK. Unbelievable that you would do that.
Maybe you don't think Brehm was close enough to be a good witness.
I didn't even cite Brehm's words. I cited what he was seen doing on the Z-film.
Sometimes a witness can be too close. It can create tunnel vision and lack of perspective.
-
The mouth of the shell came within a fraction of an inch and a few degrees of rotation of striking the bridge. That’s pretty darned close. Hitting the edge of the bridge could create the dent in CE 543. Duplicating the dent isn’t necessary to show the likelihood that it did happen.
You are not explaining the dent, you are just hoping you stumbled onto an alternative explanation. You didn't. What on the rear bridge of the receiver can cause a dent with a dimple in the middle that makes the top of the lip flare out.
-
I didn't even cite Brehm's words. I cited what he was seen doing on the Z-film.
Sometimes a witness can be too close. It can create tunnel vision and lack of perspective.
It can create tunnel vision and lack of perspective.
You mean like this. You are interpreting what Brehm thought and heard that is contrary to what he said took place while he was standing there and watched it unfold.
-
You are not explaining the dent, you are just hoping you stumbled onto an alternative explanation. You didn't. What on the rear bridge of the receiver can cause a dent with a dimple in the middle that makes the top of the lip flare out.
The image below is CE 543. It is difficult for me to tell from the photo, but if the lip is flared out it isn’t by much. The yellow circle is a round circle approximately the size of the mouth of the shell. The blue circle depicts an arc at a similar radius as the outside of the bridge on the rifle. The edge of the bridge could have made that dent in my opinion.
(https://i.vgy.me/9YUxki.jpg)
-
It can create tunnel vision and lack of perspective.
You mean like this. You are interpreting what Brehm thought and heard that is contrary to what he said took place while he was standing there and watched it unfold.
I see Brehm clapping his hands after JFK had slumped following the first shot that hit him. I conclude one of two things. Either Brehm was oblivious to the fact JFK had just been shot or he was glad that JFK had just been shot. Which one do you think is the case?
-
The image below is CE 543. It is difficult for me to tell from the photo, but if the lip is flared out it isn’t by much. The yellow circle is a round circle approximately the size of the mouth of the shell. The blue circle depicts an arc at a similar radius as the outside of the bridge on the rifle. The edge of the bridge could have made that dent in my opinion.
(https://i.vgy.me/9YUxki.jpg)
No, It doesn't have to be much. It is a shell not an anvil. Somebody here suggested it was a stake mark. Maybe check that out.
I thought you liked AI? You don't believe what it produced?
The bridge can cause a dimple in the center of the dent?
-
I see Brehm clapping his hands after JFK had slumped following the first shot that hit him. I conclude one of two things. Either Brehm was oblivious to the fact JFK had just been shot or he was glad that JFK had just been shot. Which one do you think is the case?
That JFK had been struck by the first shot just as he stated and he realized he had been struck by the first shot; hence he referenced slumping just like the other eyewitnesses.
-
No, It doesn't have to be much. It is a shell not an anvil. Somebody here suggested it was a stake mark. Maybe check that out.
I thought you liked AI? You don't believe what it produced?
The bridge can cause a dimple in the center of the dent?
Yes, it is called the contact point.
-
Yes, it is called the contact point.
It is called a fictional story. Maybe your rifle has a point on the bridge, but none of the others do.
-
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.
(https://i.vgy.me/JNfU7x.jpg)
-
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.
(https://i.vgy.me/JNfU7x.jpg)
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yes, a majority of witnesses CAN be wrong but that doesn't mean they were wrong.
:D fork tongue.
-
:D 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.
-
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.
Call it the "Witness Unreliability Clause". I agree it's real.
:) but man, you abuse it all day long. I'll just leave it at that.
-
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.
“The way you determine that is to compare their statements with other evidence.”
Why don’t we do just that. JBC is your prime and only witness but does not support a single thing that is proposed. Not one. JBC believes the first shot hit JFK and the second shot hit him.
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, I do; I do have doubt, Congressman. I am not at all sure he was shooting at me. I think I could with some logic argue either way. The logic in favor of him, of the position that he was shooting at me, is simply borne out by the fact that the man fired three shots, and he hit each of the three times he fired. He obviously was a pretty good marksman, so you have to assume to some extent at least that he was hitting what he was shooting at.
