Oh no, you chose to forget the excerpt I quoted.
One of the things Thompson did was to test whether CE 543 could have been dented when it was discharged. It could not. Bugliosi solves this problem the same way Gerald Posner did. He says it was dented during firing. He uses Monty Lutz from the HSCA as his authority. But when Mike Griffith asked Howard Donahue about this particular issue, Donahue replied that, “there were no shells dented in that manner by the HSCA . . . I have never seen a case dented like this.”
No, I covered all this above.
But let's address those points in greater detail.
One of the things Thompson did was to test whether CE 543 could have been dented when it was discharged. It could not.
I pointed out Thompson didn't test the actual weapon, but another similar model.
How does one prove a negative? Thompson is saying he did that -- based on what? Ten tests? Twenty? What if it occurs once in a hundred trials? How many tests did Thompson actually do, and how did he determine that was sufficient to rule out the damage as being possible? Can you cite the numbers and how Thompson determined his testing was adequate to rule it out as ever occurring?
Bugliosi solves this problem the same way Gerald Posner did. He says it was dented during firing. He uses Monty Lutz from the HSCA as his authority.
I don't recall anything of the sort. Neither man is quoted. Nor do you reference any page numbers in either book. This could be nothing more than a misunderstanding at best or, at worst, a deliberate strawman argument advanced merely to put the argument away. Please quote the precise words of Bugliosi and Posner where they argued for the bullet shell being damaged upon firing, not upon ejection.
The HSCA firearms panel, of which Lutz was a member, determined the shell was damaged upon ejection, and claimed to duplicate the problem. Bugliosi or Posner citing Monty Lutz is therefore citing an firearms expert. Lutz' testimony would be allowed in court. And Bugliosi's and/or Posner's citing of Lutz' claim is therefore allowed.
Here's how Bugliosi quoted Donald Champagne's testimony (another one of the five HSCA firearms experts). See page 928 of RECLAIMING HISTORY:
Question: Are you saying then when your panel test-fired CE139 (Oswald's rifle), out of four fired cartridges, one was ejected with a dented mouth?
Answer: Yes sir, that occurred during the ejection process in firing the weapon.
It's clear the argument you quote above is just a strawman argument. Bugliosi not only didn't say it happened in firing the weapon, but in ejecting the bullet, and he quoted the firearms expert directly saying that. And it was Champagne, not Lutz, that Bugliosi quoted.
So that's how trustworthy your source is. NOT AT ALL TRUSTWORTHY. They are lying to you by claiming Posner and Bugliosi said something they apparently never said, and in passing on their false claims here, without any independent verification of their claims by you, you are at least as guilty.
But when Mike Griffith asked Howard Donahue about this particular issue, Donahue replied that, “there were no shells dented in that manner by the HSCA . . . I have never seen a case dented like this.”
Donahue has his own theory about the assassination, which contradicts the HSCA's theory. He had every reason to belittle the findings of the HSCA which contradict his own.
Moreover, Mike Griffith is a long-time conspiracy theorist, as is the author of the book you cite (Jim DiEugenio). A conspiracy theorist (you) quoting a conspiracy theorist (DiEugenio) quoting a conspiracy theorist (Griffith) quoting a man with a different theory (Donahue) is hardly getting to the source.
Quote Donahue's testimony directly, as Buliosi quoted Champagne's. Not what Griffith says he said (that's hearsay). Not what DiEugenio says Griffith says Donahue said (that's likewise hearsay).
Hank
