It is sad to see WC defenders still posting claims that have long since been soundly refuted.

No, the FBI did not duplicate the dent on CE 543 in any shell that was used to actually fire a bullet. No test has ever duplicated that dent in a shell that fired a bullet. CE 543 could not have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination.

This issue has been settled for years. Even some lone-gunman theorists have acknowledged that CE 543 could not have fired a bullet during the assassination. All those who believe in the mortal-error theory of the assassination acknowledge that CE 543 could not have fired a bullet during the shooting. But, most WC defenders don't want to admit this fact about CE 543 because it raises serious questions about their version of the shooting.

I would refer interested readers to my online article
"The Dented Bullet Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination."

I explore this issue in even more detail in chapter 17 of my book A Comforting Lie: The Myth That a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy.

Here is some of what Dr. Josiah Thompson says about the dented shell, CE 543, in his 2020 book Last Second in Dallas:

Things got really interesting when we photographed the three cartridge cases found near the corner window of the sixth floor of the depository and the live round found in the rifle.

I noticed something never mentioned in all the expert testimony or shown in any of the Warren Commission photographs. If you laid out the three cartridges alongside the live round, you could see a dent on the shoulders of two of the cases where they abutted the chamber of the rifle. The live round showed a similar but much less prominent mark. In contrast, the third cartridge case, designated CE 543, had no dent on its shoulder but a sharp dent in its lip. In its present form, this cartridge would not accept a projectile. . . .

According to Hoover, there was no mark like this on CE 543, only the magazine follower mark and the three strange marks mentioned by Nicol.

But the magazine follower mark could not have been caused on November 22 because that mark is caused by a lever under spring tension at the bottom of the magazine that presses against only the last round in the clip. Since the live round found in the rifle was the bottom round in the clip on November 22, it had its own follower mark. Even more important, Hoover’s letter mentioned that the three marks described by Nicol were absent not only from the other cartridge cases and the live round but also from the many cartridge cases produced in test firings of Oswald’s rifle. That clinched it: the cartridge case with the dented lip also had marks from a second Carcano, not Oswald’s. (Last Second in Dallas, pp. 178-179, 184-185)

In their book JFK Case Not Closed, Dave O'Brien and Johnny Cairns note some of the evidence that CE 543 could not have fired a bullet during the assassination:

The only marks that link CE 543 to the Carcano were produced by the magazine follower. These marks are caused by the pressure of the magazine follower on the last round in the clip, which pushes the remaining rounds in the clip upwards as their predecessors are chambered and then ejected from the rifle.

When the final round is chambered, the clip falls past the magazine follower and drops out of the bottom of the magazine well. While other cases had similar marks, the point is that these marks could not have been caused by the Carcano's magazine follower on the day of the assassination as the last round in the clip (CE 141) was unfired and still chambered in the rifle when it was found. . . .

CE 543 lacks a characteristic displayed by all the other cartridge cases (CE 544, CE 545 and CE 577) that have been chambered in the Carcano - a distinct impression along one side. Even CE 141 (the live round), showed a similar, if less pronounced, impression. . . .

If CE 543 is supposed to have been fired in the Carcano, how could it be missing this distinct impression? (JFK Case Not Closed, pp. 141-145)

My mistake, it was the HSCA experts who duplicated the dent.



There is no Warren Commission testimony stating that the FBI laboratory duplicated the dent in Commission Exhibit 543 (CE 543).

The original Warren Commission testimony regarding the dent in CE 543—which is one of the three cartridge cases found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository—comes from FBI firearms expert Robert A. Frazier.

The Actual Testimony (Volume III)When Frazier testified before the Commission, he explained that the dented mouth of the cartridge was a random occurrence that happens during the mechanics of loading or firing, rather than an intentional replication or a permanent defect of the rifle:

Mr. Eisenberg: “Mr. Frazier, I notice that the lip of CE 543 is dented in. Can you tell us how that dent might have occurred?”Mr. Frazier: “Yes, sir. This dent occurs when the cartridge is fired, or during the loading cycle, when the cartridge is forced into the chamber and the side of the case strikes the edge of the chamber, or upon ejection when the cartridge case is thrown out of the rifle and strikes the side of the receiver or the scope mount, or some outside object. It is a very common thing to find dented cartridge cases among fired cases, and it does not indicate any malfunction of the weapon, nor does it affect the firing of the cartridge.”— Warren Commission Hearings, Volume III, p. 433

Where the "Duplicate" Idea Comes From:

The concept of "duplicating" the dent originated later during the 1978 House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) investigation.When HSCA ballistics experts test-fired Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to examine the mechanics of the weapon, one of their four test-fired cartridges naturally duplicated the exact same type of neck dent seen on CE 543.This mechanical duplication proved to the committee that the dent on the original evidence shell was caused naturally by the rapid firing and ejection sequence of that specific rifle, rather than being damaged afterward or planted.


