Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Empty Shell Theory
121 views
Skip to first unread message
charles wallace
Sep 9, 2012, 8:55:04 PM9/9/12
to
The Empty Shell Theory (EST)
From:
(charles wallace)
Three empty shells were found in the SN. One of the three (CE 543)
support Oswald's innocence.
The empty shell, (Warren Commission Exhibit) CE 543 characteristics:
1) It has marks indicating it was in another rifle at some point in
time.
2) It has a dented lip that would prevent it from holding a bullet and
fitting in the firing chamber.
3) It has marks indicating it was at one point in time in the bottom
position in the clip of Oswald's rifle.
4) It is missing a mark that occurs when a shell is fired in the firing
chamber of Oswald's rifle.
5) It has a double firing pin mark indicating it was fired then
attempted at firing again.
6) It has three sets of marks that indicate it was extracted from a
rifle three times.
My EST answers and explains these marks or lack of them. I theorize
Oswald's source of ammunition is an individual who also has a MC rifle.
He sells Oswald a clip of bullets that was in his rifle. His clip has at
its bottom round position an empty shell, CE 543. He explains to Oswald
that he does this to allow firing all the live rounds and that the empty
shell keeps the clip from falling out of the rifle after the last shot.
He also uses the empty shell in the clip by itself when transporting the
rifle to hold the clip in but avoids trouble with assumed Texas law that
having a loaded rifle in public would be breaking the law.
Oswald, I theorize when preparing the rifle and its package for trading
Thursday night in Ruth Paine's garage put the empty shell in the chamber
by hand and what ammunition he had in the clip. Friday morning before
placing the rifle in its bag, Oswald wiped down his rifle with his shirt
but caught his front shirt tail in the butt plate of his rifle. He
jerked it loose tearing his shirt and leaving some shirt fibers trapped
behind the butt plate. Oswald carried his rifle disassembled and wrapped
in a brown paper taped bag to work Friday morning. The TSBD shooter
and Oswald's trading partner took Oswald's rifle out of the agreed upon
rear dock storage closet Friday a little after noon. Upon assembly of
the rifle, the shooter just partly opened the breech enough to see the
rear end of the shell and thought it was loaded. Then at the window at
approximately (in time) Zapruder frame number 130 he has JFK filling the
crosshairs of the scope. He has prearranged with his co-conspirator on
the grassy knoll that he will not shoot unless he sees the knoll
shooting position occupied first and also that the knoll shooter should
not fire first. The TSBD shooter squeezes the trigger. 'Snap'. Nothing
happened. The shooter panics and ejects the round as fast as he can. In
doing so the shell gets dented in the lip during the ejection process.
The TSBD shooter quickly fires at Z180 before JFK is completely clear of
the tree in front of the TSBD. The witness on the floor below, Harold
Norman heard 'Boom, click-click, boom, click-click, boom'. The shooter
waits till Norman and the others on the fifth floor have moved away from
the area and then ejects the last shell on his way to the stairs. He
pockets the last shell as a souvenir. This EST scenario explains all of
the 6 characteristics listed above for CE 543.
"He didn't even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil
rights......Its--It had to be some silly little communist". Mrs.
Kennedy, November 22, 1963; "I'm just a patsy". Lee H. Oswald,
November, 1963.
President Kennedy was assassinated " as a result of the hatred
and bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by
bigots." Chief Justice Earl Warren, November 22, 1963. Dallas Morning
News
http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK
From:
(charles wallace)
Three empty shells were found in the SN. One of the three (CE 543)
support Oswald's innocence.
The empty shell, (Warren Commission Exhibit) CE 543 characteristics:
1) It has marks indicating it was in another rifle at some point in
time.
2) It has a dented lip that would prevent it from holding a bullet and
fitting in the firing chamber.
3) It has marks indicating it was at one point in time in the bottom
position in the clip of Oswald's rifle.
4) It is missing a mark that occurs when a shell is fired in the firing
chamber of Oswald's rifle.
5) It has a double firing pin mark indicating it was fired then
attempted at firing again.
6) It has three sets of marks that indicate it was extracted from a
rifle three times.
My EST answers and explains these marks or lack of them. I theorize
Oswald's source of ammunition is an individual who also has a MC rifle.
He sells Oswald a clip of bullets that was in his rifle. His clip has at
its bottom round position an empty shell, CE 543. He explains to Oswald
that he does this to allow firing all the live rounds and that the empty
shell keeps the clip from falling out of the rifle after the last shot.
