Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[BStrong]

Here is a good, comprehensive article on the dented shell and the two other shells.

http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/rifle_shells.htm

After laying out the DPD's incomprehensible failure to follow standard evidence-marking procedure in their handling of the shells (I know: just another coincidence), the author then discusses the dented shell.

BStrong asks how one fires an empty shell. Did you read my article? This has already been done, and the empty shell that was fired was the only one that ended up with a sizable dent like the one on CE 543. Go read the article:

http://miketgriffith.com/files/dent.htm

I read it, thank you, now I'm even more convinced that Donahue et al were working to fit the square peg of reality into the round hole of their theory.

 

[RoboTimbo]

LOL! Turingtest nailed it in one!

I'm guessing you'll get a goal-post shift here from taftfan, based on his wording of "anything close to the kind of dent," and his desire to substitute his standard of "anything close" for the HSCA's expert witness's "similar."

But nobody has been able to create a dent of that nature after simply firing one bullet from a Carcano rifle.

 

[Hans]

Or more likely it was stepped on, leaned on, or banged with the rifle butt while it lay on the window sill.

Having been military for 17 years, and been on rifle ranges where, afterwards, I've picked up literally thousands of empty shell casings, a dent like that is far from unusual.

deleted my question was answered up thread

 

[JayUtah]

I read it, thank you, now I'm even more convinced that Donahue et al were working to fit the square peg of reality into the round hole of their theory.

Clearly. The article has enough straw men to make a Halloween attraction. And it sums up thus,

"Based on Donahue's and Mills' and Kurtz's research, the dented shell would appear to be hard evidence that more than one gunman fired at President Kennedy..."​

No. Hard evidence of another gunman would be the identity of the other gunman and proof that he fired at Kennedy. Finding a dented shell casing in the alleged sniper nest is no such thing. At best, from that one could infer that it was not a casing used in the assassination. Even granting for the sake of argument the notion that a dented casing is improbable, the fantastical flight from the casing to the necessary involvement of some other gunman requires so many inferential leaps and pure supposition -- including the alleged planting of unconvincing evidence -- as to be ludicrous.

I simply cannot imagine how so many non sequiturs could be crammed into a single offering and expected to be taken seriously. They're not even coy about the peg-cramming at this stage.

 

[turingtest]

LOL! Turingtest nailed it in one!

These folks are nothing if not predictable.

 

[CORed]

One of the many pieces of hard, physical evidence of conspiracy in the JFK assassination is the dented shell (CE 543), one of the shells so conveniently found right next to the "sniper's window." (Odd: The gunman hid his rifle but left his rifle shells in plain view right by the window!)

That shell, CE 543, could not have been fired from the alleged murder rifle, and it could not have held a bullet in it. Dr. Michael Kurtz explains:

The third cartridge case, Commission Exhibit 543, contained a dent in the opening so large that it could not have held a bullet in it. . . .

In a letter to the Warren Commission of 2 June 1964, J. Edgar Hoover noted that Commission Exhibit 543 (FBI Number C6), the case with the dent, had "three sets of marks on the base of this cartridge case which were not found [on the other casings]." The case, according to Hoover, had also been loaded into and extracted from a weapon three times. The only marks linking the case to Oswald's rifle were marks from the magazine follower. As noted above, Case 543 could not have obtained the marks from the magazine follower on 22 November, since the last round in the clip must have been the unfired one in the chamber. Furthermore, Commission Exhibit 543 lacks the characteristic indentation on the side made by the firing chamber of Oswald's rifle.

Dr. E. Forrest Chapman, forensic pathologist, who in 1973 was given access to the assassination materials in the National Archives, noted that Case 543 was probably "dry loaded" into a rifle. Since the dent was too large for the case to have contained a bullet on 22 November, it was never fired from Oswald's rifle. The empty case, however, for some unknown reason cold have been loaded into a rifle, the trigger pulled, and the bolt operated. Dr. Chapman discovered this phenomenon through experiments of his own.