The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Volume VII report, specifically the Firearms Panel Report, details that the dented cartridge case (CE 543) was a common artifact of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle's normal ejection mechanism, not evidence of tampering. The panel concluded that test-firings (T-1 to T-4) resulted in similar, consistent dents, validating earlier FBI testimony. For more details, visit History Matters Archive.

What, in your opinion, did Charlie Kirk "stand for"?

Christian conservatism and patriotism. He was a bright and passionate young lad, injecting the youth with a healthy dose of common sense and high moral standards through his TPUSA organization. His early death was most unfortunate.

It is sad to see WC defenders still posting claims that have long since been soundly refuted.

No, the FBI did not duplicate the dent on CE 543 in any shell that was used to actually fire a bullet. No test has ever duplicated that dent in a shell that fired a bullet. CE 543 could not have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination.

This issue has been settled for years. Even some lone-gunman theorists have acknowledged that CE 543 could not have fired a bullet during the assassination. All those who believe in the mortal-error theory of the assassination acknowledge that CE 543 could not have fired a bullet during the shooting. But, most WC defenders don't want to admit this fact about CE 543 because it raises serious questions about their version of the shooting.

I would refer interested readers to my online article
"The Dented Bullet Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination."

I explore this issue in even more detail in chapter 17 of my book A Comforting Lie: The Myth That a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy.

Here is some of what Dr. Josiah Thompson says about the dented shell, CE 543, in his 2020 book Last Second in Dallas:

Things got really interesting when we photographed the three cartridge cases found near the corner window of the sixth floor of the depository and the live round found in the rifle.

I noticed something never mentioned in all the expert testimony or shown in any of the Warren Commission photographs. If you laid out the three cartridges alongside the live round, you could see a dent on the shoulders of two of the cases where they abutted the chamber of the rifle. The live round showed a similar but much less prominent mark. In contrast, the third cartridge case, designated CE 543, had no dent on its shoulder but a sharp dent in its lip. In its present form, this cartridge would not accept a projectile. . . .

According to Hoover, there was no mark like this on CE 543, only the magazine follower mark and the three strange marks mentioned by Nicol.

But the magazine follower mark could not have been caused on November 22 because that mark is caused by a lever under spring tension at the bottom of the magazine that presses against only the last round in the clip. Since the live round found in the rifle was the bottom round in the clip on November 22, it had its own follower mark. Even more important, Hoover’s letter mentioned that the three marks described by Nicol were absent not only from the other cartridge cases and the live round but also from the many cartridge cases produced in test firings of Oswald’s rifle. That clinched it: the cartridge case with the dented lip also had marks from a second Carcano, not Oswald’s. (Last Second in Dallas, pp. 178-179, 184-185)

In their book JFK Case Not Closed, Dave O'Brien and Johnny Cairns note some of the evidence that CE 543 could not have fired a bullet during the assassination:

The only marks that link CE 543 to the Carcano were produced by the magazine follower. These marks are caused by the pressure of the magazine follower on the last round in the clip, which pushes the remaining rounds in the clip upwards as their predecessors are chambered and then ejected from the rifle.

When the final round is chambered, the clip falls past the magazine follower and drops out of the bottom of the magazine well. While other cases had similar marks, the point is that these marks could not have been caused by the Carcano's magazine follower on the day of the assassination as the last round in the clip (CE 141) was unfired and still chambered in the rifle when it was found. . . .

CE 543 lacks a characteristic displayed by all the other cartridge cases (CE 544, CE 545 and CE 577) that have been chambered in the Carcano - a distinct impression along one side. Even CE 141 (the live round), showed a similar, if less pronounced, impression. . . .

If CE 543 is supposed to have been fired in the Carcano, how could it be missing this distinct impression? (JFK Case Not Closed, pp. 141-145)

Here are 10 reasons to believe Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot JFK:

1. The ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

The ammo that hit Kennedy's head shattered into dozens of tiny fragments (practically particles) and a few larger fragments, deposited at least three fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, and left two fragments in the very front of the skull near the right orbit. Oswald allegedly used FMJ bullets, but FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever fragment in this manner.