He also uses the empty shell in the clip by itself when transporting the
rifle to hold the clip in but avoids trouble with assumed Texas law that
having a loaded rifle in public would be breaking the law.
Oswald, I theorize when preparing the rifle and its package for trading
Thursday night in Ruth Paine's garage put the empty shell in the chamber
by hand and what ammunition he had in the clip. Friday morning before
placing the rifle in its bag, Oswald wiped down his rifle with his shirt
but caught his front shirt tail in the butt plate of his rifle. He
jerked it loose tearing his shirt and leaving some shirt fibers trapped
behind the butt plate. Oswald carried his rifle disassembled and wrapped
in a brown paper taped bag to work Friday morning. The TSBD shooter
and Oswald's trading partner took Oswald's rifle out of the agreed upon
rear dock storage closet Friday a little after noon. Upon assembly of
the rifle, the shooter just partly opened the breech enough to see the
rear end of the shell and thought it was loaded. Then at the window at
approximately (in time) Zapruder frame number 130 he has JFK filling the
crosshairs of the scope. He has prearranged with his co-conspirator on
the grassy knoll that he will not shoot unless he sees the knoll
shooting position occupied first and also that the knoll shooter should
not fire first. The TSBD shooter squeezes the trigger. 'Snap'. Nothing
happened. The shooter panics and ejects the round as fast as he can. In
doing so the shell gets dented in the lip during the ejection process.
The TSBD shooter quickly fires at Z180 before JFK is completely clear of
the tree in front of the TSBD. The witness on the floor below, Harold
Norman heard 'Boom, click-click, boom, click-click, boom'. The shooter
waits till Norman and the others on the fifth floor have moved away from
the area and then ejects the last shell on his way to the stairs. He
pockets the last shell as a souvenir. This EST scenario explains all of
the 6 characteristics listed above for CE 543.
"He didn't even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil
rights......Its--It had to be some silly little communist". Mrs.
Kennedy, November 22, 1963; "I'm just a patsy". Lee H. Oswald,
November, 1963.
President Kennedy was assassinated " as a result of the hatred
and bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by
bigots." Chief Justice Earl Warren, November 22, 1963. Dallas Morning
News
http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK
charles wallace
Oct 18, 2012, 5:33:52 PM10/18/12
to
different versions of the same original photo that has been cropped
for greater clarity of the person seen. The address:
http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK
Bill Clarke
Oct 19, 2012, 3:23:03 PM10/19/12
to
In article <b5d7190a-8f17-42b9...@googlegroups.com>, charles
wallace says...
1. The case in question did in fact hold a bullet. It did in fact fit into the
chamber.
2. The case lip was bent on extraction AFTER the bullet was fired and AFTER the
case had been in the chamber until extraction.
3. Seems to my Oswald had a full box of WWW ammunition for his weapon.
Bill Clarke
wallace says...
>
>The Empty Shell Theory (EST)
> From:
> (charles wallace)
>
>Three empty shells were found in the SN. One of the three (CE 543)
>support Oswald's innocence.
>
>The empty shell, (Warren Commission Exhibit) CE 543 characteristics:
>1) It has marks indicating it was in another rifle at some point in
>time.
>2) It has a dented lip that would prevent it from holding a bullet and
>fitting in the firing chamber.
We have been over this dented lip numerous times.
>The Empty Shell Theory (EST)
> From:
> (charles wallace)
>
>Three empty shells were found in the SN. One of the three (CE 543)
>support Oswald's innocence.
>
>The empty shell, (Warren Commission Exhibit) CE 543 characteristics:
>1) It has marks indicating it was in another rifle at some point in
>time.
>2) It has a dented lip that would prevent it from holding a bullet and
>fitting in the firing chamber.
1. The case in question did in fact hold a bullet. It did in fact fit into the
chamber.
2. The case lip was bent on extraction AFTER the bullet was fired and AFTER the
case had been in the chamber until extraction.
3. Seems to my Oswald had a full box of WWW ammunition for his weapon.
Bill Clarke
John Reagor King
Oct 20, 2012, 8:20:22 PM10/20/12
to
In article <64838090-ba68-4a57...@googlegroups.com>,
weeks ago. Here it is, yet again:
You make some statements on that page that I find to be quite curious.
"At approximately 12:23 PM B. R. Williams is at the sixthfloor SE corner
window of the TSBD according to the witness testimony of Arnold Rowland,
and also Oswald is looking out the doorway of the domino room on the
first floor. While eating his cheese sandwich he sees Harold Norman and
Junior Jarman come in the back door turn their backs to him going to the
western elevator to go to the fifth floor. DPD Captain Will Fritz's
notes confirm this."