Dr. Chapman also noted that Case 543 had a deeper and more concave indentation on its base, at the primer, where the firing pin strikes the case. Only empty cases exhibit such characteristics. The FBI also reproduced the effect. Commission Exhibit 557 is a test cartridge case, fired empty from Oswald's rifle by the FBI for ballistics comparison purposes. It, too, contains the dent in the lip and deep primer impression similar to Case 543.

Thus, the evidence proves conclusively that Commission Exhibit 543 could not have been fired from Oswald's rifle. . . . (Crime of the Century, Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1982, pp. 50-51, emphasis added)​

I discuss this in more detail in The Dented Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination.

So, no way the shell casing could have been dented after it was fired?

 

[CORed]

I've seen a lot of spent shell casings with dents. They aren't that robust. It's difficult to believe that any CTist would hang their hat on something so inane.

Well, it would be difficult to believe if they didn't do it all the time.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Let's review the facts about the dented shell and why it's such an important piece of evidence of multiple gunmen:

* The shell has numerous marks from the carrier. Very odd in and of itself.

* Multiple researchers have tried to duplicate the dent seen on the dented shell, and no one could do it by just firing the shell, with a bullet in it, one time.

* In repeated experiments, the only way shells have emerged with a dent like that see on CE 543 is by firing the shell empty, i.e., firing it after it has been fired once--in other words, by firing it once loaded and then firing it again empty.

* The HSCA firearms panel's claim that one of their expended shells contained a dent that was "similar" to the dent on CE 543 is as invalid as the HSCA photographic panel's claim that they were able to duplicate the variant shadows seen in the backyard rifle pictures with lighting conditions similar to those that existed in Dallas when the backyard photos were supposedly taken. In point of fact, this claim has been thoroughly debunked.

We must keep in mind that the various HSCA panels were private contractors/experts hired by the committee; they were not HSCA staffers and varied widely in their integrity and competence.

* CE 543 could not have obtained the marks from the magazine follower on 11/22/63, because the last round in the clip must have been the unfired one in the chamber.

* CE 543 lacks the characteristic indentation on the side made by the firing chamber of the alleged murder weapon.

* As Dr. Chapman noted, CE 543 has a deeper and more concave indentation on its base, at the primer, where the firing pin strikes the case. This is key because only empty cases exhibit such characteristics.

* The only way the FBI could get a shell to emerge with a dent like that seen on CE 543 was to fire an empty shell from the alleged murder weapon. That shell, CE 557, also contains the dent in the lip and a deep primer impression like those seen on CE 543.

 

[BStrong]

Let's review the facts....

We have, you're still wrong.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Let's review the facts about the dented shell and why it's such an important piece of evidence of multiple gunmen:

* The shell has numerous marks from the carrier. Very odd in and of itself.

Why is that very odd?

* Multiple researchers have tried to duplicate the dent seen on the dented shell, and no one could do it by just firing the shell, with a bullet in it, one time.

Yes, your goalpost moving was already predicted.

* In repeated experiments, the only way shells have emerged with a dent like that see on CE 543 is by firing the shell empty, i.e., firing it after it has been fired once--in other words, by firing it once loaded and then firing it again empty.

What did it benefit the conspiracy to dent the cartridge in this way?

* The HSCA firearms panel's claim that one of their expended shells contained a dent that was "similar" to the dent on CE 543 is as invalid as the HSCA photographic panel's claim that they were able to duplicate the variant shadows seen in the backyard rifle pictures with lighting conditions similar to those that existed in Dallas when the backyard photos were supposedly taken. In point of fact, this claim has been thoroughly debunked.

In the photograph of the fence posts, what times are it?

 

[mikegriffith1]

In fact, the pro-WC staffers on the HSCA were the ones who carried out the worst cover-ups, such as the HSCA staffers who handled the medical evidence investigation. When the ARRB began to release the HSCA interviews with the autopsy witnesses (medical aids, etc.) and the Dallas doctors, it quickly became apparent that the HSCA report's claim that autopsy witnesses' descriptions of the large head wound matched the autopsy doctors' description was abjectly false.