On the other hand, I think I could argue with equal logic that obviously his prime target, and I think really his sole target, was President Kennedy. His first shot, at least to him, he could not have but known the effect that it might have on the President. His second shot showed that he had clearly missed the President, and his result to him, as the result of the first shot, the President slumped and changed his position in the back seat just enough to expose my back. I haven't seen all of the various positions, but again I think from where he was shooting I was in the direct line of fire immediately in front of the President, so any movement on the part of the President would expose me.
Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides?
Governor CONNALLY. We took--you are talking about the number of the slides?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket.
Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then.
Where is the corroboration to an early missed shot?
------------------
What evidence? There are only you and your opinion. People were shoulder to shoulder along Elm street and not one person heard an early missed shot. The eyewitnesses all state JFK reacted to the first shot. You think he continued to smile and wave
It is not a debate, it is undeniable. Nothing anywhere indicates there was an early missed shot.
----------------------------------
“the CORROBORATED statements of JBC and Glen Bennett.”
Bennett is a two shot witness. He referenced just two shots. Get over it.
JBC’s part of this theory is nothing but you talking out of both sides of your mouth. JBC is being presented as both right and wrong with his same statement. On one hand, to you anyway, JBC is right when he states he heard a shot, that in his mind hit JFK but not him, and then he was wrong when he states he was struck by a separate bullet than the one that hit JFK, the one JBC never heard.
Then, according to this oddball early missed shot theory, an early missed shot is then followed by one bullet that hit both JFK and JBC. In this bizarre theory, JBC’s earlier statement is completely ignored. What did he know, he was wounded is that it? How is that in any way following anything but unsubstantiated personal beliefs?
-
Agreed, also there were other firearms experts that verified the FBI’s conclusions, etc. As far as I know, none of them indicated anything either.
It doesn't matter to the amateurish CT sleuths. They know their opinion based on low resolution 6th generation copies of photographs of the shells trumps those of real experts in their field.
-
Quote from: Charles Collins on June 11, 2026, 03:58:42 PM
“Agreed, also there were other firearms experts that verified the FBI’s conclusions, etc. As far as I know, none of them indicated anything either.”
J Corbett:
“It doesn't matter to the amateurish CT sleuths. They know their opinion based on low resolution 6th generation copies of photographs of the shells trumps those of real experts in their field.”
You mean like the chamber mark on the side of the shells that the FBI noted in their report to Rankin, but Charles claimed came from the rear receiver of the rifle and not the chamber of the rifle. I have never seen where the real experts other than the FBI identifies the indentations as a chamber mark. Josiah observed the chamber mark on even CE 141 and confirmed what the FBI analysis stated. The “real” experts had not a clue. Any breakthrough on providing evidence of an early missed shot? JBC is definitely not proof.
-
“The way you determine that is to compare their statements with other evidence.”
Why don’t we do just that. JBC is your prime and only witness but does not support a single thing that is proposed. Not one. JBC believes the first shot hit JFK and the second shot hit him.
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.
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, I do; I do have doubt, Congressman. I am not at all sure he was shooting at me. I think I could with some logic argue either way. The logic in favor of him, of the position that he was shooting at me, is simply borne out by the fact that the man fired three shots, and he hit each of the three times he fired. He obviously was a pretty good marksman, so you have to assume to some extent at least that he was hitting what he was shooting at.
On the other hand, I think I could argue with equal logic that obviously his prime target, and I think really his sole target, was President Kennedy. His first shot, at least to him, he could not have but known the effect that it might have on the President. His second shot showed that he had clearly missed the President, and his result to him, as the result of the first shot, the President slumped and changed his position in the back seat just enough to expose my back. I haven't seen all of the various positions, but again I think from where he was shooting I was in the direct line of fire immediately in front of the President, so any movement on the part of the President would expose me.
Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides?
Governor CONNALLY. We took--you are talking about the number of the slides?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket.
Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then.
Where is the corroboration to an early missed shot?
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.
------------------
What evidence? There are only you and your opinion. People were shoulder to shoulder along Elm street and not one person heard an early missed shot. The eyewitnesses all state JFK reacted to the first shot. You think he continued to smile and wave
It is not a debate, it is undeniable. Nothing anywhere indicates there was an early missed 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.
----------------------------------
“the CORROBORATED statements of JBC and Glen Bennett.”
Bennett is a two shot witness. He referenced just two shots. Get over it.
You are nothing but a lying troll. I just posted his report which described three shots.