I have recently re-read Fritz's notes, and I do not recall him claiming
that Oswald specifically said he saw Jarman and Norman come in the back
door and turn their backs to him. Perhaps I just missed that? Please
quote verbatim from Fritz's notes where he says Oswald told him this. I
only recall Fritz saying that he saw the two men at some point during
lunch.
"I contend Oswald then goes to the front of the TSBD eating an apple. He
is out front standing behind Bill Shelley finishing his lunch and sees
the excitement. Again this is confirmed by Fritz's testimony and notes.
Could I have made an error? Of course, I could have the place where he
ate the apple and the cheese sandwich reversed."
Har. Nothing of the sort is "confirmed" by Fritz's testimony and notes.
Fritz said Oswald claimed that he was *inside* the building when the
motorcade passed by and did not go outside until *afterward* to go talk
to William Shelley across the street. And where are you getting Oswald
standing behind Shelley from? I do hope you are not one of those people
who "still believes" that that is Oswald instead of Billy Lovelady this
many decades after that silly myth was conclusively debunked. Or are
you referring to some other person in the photographs? I've never seen
anyone in those photographs who looks even remotely like Oswald. I
never did even think that Lovelady looked all that much like Oswald,
although others have said they do.
Below this, when talking about the Dillard and Murray photos, you say,
"Upon close examination of this figure in the window, it appears that it
is a white male, Caucasian, approximately 35 years old."
Good lordy, how on earth can you, or any other human, possibly come even
remotely close to attributing an *age* to that extremely blurry and
grainy image, which might or might not even be a person?
Then further down:
"This is a cropped photo showing the shooter. Can you see him?
No, I honestly can't.
"A face circled cropping of the shooter appears on down the web page. Or
if you go to the address
http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/YellowHighlighter
you can see where I have highlighted it."
Yeah, and in the original black and white, I can't even tell there's
anyone there. In your yellow highlighted version, it appears to me that
you simply chose a spot to put that in arbitrarily. And you're getting
all sorts of things like age and race from THAT? Even in your
highlighted version no facial features can be made out at all. Can't
even tell if it's a man or woman, if it really is someone there. This
is awfully meager evidence.
Further down:
"The first shot is fired at approximately Zapruder frame number 180-181.
This is the shot that Governor Connally hears."
It is? Strange then that this conflicts directly with what Connally
actually said. He said he heard a shot and turned to his right to look
for the source of the sound. His head plainly turns to the right no
later than Z165 and remains continuously facing right all the way to
when he disappears behind the sign. When he emerges from behind the
sign his head is still turned to the right for a few more frames. He
said he turned to the right *after* he heard the shot, not *before* he
heard the shot. You've got him hearing the shot *after* he turned to
the right, which is exactly the opposite of what he said.
In the sentences immediately following what I quoted above you say this
was the shot that hit JFK in the back only, but that he didn't
necessarily think it to be different from his normal back pain. You
also say that this bullet penetrated only a little way. But nowhere do
you explain why it would penetrate such a short distance, "no more than
a little finger's depth," when it had not yet struck anything hard
enough, such as bone, to penetrate much farther in.
In the next paragraph:
"The second shot is from the grassy knoll and strikes JFK in the throat.
This occurs at approximately Zapruder frame number 199-200. This
bullet's fragments were reported by autopsy x-ray technician Jerrol
Custer to have been seen on an x-ray that is now missing. I postulate a
small .22 caliber hollow nose short lead bullet and subsonic velocity.
The autopsy doctors did not know of this bullet entry during its
procedures. After the autopsy, the autopists learned from Parkland
Hospital's Dr. Perry about the small throat wound that was obscured by
the tracheostomy performed to assist the President's breathing. All
Parkland Hospital medical personnel that saw this wound thought that it
was one of entrance. I speculate that this projectile was fired from one
of the two barrels of a hunter's 'over and under' rifle. The shooter is
behind the small concrete wall on the grassy knoll to JFK's right front.
JFK unmistakably reacts to these first two shots at Z225."
So you have JFK waiting to react to both shots until Z225. Strange.
And again, nowhere here do you explain why a frontal shot to his throat
would not exit the other side of the body when it didn't strike any bone
to slow it down enough not to exit.
Next paragraph:
"The third shot strikes Governor Connally. It is from the Texas School
Book Depository shooter. It enters his back and exits his chest. The
bullet lodges itself in JBC's thigh at approximately Zapruder frame
number 228-229. It is lost at Parkland Hospital during the efforts to
save JBC's life. JBC thought the bullet was found by a nurse in Trauma
Room no.2. The shot occurs as JFK is in full reaction to his wounds.
Connally's wife, Nellie says she turned upon hearing noise and saw the
President with his hands up towards his throat, then her husband John
was hit. JBC reacts visibly at Zapruder frame number 237 to 238 with his
cheeks puffing out with air from his pierced collapsing lung. Oswald's
rifle scope was misaligned to shoot high and to the right."
Interesting that you make no mention that Connally begins to jerk
violently at almost exactly the same frame you give above for the
beginning of JFK's visible reaction. Really it's Z226 rather than Z225
for both men, but that's trivial. But I'm not going to believe you or
anyone else who says they "don't see" the flip of Connally's hat that
clearly begins no later than Z226.
Now let's get into the next paragraph:
"The fourth shot hits JFK in the head at Zapruder frame number 312-313.
It is from the grassy knoll. It deflects upon entry towards JFK's right.
Its fragments are mostly lost to the left rear of the limousine causing
reports of a bullet striking the street."
Wrong. Obviously. Not nearly all reports of a bullet striking the
street were associated with that shot. Virgie Rachley Baker, for
example, said she saw something strike the street with the *first* shot.
And the bullet deflected upon entry to JFK's right? You mean right back
toward the shooter? Yet you say the fragments mostly went to the left
rear? You are contradicting yourself.
Three sentences later:
"All witnesses to the head wound said there was a large opening in the
rear of JFK's head."
No, they did not "all" say that, but the majority of them did. However,
most of them also said it was in the *right* rear of his head. What on
earth is a shot from the *right* front doing exiting the *right* rear of
his head. Wouldn't it exit the *left* rear of his head?
Of course that hole in the right rear of his head wasn't caused by a
bullet exiting anyway, as I have explained many times.
Oh, and I love the first sentence in the next paragraph:
"The final shot is from the TSBD at approximately Zapruder frame number
322-323 and it strikes JBC in the wrist."
Sorry, I don't remember Connally ever saying that he felt a separate
strike to his wrist. Also by Z322 Nellie has pulled him down in the
seat. Strange that you make no mention of how a trajectory from the
TSBD to his wrist would work at this point. Wouldn't his wrist be too
low in the car by then to be hit by a shot from there?
Let's keep going:
"The grassy knoll shooter is shown in Mary Moorman's photo and named
"Badge Man" but is really much closer in my opinion than behind the
stockade fence."
Objection. The grassy knoll shooter is *allegedly* shown in that photo.
It has never come anywhere even remotely close to being conclusively
proven that there is really a person there. You also fail to mention
how none of the witnesses in that area ever said that any single shot
sounded much louder and closer than the other shots.
"He is positioned in "Black Dog Man's" location behind the low concrete
wall. BM is BDM. He used a hunter's 'over and under' rifle (a .22
caliber barrel and a .3xx type caliber barrel) in my opinion."
You even claim to know what type of rifle he probably used? This is
some of the wildest speculation I've ever seen in this case, from any CT
or LN.
"Knoll witness Gordon Arnold claims the knoll shooter had an unusual
looking rifle and that the man kicked him upon stopping to take away the
film from his camera."
Strange that you don't mention that it has never been proven that Gordon
Arnold was even there that day. He didn't come forward until 1978. You
also don't mention that Arnold thought ALL of the shots had come from
the same rifle directly behind him. Not just one of the shots. Not
just some of the shots. ALL of the shots. That means no shots at all
from the TSBD. He can be used to support a grassy knoll shooter only.
He CANNOT be used to support MULTIPLE shooters.
Further down:
"The Walther FBI report confirms a conspiracy because a lone nut Oswald
would not extend both hands holding his rifle out of the window before
the shooting. But a conspirator would do this to show his partner in
crime that the patsy Oswald brought in the rifle and the assassination
can continue as planned."
I honestly cannot follow your logic here. Why, exactly, wouldn't a lone
nut extend both hands out? He could still be seen from below whether he
stuck his hands out or not. Several of the other witnesses saw him when
he wasn't sticking his hands out too.
Oh no, and down below I see this:
"Approximately 60 seconds of that time was spent kicking Gordon Arnold
and taking away the film in his camera on the ground behind the wall
just as he related in the video The Men Who Killed Kennedy. If you had
just shot the President of the United States and you knew that the
person behind you had filmed you doing it, would not you take the time
to get that film?"
Unbelievable. You claimed Arnold was behind the shooter.
Arnold said the shooter was behind *him*. He said one of the bullets
whizzed right past him. He *never* said that he might have captured the
shooter on film.
A little farther down:
"DPD Fritz's notes (first one) quote Oswald as saying he was out front."
No. Fritz's notes say that Oswald claimed to have gone out front AFTER
the shooting and to have talked to William Shelley. Fritz's notes do
NOT say that Oswald claimed to be out front DURING the shooting.
"The Altgens photo shows a man that looks like Oswald out front during
the shooting. The Wiegman film shows this man also but shows another man
that could be Oswald. They both can't be Lovelady."
One of them obviously is. The other? Who knows? But he can't be seen
with nearly enough clarity to come within one-million light-years of
proving it's Oswald.
"The encounter of DPD Baker and Oswald in the second floor lunchroom is
enough time for Oswald to go up the front stairs but not enough time to
come from the sixth floor SE corner window."
Nonsense. I tested it in that very building. Also, Victoria Adams said
she and Sandra Styles got to the first floor about a minute after the
last shot, and that Baker and Truly had not even reached the elevator
yet, since she said she didn't see them there and the stairway emerged
onto the first floor right beside the elevator. Nor did Baker and Truly
see the two women either. So if Adams was correct in her timing, Baker
and Truly took longer to get to the 2nd floor than any of their
recreations showed, and Baker freely admitted that the actual time on
the day could have been longer than the recreations.
"Oswald was calm when confronted by Baker with his drawn gun. Marina
said Oswald was visibly shaken after shooting at General Edwin Walker.
Oswald developed nerves of steel in six months?"
Too many people exaggerate Baker's description of Oswald in the
lunchroom. Baker observed him for only a few seconds at most, and then
was immediately told by Truly that Oswald was an employee; Baker then
immediately dismissed Oswald as a suspect and turned away from him and
went back to the stairs. Oswald did not even speak the entire time.
Baker's observation of him was far too brief and insubstantial for him
to be certain that Oswald was calm. How do you know that Oswald would
have *sounded* calm, for example, had he spoken? No one has any
possible way of knowing that since he didn't speak. And was Marina's
impression of Oswald being shaken after the Walker shooting at least
partially based on the way he *sounded*? Any reasonable person would
think so. She also observed him for a much longer time than Baker did.
"A very credible eye witness, Lillian Mooneyham told the FBI that she
saw a man staring out of the sixth floor window after the shots. This
person could not have been Oswald or an investigating officer."
Why, exactly, is she "very credible"? Is she corroborated on this by
any other witness?
"The three fifth floor ear witnesses did not hear anyone walking away
from the sixth floor window nor did they hear anyone walking down the
wooden stairs even though Norman could hear even an empty shell hit the
floor."
You seem to envision Oswald stomping on the floor as loudly as possible.
And duh, of *course* they didn't hear anyone walking down the wooden
stairs. Those stairs were in the *rear* of the building. The three men
stayed at the *front* of the fifth floor for several minutes after the
shooting.
"Oswald is seen on the first floor in a storage closet after the Baker
encounter by the vice president of the TSBD."
I do not remember Ochus Campbell, the very vice president you're talking
about, ever saying anything even remotely like that. There is a
secondhand claim made to Harold Weisberg that a person heard a
*reporter* claim that Mr. Campbell said that, but I am not finding any
original document quoting Campbell *himself* saying that.
"The Oswald's rifle bullet, CE 399 found at Parkland Hospital broke
bones we are told but shows no damage that could be reasonably expected."
I strongly disagree. I think it shows *exactly* the expected damage and
no more. The bullet went through JFK first, which would obviously slow
it down considerably, but did not strike any bone. It was quite
obviously tumbling upon exiting his throat because the entry in
Connally's back was elongated. If the bullet had not gone through
anything before entering his back, why would it be tumbling? Wouldn't
the entrance be circular instead? Now yes, in it's passage through his
torso it did indeed strike his rib, but there is no evidence that it
struck the rib nose first, and plenty of evidence that it entered his
back sideways. There is also no evidence that upon exiting his chest it
struck his wrist nose first either. So shattering or fragmentation of
the bullet wouldn't necessarily be expected. What we do see is severe
flattening of the base of the bullet. The bullet would have also been
slowed down by first passing through JFK, so its velocity when striking
Connally's bones would obviously be slower than if the bullet only
injured Connally, more evidence that it wouldn't necessarily fragment
when striking those bones.
"Parkland medical personnel described wounds to the throat and head of
JFK that were consistent from some one firing from the front."
Duh, because they didn't know about the back wound at the time.
"JFK is shown in the Zapruder film of the assassination moving violently
back and to the left after the head shot. It is not unreasonable to
believe that a powerful force from the front caused that movement."
It is also not unreasonable to believe that powerful force to be a great
deal of matter exploding forward out of his head.
"Many ear witnesses said they thought there were shots from the front of
JFK."
Typical CT misdirection. Nearly all of those same witnesses thought ALL
the shots came from in front of JFK. Not just one of the shots. Not
just some of the shots. ALL of the shots.
"There are witnesses that heard more than three shots and many that
heard a double bang at the end."
A *very* small minority of the witnesses said they heard more than three
shots. And there were not "many" who heard a double bang at the end.
Some did, yes. Others said the amount of time between shots 1 and 2 was
approximately twice the amount of time as between shots 2 and 3. Still
others simply said that shots 2 and 3 were closer together, but never
said how much closer together.
"In the Dillard photograph there appears to be a man with a policeman's
uniform standing in the SN window set. His standing appearance matches
Lillian Mooneyham's description of him."
That's one of the wildest stretches I've ever seen. Even in your yellow
outline, if I didn't know this was about the JFK assassination I would
honestly say that I couldn't even tell if that's a man or a woman there,
much less anything else about the person.
"Oswald tells his family while in jail 'not to believe the so called
evidence'."
Oh, like it's unusual for a true murderer to say things like that?
Then much farther down:
"Conspiracy was proven over 40 years ago. If you choose false trails of
evidence to follow then you will never solve the assassination crimes. I
submit that just Lillian Mooneyham's FBI report proves conspiracy. This
lady innocently reported what she saw and heard. In three instances in
her report she proves there was a conspiracy in the murder of JFK. The
only way for this not to be correct is that she would have to be lying.
If you believe she lied then you have lied to yourself. Mistaken floor
after a month when everyone in the world knew which window? Mistaken
when she heard the last two shots? Not likely."
Where on earth are you getting this stuff from? I'm looking right at
that very report in the midst of typing this sentence. I don't see her
being mistaken as to when she heard the last two shots. It is simply
said there that they were closer together than shots 1 and 2, just as I
said above. It says nothing about how *much* closer together they were.
I believe they were closer together too. Yet I also believe in one
shooter. "Strange" how I'm able to reconcile that. And why can't she
be honestly mistaken about how long after the shots were fired that she
supposedly saw the man in the window? That is not at all an unusual
mistake. Remember how Emmett Hudson said the last shot was fired
several minutes after the others? How do you know that Mooneyham didn't
take longer to walk over there than she thought? And if the assassin
was there that late, 4 to 5 minutes after the shooting, when she said
she saw the man, where did he go? So many people make so much out of
Adams and Styles not hearing or seeing Oswald coming down the stairs,
and no other TSBD employee hearing or seeing him either. Wouldn't that
be exactly the same problem for a different assassin as well? And
you're having this assassin leave the floor a good deal later than
Oswald would have, so an even greater possibility that he'd be unable to
get out of the building undetected. And when did he enter the building?
No TSBD employee said any strange man was seen anywhere in the building
prior to the shooting.
charles wallace <chas1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The photo of JFK's killer is available on my website. There are three
> different versions of the same original photo that has been cropped
> for greater clarity of the person seen. The address:
>
> http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK
Yeah, and you keep ignoring my extensive critique of that, posted two
> The photo of JFK's killer is available on my website. There are three
> different versions of the same original photo that has been cropped
> for greater clarity of the person seen. The address:
>
> http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK
weeks ago. Here it is, yet again:
You make some statements on that page that I find to be quite curious.
"At approximately 12:23 PM B. R. Williams is at the sixthfloor SE corner
window of the TSBD according to the witness testimony of Arnold Rowland,
and also Oswald is looking out the doorway of the domino room on the
first floor. While eating his cheese sandwich he sees Harold Norman and
Junior Jarman come in the back door turn their backs to him going to the
western elevator to go to the fifth floor. DPD Captain Will Fritz's
notes confirm this."
I have recently re-read Fritz's notes, and I do not recall him claiming
that Oswald specifically said he saw Jarman and Norman come in the back
door and turn their backs to him. Perhaps I just missed that? