JFK Assassination Forum

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.

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?

In his 2009 article on evidence that Cuban intelligence had foreknowledge of the assassination and that Castro approved/allowed the hit on JFK, Gus Russo claims that while Oswald was at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, he wept and proclaimed that he would prove his revolutionary loyalty by killing "that bastard, Kennedy":

At the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, Oswald pulled a gun, wept, and claimed that he would prove his revolutionary loyalty by killing "that bastard, Kennedy." ("Did Castro Okay the Kennedy Assassination?", American Heritage, winter 2009, https://www.americanheritage.com/did-castro-okay-kennedy-assassination)

This was the basic fable that was energetically pushed by elements of the Intelligence Community and the news media soon after the assassination, i.e., that Oswald the devout Marxist killed JFK in the service of or in support of the Soviet Union and Cuba. This tale is still peddled by some lone-gunman theorists to this day.

Yet, this tale makes it all the more puzzling that Oswald did not do what other supposedly ideologically motivated presidential assassins have done, namely, proudly take credit for his deed and justify his deed as a worthy act done in support of a noble cause and/or done as a necessary act to combat evil. 

Oswald did the exact opposite. He adamantly insisted he was innocent. He fiercely denied shooting JFK and/or Tippit. He said the evidence against him was fraudulent. He even said he was a patsy.

Why do you keep insisting that there is a rule book that all assassins are supposed to follow? The three previous presidential assassins use a handgun at close range. Oswald carried out his assassination with a rifle at a longer range. So what. He chose a different method and had different reasons than the others. So what?

Judyth Vary Baker?

Now there's a blast from the past. Does anyone believe anything that ditz has to say?

In his 2009 article on evidence that Cuban intelligence had foreknowledge of the assassination and that Castro approved/allowed the hit on JFK, Gus Russo claims that while Oswald was at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, he wept and proclaimed that he would prove his revolutionary loyalty by killing "that bastard, Kennedy":

At the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, Oswald pulled a gun, wept, and claimed that he would prove his revolutionary loyalty by killing "that bastard, Kennedy." ("Did Castro Okay the Kennedy Assassination?", American Heritage, winter 2009, https://www.americanheritage.com/did-castro-okay-kennedy-assassination)

This was the basic fable that was energetically pushed by elements of the Intelligence Community and the news media soon after the assassination, i.e., that Oswald the devout Marxist killed JFK in the service of or in support of the Soviet Union and Cuba. This tale is still peddled by some lone-gunman theorists to this day.

Yet, this tale makes it all the more puzzling that Oswald did not do what other ideologically motivated presidential assassins have done, namely, proudly take credit for his deed and justify his deed as a worthy act done in support of a noble cause and/or done as a necessary act to combat evil. 

Oswald did the exact opposite. He adamantly insisted he was innocent. He fiercely denied shooting JFK and/or Tippit. He said the evidence against him was fraudulent. He even said he was a patsy.

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.