JBC’s part of this theory is nothing but you talking out of both sides of your mouth. JBC is being presented as both right and wrong with his same statement. On one hand, to you anyway, JBC is right when he states he heard a shot, that in his mind hit JFK but not him, and then he was wrong when he states he was struck by a separate bullet than the one that hit JFK, the one JBC never heard.
Then, according to this oddball early missed shot theory, an early missed shot is then followed by one bullet that hit both JFK and JBC. In this bizarre theory, JBC’s earlier statement is completely ignored. What did he know, he was wounded is that it? How is that in any way following anything but unsubstantiated personal beliefs?
Keep lying about the evidence. It's all you know how to do.
-
Quote from: Charles Collins on June 11, 2026, 03:58:42 PM
“Agreed, also there were other firearms experts that verified the FBI’s conclusions, etc. As far as I know, none of them indicated anything either.”
J Corbett:
“It doesn't matter to the amateurish CT sleuths. They know their opinion based on low resolution 6th generation copies of photographs of the shells trumps those of real experts in their field.”
You mean like the chamber mark on the side of the shells that the FBI noted in their report to Rankin, but Charles claimed came from the rear receiver of the rifle and not the chamber of the rifle. I have never seen where the real experts other than the FBI identifies the indentations as a chamber mark. Josiah observed the chamber mark on even CE 141 and confirmed what the FBI analysis stated. The “real” experts had not a clue. Any breakthrough on providing evidence of an early missed shot? JBC is definitely not proof.
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?
-
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?
Jack can't make an honest argument. His SOP is to lie about what people have said to make his point. IOW, he's an internet troll.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
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.
-
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?
That is what I thought too. It did not take long to change.
The thread turned into debunking CE 543 and dry firing so as to keep validating and promoting an early missed shot. CE 543 as a snap cap casts a huge doubt on that scenario. You saw the lengths he went through and conclusions he reached trying to prove a third shot. Everything but the obvious is being believed. Going as far as replicating a sniper's nest to... I don’t really know why someone would do that. I am not much better. I fired a carcano from inside of an old farmhouse and then stuck the barrel outside of the window while having Mike stand outside to see if there was a difference in the sound. The only thing I learned was don't shoot a rifle inside of a dusty old farmhouse. It took an hour to get the dust out of my eyes.
Given your dabbling into religious beliefs, something you would understand is people seem to hold onto the third shot like a religion. A third shot cannot be proven, and it makes no sense when described in any scenario. A religious fervor about a third shot is what you are seeing here. I have watched it for a decade on the forum. Charles and John are just the latest.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
When are you going to admit that there is a difference in “making a claim” and “expressing an opinion that something might have happened”?
I made no such “claim”.
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.
It is very similar.
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.
It is one dent. And the edge of the rear bridge certainly could have caused it. The video I posted suggests just that. You haven’t acknowledged what the video clearly shows.
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.
The blue arc was shown to demonstrate how well the edge of the rear bridge fits the shape of the dent and might have caused the dent. The deepest part of the dent (center dimple if you prefer) is mostly still visible notwithstanding the blue arc. Again, this is one dent. Are you suggesting that first one dent was made by a collision and then another subsequent collision occurred that caused the “dimple” to appear perfectly centered inside the other “dent”? :D
Here it is without the blue arc:
(https://i.vgy.me/i4hwVD.jpg)
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.
The yellow circle shows that the mouth of CE 543 is still round (there is no flare). The indentation is difficult to see due to the top angle and the graininess of the photo. Here’s another photo of CE 543 from the side that I added two parallel yellow lines to in order to try to show that the mouth is not flared.
(https://i.vgy.me/GIUgsB.png)
-
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.
When are you going to admit that there is a difference in “making a claim” and “expressing an opinion that something might have happened”?
I made no such “claim”.
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.
It is very similar.
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.
It is one dent. And the edge of the rear bridge certainly could have caused it. The video I posted suggests just that. You haven’t acknowledged what the video clearly shows.
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.
The blue arc was shown to demonstrate how well the edge of the rear bridge fits the shape of the dent and might have caused the dent. The deepest part of the dent (center dimple if you prefer) is mostly still visible notwithstanding the blue arc. Again, this is one dent. Are you suggesting that first one dent was made by a collision and then another subsequent collision occurred that caused the “dimple” to appear perfectly centered inside the other “dent”? :D
Here it is without the blue arc:
(https://i.vgy.me/i4hwVD.jpg)
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.
