JFK Assassination Forum

You'd have to ask the people who hired Gary Mack that question. The Sixth Floor Museum is a non-profit organization run by the Dallas County Historical Foundation. Do you think they are part of the cover up too?
Gordon Arnold said there were PILES of dirt. Do you know of anybody else who said that?

   When viewing the Darnell Film snippet showing the area between the N-S Picket Fence and the short wall running down from Zapruder, FOCUS on the ground level of The Bench and the feet of the Black Guy standing near The Bench  vs  the ground level/feet of the people on the walkway. The elevation difference is pronounced. On 11/22/63, there was only DIRT on both sides of The Walkway.

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

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

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

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

What witness to a first shot before JFK slumped. That is the point.

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

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

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

Again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Not dry-firing in a disassembled rifle. Leaving it there for convenience because mostly what he did with the rifle was dry-fire it. It was simply there when he repackaged the disassembled rifle and took it into the TSBD.

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

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

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

Again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also:

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

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

Here are the major points of the acoustical evidence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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