An amazingly stupid claim given that a fragmented FMJ bullet was found on the floor of the limo that had two pieces which were positively matched to Oswald's rifle.

2. Multiple eyewitness accounts clearly indicate that Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting. We now know that the WC was aware of strong eyewitness evidence that Oswald did not come down the stairs after the shooting but suppressed it.

Pure BS. The only person who said he saw Oswald at the time of the shooting was Howard Brennan and he saw him shooting the rifle. There are no witnesses who said they saw Oswald elsewhere at the time of the shooting. There is no one who gives Oswald an alibi.

3. The trajectory of JFK's back wound was slightly upward, both at its entry point and beyond. No sixth-floor gunman could have fired this shot. The only way that a bullet from the sixth-floor window could have hit JFK's back at an upward angle and then tunneled at an upward angle was if JFK had been leaning nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet struck, a fact admitted by the chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations' (HSCA's) medical panel (FPP).

More BS. The entry wound on the back was higher than the exit wound in the front. If you think otherwise, tell us where you think the shot that hit JFK in the back was fired from, your evidence that supports that shot, and where you think that bullet went.

4. PSE polygraph analysis of Oswald's statements that he didn't shoot anyone and that he was just a patsy indicates he was telling the truth.

Oswald never took a polygraph. Do you just type things that pop into your head?

5. Three tests of the paraffin cast of Oswald's right cheek, including the super-sensitive neutron activation analysis (NAA) test, found no traces of nitrates, strongly indicating that he did not fire a rifle on the day of the assassination.

The three tests were the Dallas Police Department's diphenyl-benzidine paraffin test, the FBI's spectrographic paraffin test, and the Oak Ridge NAA paraffin test. The results of the NAA test were suppressed for years until pried loose by a FOIA lawsuit filed by Harold Weisberg.

We now know that Warren Commission (WC) attorney Norman Redlich advised WC member Alan Dulles about the NAA results in an internal memo, stating that they provided "no basis for concluding" that Oswald fired a rifle on 11/22/63. This damning memo only came to light only after a FOIA lawsuit filed by Weisberg.

An FBI agent fired Oswald's rifle and then took a paraffin test on his right cheek. He too tested negative, proving the Carcano could be fired without leaving nitrates on the shooter's cheek. This was explained in the WCR. Have you ever read it?

6.The alleged shooting feat was far beyond Oswald's marksmanship ability. Oswald was not even remotely skilled or experienced enough to have performed the shooting feat that the WC claimed he did. Rifle tests have proven that the alleged shooting feat would have been extremely difficult even for an experienced, world-class rifleman.

Repeating a lie thousands of times over decades will not make it come true. Oswald was capable of consistently hitting a target at ranges of 200 yards and more in order to twice qualify by USMC standards. That was without the aid of a scope. When he shot JFK, his longest shot was only 88 yards and was aided by a scope.

7. Oswald had no motive for shooting JFK. By all accounts, he admired JFK. In the days leading up to the assassination, Oswald was talking with his wife Marina about getting back together and getting their own apartment.

Many WC defenders claim that Oswald shot JFK to prove to the Cubans and/or the Soviets that he was devoted to the Marxist cause, but Oswald behaved nothing like an ideologically motivated assassin. Instead, he fiercely denied shooting JFK at every opportunity, told his family not to believe the "so-called evidence" against him, and said he was a patsy. In contrast, throughout history, assassins who were motivated by ideology have proudly taken credit for their crimes. Oswald did the opposite.

Oswald had a motive. He just didn't tell anybody what it was. The fact that his motive can't be proven doesn't mean he didn't have one.

8. HSCA investigators Ed Lopez and Dan Hardway found evidence that someone was impersonating Oswald in Mexico City about two months before the assassination. The committee decided to suppress the explosive Lopez-Hardway report that presented this evidence, but the report was released in redacted form in 1996 and in a less-redacted form in 2003.

Tell us how that proves Oswald did not shoot JFK in Dallas on 11/22/1963.

9. Anti-Castro Cubans were trying to frame Oswald for the assassination some two months ahead of time. This was revealed by Silvio Odio and  corroborated by her sister Annie in 1964. The HSCA, to its great credit, acknowledged that Silvia Odio's account is credible.

We now know that the WC was aware of Odio's account and knew she was a credible witness. In an internal WC memo, one of the Commission’s attorneys, David Slawson, said Odio was “checked out thoroughly” and that “the evidence is unanimously favorable, both as to her character and reliability, and as to her intelligence." Another one of the WC's attorneys, Wesley Liebeler, in another internal memo, expressed doubts about the Commission's rejection of Odio's account, saying "Odio may well be right" and warned that the WC would "look bad if it turns out" she was telling the truth. Nevertheless, the WC rejected Odio's account as "mistaken."

Tell us how those Cubans knew two months in advance that JFK's motorcade would be routed right past Oswald's workplace. It would have been pretty silly to try to frame Oswald without knowing that?

10. When we look at the evidence that supposedly proves Oswald's guilt, we find serious problems with it in virtually every instance. Those few items of evidence that are not fraught with problems are of an indirect nature and do not necessarily prove of his guilt.

Indirect my aching ass. We don't find serious problems with the evidence. Only dedicated Oswald deniers such as yourself reach for any excuse imaginable to dismiss each and every piece of conclusive evidence of Oswald's guilt. The is no universe where the body of evidence could point to Oswald's guilt if he were actually innocent.

In an interview with the Dallas Morning News in November 1969, none other than Dallas police chief Jesse Curry said there was no hard evidence that proved Oswald fired a rifle from the sixth-floor window:

We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.

Curry made similar statements in other interviews.

As just one example of the problems with the supposed evidence against Oswald, let's briefly consider the latent palmprint that the Dallas police belatedly claimed to have found on the barrel of the alleged murder weapon.

Lt. J. C. Day claimed to have discovered the latent palmprint on the night of the assassination at around 8:00 PM. Yet, he said nothing about the palmprint to the FBI when he handed over the rifle and other evidence to the FBI the next day, and the palmprint was not forwarded to the FBI until seven days later.

Lt. Day said he could still see the palmprint on the barrel after he lifted it. In fact, he said it was so visible that he thought it was the FBI's "best bet" in terms of fingerprint evidence on the rifle (4 H 261). Yet, when the rifle was examined just hours later by the FBI's Sebastian Latona, not only did Latona find no prints on the barrel, partial or otherwise, but he found no evidence that the barrel had even
been processed for prints.

Incredibly, Lt. Day failed to take a single photo of the palmprint, even though he took photos of the worthless prints on the rifle's trigger guard.

When asked to explain this shocking violation of standard police procedure, Lt. Day said he didn't take photos of the palmprint because Chief Curry called him at around 8:30 and told him to stop all work on the rifle because the FBI would finish what he had started. However, by Lt. Day's own admission, he took a photo of the rifle after Chief Curry called him, but still didn't take a photo of the all-important palmprint.

We now know that even the WC had doubts about the palmprint. An FBI memo released years after the WC dissolved reveals that the Commission's chief counsel, J. Lee Rankin, told the FBI that there was "serious doubt in the minds of the Commission as to whether or not the palm impression that has been obtained from the Dallas Police Department is a legitimate latent palm impression removed from the rifle barrel or whether it was obtained from some other source."

We also now know that when the FBI asked Lt. Day to sign a sworn statement about how he obtained the palmprint, he refused.

These are just some of the problems with the latent palmprint, yet pro-WC books cite the palmprint as strong evidence of Oswald's guilt. For more information on the reasons to doubt the palmprint's value as evidence, see my article https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NzWhdO-Ak3nbuxl8vsy62-fpLTBMBvPx/view?usp=sharing]"Was Oswald's Palmprint Planted
on the Alleged Murder Weapon? Some Questions About the Latent Palmprint"[/url].

Duncan should retitle this thread, 10 Reasons to Laugh at Michael T. Griffith. Not that we needed more reasons to do that.

One of the silliest theories proposed regarding the JFKA.

   Though this "theory" has no Proof, neither does the SBT. Yet the SBT is routinely embraced as being legit. The SA Hickey accidental firing of the AR-15 is certainly not "silly". I don't believe the AR-15 was responsible for the JFK Head Explosion, but an accidental missed shot(s) fired from that gun is very possible. This accidental firing would explain the smell of gunpowder stretching down Elm St as this fired weapon inside the Queen Mary traveled down Elm St and then onto the Stemmons Fwy On-Ramp.