When the ARRB sought to determine who had written that statement in the HSCA report, predictably enough, no one could remember writing it. It was probably Andy Purdy or Mark Flanagan.

Something else that came to light with the ARRB-released evidence was that key medical personnel at the autopsy described the large head wound in a way that markedly varied from the autopsy report's description. For example, Tom Robinson, the mortician, who reassembled Kennedy's skull after the autopsy, said the large wound was in the back of the head and that that there was only a small hole in the front of the head, in the temple region (he couldn't recall if it was right or left temple). Robinson's boss likewise said the large wound was in the back of the head. My, my.

It's too bad that the ARRB was not empowered as an investigative body to issue indictments, or to recommend indictments, for people who had apparently lied in writing in official reports about the assassination. It should not have been that hard to track down who wrote the erroneous claim that "All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the [autopsy] photographs; none had differing accounts." Whoever wrote that knew it was false when they wrote it.

Of course, we also know that most of the Dallas doctors described a right-rear large head wound in their HSCA interviews as well.

And to answer another reply, just because those who reject the lone-gunman theory do not all agree on a specific conspiracy theory for the assassination, does not mean that the lone-gunman theory remains intact. Furthermore, the vast majority of JFK assassination conspiracy theorists agree on a general theory about what happened: multiple gunmen, fake Secret Service agents, medical evidence cover-up, and involvement of some high-level government figures, possibly in cooperation with the Mafia. Most WC critics accept that theory.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

No. Please. Not the backyard photos again.

 

[RoboTimbo]

In fact, the pro-WC staffers on the HSCA were the ones who carried out the worst cover-ups, such as the HSCA staffers who handled the medical evidence investigation. When the ARRB began to release the HSCA interviews with the autopsy witnesses (medical aids, etc.) and the Dallas doctors, it quickly became apparent that the HSCA report's claim that autopsy witnesses' descriptions of the large head wound matched the autopsy doctors' description was abjectly false.

Can you point out in a still from the video where the back of his head is blown off? Thanks in advance.

When the ARRB sought to determine who had written that statement in the HSCA report, predictably enough, no one could remember writing it. It was probably Andy Purdy or Mark Flanagan.

Something else that came to light with the ARRB-released evidence was that key medical personnel at the autopsy described the large head wound in a way that markedly varied from the autopsy report's description. For example, Tom Robinson, the mortician, who reassembled Kennedy's skull after the autopsy, said the large wound was in the back of the head and that that there was only a small hole in the front of the head, in the temple region (he couldn't recall if it was right or left temple). Robinson's boss likewise said the large wound was in the back of the head. My, my.

Can you point out in the video where the small wound to the temple appears? Thanks again.

It's too bad that the ARRB was not empowered as an investigative body to issue indictments, or to recommend indictments, for people who had apparently lied in writing in official reports about the assassination. It should not have been that hard to track down who wrote the erroneous claim that "All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the [autopsy] photographs; none had differing accounts." Whoever wrote that knew it was false when they wrote it.

Of course, we also know that most of the Dallas doctors described a right-rear large head wound in their HSCA interviews as well.

No doubt you can point it out in a still from the video then.

And to answer another reply, just because those who reject the lone-gunman theory do not all agree on a specific conspiracy theory for the assassination, does not mean that the lone-gunman theory remains intact. Furthermore, the vast majority of JFK assassination conspiracy theorists agree on a general theory about what happened: multiple gunmen, fake Secret Service agents, medical evidence cover-up, and involvement of some high-level government figures, possibly in cooperation with the Mafia. Most WC critics accept that theory.

You'll have to be more specific than that. Who were the multiple gunmen? Where did they fire from? We'll start with those.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robert Prey et al have been so soundly spanked on it before. You'd think they'd learn.