The yellow circle shows that the mouth of CE 543 is still round (there is no flare). The indentation is difficult to see due to the top angle and the graininess of the photo. Here’s another photo of CE 543 from the side that I added two parallel yellow lines to in order to try to show that the mouth is not flared.
(https://i.vgy.me/GIUgsB.png)
This whole thread has been suspect from the get go. The true purpose has been culminating in your recent posts of the pictures of shells and your explanation for your actions and posts. No one needed one more picture with your ridiculous lines on them. It could not be more obvious how deceitful this has become.
The difference between you making a claim and expressing an opinion is you having been told how stupid it was to think the shells would have the exact same dent in the exact same place on so many shells and the unfired cartridge as a result of the rear bridge or any location for that matter. The rear bridge could never have caused the dent in CE 543, and you have not shown where it was even remotely a possibility. A picture of the dent in CE 543 needs to show the dimple in the middle of the dent or would that cast this whole bizarre nonsense in a bad light. Where is the top-down picture of the shell you were claiming was CE 543. That is OK, it doesn’t matter; it is only a few pages back in the thread. By your own statements regarding the dent, it is either flared or not a picture of CE 543.
-
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?
You make the assumption I am an atheist. If atheism could answer all my questions, I would probably be an atheist. It can't so I'm not. I am agnostic. Mankind has been pondering this question for as long as humans have had the ability to ponder. To the best of my knowledge, no one has come up with a provable answer. The late Dr. Carl Sagain, who was also an agnostic, said, "I don't want to believe. I want to know.". That pretty much sums up my position on religion.
As it applies to the JFKA, I KNOW that Oswald was the assassin. I BELIEVE he was acting on his own behalf but because I can't prove a negative, I can't logically say he had no accomplices. Only that I believe that to be highly unlikely. Ditto for the two shot scenario. There is ample, highly compelling evidence of three shots, both forensic and earwitness accounts. The WC recognized the theoretical possibility that Oswald could have started with an empty shell in the chamber and only fired two shots, but I find that to be highly unlikely.
-
This whole thread has been suspect from the get go. The true purpose has been culminating in your recent posts of the pictures of shells and your explanation for your actions and posts. No one needed one more picture with your ridiculous lines on them. It could not be more obvious how deceitful this has become.
The difference between you making a claim and expressing an opinion is you having been told how stupid it was to think the shells would have the exact same dent in the exact same place on so many shells and the unfired cartridge as a result of the rear bridge or any location for that matter. The rear bridge could never have caused the dent in CE 543, and you have not shown where it was even remotely a possibility. A picture of the dent in CE 543 needs to show the dimple in the middle of the dent or would that cast this whole bizarre nonsense in a bad light. Where is the top-down picture of the shell you were claiming was CE 543. That is OK, it doesn’t matter; it is only a few pages back in the thread. By your own statements regarding the dent, it is either flared or not a picture of CE 543.
Here’s another photo of the top view as requested. I made it into an animated GIF to show conclusively that there simply is no flare on the mouth of CE 543. The blinking yellow circle is intended to show that the rim of the mouth is still round with the exception of the dented in section.
(https://i.vgy.me/LQOVDJ.gif)
The side view posted previously with the parallel yellow lines shows that the neck of CE 543 still has parallel sides. This is meant to show that there simply is no flare on the neck of CE 543.
-
You make the assumption I am an atheist. If atheism could answer all my questions, I would probably be an atheist. It can't so I'm not. I am agnostic. Mankind has been pondering this question for as long as humans have had the ability to ponder. To the best of my knowledge, no one has come up with a provable answer. The late Dr. Carl Sagain, who was also an agnostic, said, "I don't want to believe. I want to know.". That pretty much sums up my position on religion.
No, I don't assume you're an atheist. I say that your method of arguing your LN position is consistently the same as the internet atheists' method of arguing theirs.
As applied to religion, Carl Sagan's statement is unworthy of a serious thinker. Sagan in fact said some remarkably shallow things. I would love to "know" too, but we cannot know the ontological truth of something like the existence or nonexistence of a deity because the answer, whether yes or no, must be found outside the human frame of reference. The domain of science does not extend beyond the natural order. All we can do is inform ourselves as diligently and thoroughly as possible and arrive at some level of conviction. That conviction, be it theistic or atheistic, cannot possibly be free of all doubt and cannot possibly rise to the level of knowledge. Agnosticism is fine if one has diligently and thoroughly investigated the issue and concluded it is impossible to reach any level of conviction one way or the other - but only if one has diligently and thoroughly investigated the issue. Otherwise, a claim of agnosticism is just a cop-out: "The existence or nonexistence of a deity cannot be known with certainty, and therefore I don't concern myself with the issue and call myself an agnostic." Sagan distinguished his "I want to know" from "blind faith" - but only mindless theism or atheism is a matter of blind faith, so Sagan was guilty of setting up a false dichotomy. Famed New Atheist biologist Richard Dawkins makes precisely the same mistake, having so little understanding of the religious position that he equates all religious belief to mindless blind faith. One can certainly say "I don't think the answer can be known, so I don't bother with the question" - but this is not a true agnostic position and, if certain religions are true, could have unpleasant eternal consequences; indeed, it could have unpleasant eternal consequences even if some species of atheism are true. Hence, I believe the quest for convictions is one of the central purposes of my life.
As it applies to the JFKA, I KNOW that Oswald was the assassin. I BELIEVE he was acting on his own behalf but because I can't prove a negative, I can't logically say he had no accomplices. Only that I believe that to be highly unlikely. Ditto for the two shot scenario. There is ample, highly compelling evidence of three shots, both forensic and earwitness accounts. The WC recognized the theoretical possibility that Oswald could have started with an empty shell in the chamber and only fired two shots, but I find that to be highly unlikely.
No, you have a high level of conviction that Oswald was the assassin. Your claim of knowledge is also frequently encountered on religion forums, where folks claim "knowledge" when in fact what they are expressing is a high level of conviction. Typically, it is believers who do this, as though their God might be offended if they acknowledged even a kernel of honest (and unavoidable) doubt. Many CTers have a high level of conviction in the opposite direction. Since you are watering down your assessment of the two-shot scenario to "highly unlikely," on what basis is Jack Nessan a troll for defending that position? The fact is - and it's quite striking - that much of the JFKA debate is conducted at a quasi-religious level, not a search-for-historical-truth level.
-
No, you have a high level of conviction that Oswald was the assassin.
Gee, it couldn't be because all the evidence points to that conclusion.
I agree with what Vincent Bugliosi said. People who don't think Oswald was the assassin are either ignorant of the evidence of his guilt or they are just silly.
-
Here’s another photo of the top view as requested. I made it into an animated GIF to show conclusively that there simply is no flare on the mouth of CE 543. The blinking yellow circle is intended to show that the rim of the mouth is still round with the exception of the dented in section.
(https://i.vgy.me/LQOVDJ.gif)
The side view posted previously with the parallel yellow lines shows that the neck of CE 543 still has parallel sides. This is meant to show that there simply is no flare on the neck of CE 543.
Your picture does not depict what you think it does. You need to study the various pictures a little closer. What is depicted is exactly what I have been telling you. The indentation in the center of the bigger dent is farther into the shell casing, you know flared, and that is what is shown in the plan view of the shell casing and the other CE 543 photos.
The sides are slightly bulged out as would be expected and observed in the photos. Your lines are just an extension of your opinion and cannot possibly be considered accurate by you or anyone else.
-
Your picture does not depict what you think it does. You need to study the various pictures a little closer. What is depicted is exactly what I have been telling you. The indentation in the center of the bigger dent is farther into the shell casing, you know flared, and that is what is shown in the plan view of the shell casing and the other CE 543 photos.
The sides are slightly bulged out as would be expected and observed in the photos. Your lines are just an extension of your opinion and cannot possibly be considered accurate by you or anyone else.
The indentation in the center of the bigger dent is farther into the shell casing, you know flared, and that is what is shown in the plan view of the shell casing and the other CE 543 photos.
That is not the definition of a flare. Here is the difference according to Google AI:
A dent is an inward depression caused by an impact, whereas a flare is an outward protrusion or widening.
The sides are slightly bulged out as would be expected and observed in the photos.
If the sides were slightly bulged out, that would be flared. However, I do not see any evidence of any bulging. If bulging were present, we would see the top view being oval shaped. But my demonstration with the yellow circle shows that it is not oval-shaped and is circular. Also the parallel yellow lines in the side view shows that it is not bulged (or flared out); if the neck of the shell was bulged out, then the parallel lines would not line up with the edges of the neck.