Roger Craig

[Walt Cakebread]

Fritz was recorded by Alyea when the rifle was discovered. Exactly like what he said.

Fritz was recorded by Alyea when the rifle was discovered. Exactly like what he said.

 Tom Alyea did film Lt Day holding up the CARCANO ( not a mauser) to Fritz and the film shows Fritz examining the carcano.

This portion of the film clearly shows that the rifle's bolt is NOT in the home ( latched down and ready to fire ) position. This is a very strong indicator that the live round was simply dropped into the breech and the bolt closed ( Not LATCHED )

[Jack Nessan]

Fritz was recorded by Alyea when the rifle was discovered. Exactly like what he said.

 Tom Alyea did film Lt Day holding up the CARCANO ( not a mauser) to Fritz and the film shows Fritz examining the carcano.

This portion of the film clearly shows that the rifle's bolt is NOT in the home ( latched down and ready to fire ) position. This is a very strong indicator that the live round was simply dropped into the breech and the bolt closed ( Not LATCHED )

The problem with this is the "chamber mark" or indentation found on the side of CE 141. That is the result of having been in the chamber of the rifle after the gun had been fired and the heat had expanded the chamber to impress the chamber mark on the side of CE141. The same "chamber mark" is found on CE 544 and CE 545. The chamber mark does not appear on the side of CE 543 but was noted on 30+ other shells, in the possession of the WC and FBI, that had been fired in the carcano.

In other words, the only way the "chamber mark" can occur on CE 141 is if it followed the firing of the other two cartridges which had expanded the chamber of the rifle due to heat.

[Walt Cakebread]

The problem with this is the "chamber mark" or indentation found on the side of CE 141. That is the result of having been in the chamber of the rifle after the gun had been fired and the heat had expanded the chamber to impress the chamber mark on the side of CE141. The same "chamber mark" is found on CE 544 and CE 545. The chamber mark does not appear on the side of CE 543 but was noted on 30+ other shells, in the possession of the WC and FBI, that had been fired in the carcano.

In other words, the only way the "chamber mark" can occur on CE 141 is if it followed the firing of the other two cartridges which had expanded the chamber of the rifle due to heat.

"Chamber mark?... What the hell are you babbling about??

"That is the result of having been in the chamber of the rifle after the gun had been fired and the heat had expanded the chamber to impress the chamber mark on the side of CE141."

Heat would expand the chamber and increase the diameter of the chamber while the relatively cold cartridge would not be expanded an therefore the cartridge would be less likely to be marked by the expanded chamber.

BTW..... WHAT?? was in the chamber that would have left a mark in the cartridge.??

[Jack Nessan]

"Chamber mark?... What the hell are you babbling about??

"That is the result of having been in the chamber of the rifle after the gun had been fired and the heat had expanded the chamber to impress the chamber mark on the side of CE141."

Heat would expand the chamber and increase the diameter of the chamber while the relatively cold cartridge would not be expanded an therefore the cartridge would be less likely to be marked by the expanded chamber.

BTW..... WHAT?? was in the chamber that would have left a mark in the cartridge.??

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2968.pdf

Josiah Thompsom's book "Six Seconds in Dallas" Chapter VII footnote 4 explains the indentation was more pronounced on some shells than in 30+ other shells he viewed. What this indicates is the more the chamber was heated the more pronounced the indentation becomes. The indentation in CE 544 is more pronounced than CE 545 indicating CE 544 was fired second and CE 545 was fired first.

Hoover in his memo to Rankin (CE 2968) calls them chamber marks but does not reference the indentation being on CE 141 but does on CE 544 and CE 545. Obviously, they believe there was something in the chamber creating the mark on the shell as he states that very fact.
 Hoover: "as having been produced by the chamber of C14"

------------------------

The last tool used to finish making the chamber, where the indentation is originating, is a reamer. Possibly it had become defective and left a little burr or something similar in the chamber.

[Walt Cakebread]

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2968.pdf

Josiah Thompsom's book "Six Seconds in Dallas" Chapter VII footnote 4 explains the indentation was more pronounced on some shells than in 30+ other shells he viewed. What this indicates is the more the chamber was heated the more pronounced the indentation becomes. The indentation in CE 544 is more pronounced than CE 545 indicating CE 544 was fired second and CE 545 was fired first.

Hoover in his memo to Rankin (CE 2968) calls them chamber marks but does not reference the indentation being on CE 141 but does on CE 544 and CE 545. Obviously, they believe there was something in the chamber creating the mark on the shell as he states that very fact.
 Hoover: "as having been produced by the chamber of C14"

------------------------

The last tool used to finish making the chamber, where the indentation is originating, is a reamer. Possibly it had become defective and left a little burr or something similar in the chamber.

The last tool used to finish making the chamber, where the indentation is originating, is a reamer. Possibly it had become defective and left a little burr or something similar in the chamber.

I'm not familiar with the manufacturing of the carcano..... But usually the last tool used in finishing the chamber is a hone....
The hone removes any burrs or roughness in the chamber and polishes the walls of the chamber to allow the spent expanded cartridge to be easily extracted.

[Jack Nessan]

The last tool used to finish making the chamber, where the indentation is originating, is a reamer. Possibly it had become defective and left a little burr or something similar in the chamber.

I'm not familiar with the manufacturing of the carcano..... But usually the last tool used in finishing the chamber is a hone....
The hone removes any burrs or roughness in the chamber and polishes the walls of the chamber to allow the spent expanded cartridge to be easily extracted.

This is what you took out of this discussion. Did the Italians take the time to finely polish the chamber like these rifles were fine hunting rifles instead of just using a finishing reamer?  The shell information are facts that help explain the assassination. CE 543 does not have a chamber mark. Every other cartridge or shell that was introduced into the chamber of the rifle has the chamber mark.

The only conspiracy left is why did the FBI not explain why the chamber mark was on CE 544, CE 545, CE 141, CE 557, and 30+ more shells, as noted by Josiah Thompson, but wasn't on CE 543. The WC Conclusion included the belief that LHO may have carried an empty shell in the rifle and ejected it before shooting. They understood this was a possibility but did not feel the need to explain the "chamber mark."

To add a pointless step to the manufacture of the rifles instead of using a finishing reamer is of no use or is of no real importance and in no way explains indentations on the side of the shells from the chamber. Apparently, they left the burr because it shows up on the shell casings. Especially since there really is such a thing as a finish reamer. Grinding a chamber, to remove a burr, wider and out of spec with a hone is counterproductive.

[Walt Cakebread]

This is what you took out of this discussion. Did the Italians take the time to finely polish the chamber like these rifles were fine hunting rifles instead of just using a finishing reamer?  The shell information are facts that help explain the assassination. CE 543 does not have a chamber mark. Every other cartridge or shell that was introduced into the chamber of the rifle has the chamber mark.

The only conspiracy left is why did the FBI not explain why the chamber mark was on CE 544, CE 545, CE 141, CE 557, and 30+ more shells, as noted by Josiah Thompson, but wasn't on CE 543. The WC Conclusion included the belief that LHO may have carried an empty shell in the rifle and ejected it before shooting. They understood this was a possibility but did not feel the need to explain the "chamber mark."

You're desperately trying to save your theory..... With utter nonsense ( BS)

To add a pointless step to the manufacture of the rifles instead of using a finishing reamer is of no use or is of no real importance and in no way explains indentations on the side of the shells from the chamber. Apparently, they left the burr because it shows up on the shell casings. Especially since there really is such a thing as a finish reamer. Grinding a chamber, to remove a burr, wider and out of spec with a hone is counterproductive.

[Jack Nessan]

This is what you took out of this discussion. Did the Italians take the time to finely polish the chamber like these rifles were fine hunting rifles instead of just using a finishing reamer?  The shell information are facts that help explain the assassination. CE 543 does not have a chamber mark. Every other cartridge or shell that was introduced into the chamber of the rifle has the chamber mark.

The only conspiracy left is why did the FBI not explain why the chamber mark was on CE 544, CE 545, CE 141, CE 557, and 30+ more shells, as noted by Josiah Thompson, but wasn't on CE 543. The WC Conclusion included the belief that LHO may have carried an empty shell in the rifle and ejected it before shooting. They understood this was a possibility but did not feel the need to explain the "chamber mark."

You're desperately trying to save your theory..... With utter nonsense ( BS)

To add a pointless step to the manufacture of the rifles instead of using a finishing reamer is of no use or is of no real importance and in no way explains indentations on the side of the shells from the chamber. Apparently, they left the burr because it shows up on the shell casings. Especially since there really is such a thing as a finish reamer. Grinding a chamber, to remove a burr, wider and out of spec with a hone is counterproductive.

You're desperately trying to save your theory..... With utter nonsense ( BS)

You should welcolme this evidence. Haven't you been a big proponent of only two shots from the window? Here it is, the hard cold reality of hard cold facts. The WC had it right by stating in their conclusion "It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses hearing multiple noises made by the same shot."

That is exactly what it means by no "chamber mark" on CE 543 but the "chamber mark" is on every other shell or cartridge fired in the rifle or introduced into the chamber after it was fired. Simply put, there was an anomaly in the chamber of the rifle that caused the indentations on the side of the shells.