 

[BStrong]

Robert Prey et al have been so soundly spanked on it before. You'd think they'd learn.

Baloney!

I'm still waiting to find out how one "fires" am empty casing in a rifle, as opposed to cycling it through the action, but I suspect I'll be waiting awhile.

 

[JayUtah]

Let's review the facts about the dented shell and why it's such an important piece of evidence of multiple gunmen:

No. Even granting all the following (which I don't), no amount of detractive evidence establishes the affirmative claim of another gunman. That part is still pure inference. You've clearly adopted your desired conclusion first, and are trying to construct whatever argument you think arrives there. I can tell because the middle part of your argument is entirely missing. You have a few stray reasons for disputing the conventional conclusion, and you have your desired conclusion. The middle part is missing. This indicate you really don't know what it means to prove something.

Having said that, no amount of repetition converts your claims into facts. Kindly don't just keep repeating your assertions.

 

[RoboTimbo]

This is probably the better thread for this discussion.

In fact, the pro-WC staffers on the HSCA were the ones who carried out the worst cover-ups, such as the HSCA staffers who handled the medical evidence investigation. When the ARRB began to release the HSCA interviews with the autopsy witnesses (medical aids, etc.) and the Dallas doctors, it quickly became apparent that the HSCA report's claim that autopsy witnesses' descriptions of the large head wound matched the autopsy doctors' description was abjectly false.

Can you point out in a still from the video where the back of his head is blown off? Thanks in advance.

When the ARRB sought to determine who had written that statement in the HSCA report, predictably enough, no one could remember writing it. It was probably Andy Purdy or Mark Flanagan.

Something else that came to light with the ARRB-released evidence was that key medical personnel at the autopsy described the large head wound in a way that markedly varied from the autopsy report's description. For example, Tom Robinson, the mortician, who reassembled Kennedy's skull after the autopsy, said the large wound was in the back of the head and that that there was only a small hole in the front of the head, in the temple region (he couldn't recall if it was right or left temple). Robinson's boss likewise said the large wound was in the back of the head. My, my.

Can you point out in the video where the small wound to the temple appears? Thanks again.

It's too bad that the ARRB was not empowered as an investigative body to issue indictments, or to recommend indictments, for people who had apparently lied in writing in official reports about the assassination. It should not have been that hard to track down who wrote the erroneous claim that "All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the [autopsy] photographs; none had differing accounts." Whoever wrote that knew it was false when they wrote it.

Of course, we also know that most of the Dallas doctors described a right-rear large head wound in their HSCA interviews as well.

No doubt you can point it out in a still from the video then.

And to answer another reply, just because those who reject the lone-gunman theory do not all agree on a specific conspiracy theory for the assassination, does not mean that the lone-gunman theory remains intact. Furthermore, the vast majority of JFK assassination conspiracy theorists agree on a general theory about what happened: multiple gunmen, fake Secret Service agents, medical evidence cover-up, and involvement of some high-level government figures, possibly in cooperation with the Mafia. Most WC critics accept that theory.

You'll have to be more specific than that. Who were the multiple gunmen? Where did they fire from? We'll start with those.

Bobtaftfan, your answers please?

 

[JayUtah]

No. Please. Not the backyard photos again.

Robert Prey et al have been so soundly spanked on it before. You'd think they'd learn.

Yeah, it's the same old "nose and chin shadows" nonsense that Prey went through a couple years ago. And the same old presumption that photogrammetric rectification is just a matter of staring at photos and guessing at the shadow geometries. In other words, the same old failed layman's assumptions thrown round and round again.

Thus, the difference between an investigator and a conspiracy theorist.

 

[Allen773]

Lee Harvey Oswald wanted to steal the Jack Ruby!

 

[Jango]

50+ years and what, 3 official investigations later, we still don't have access to all relevant documentation.

That comes along with the Zapruder film, which if combined with the official narrative -- three shots from one person from above and behind President Kennedy -- is certainly more than enough reason to question the official narrative and not take it as an accepted truth.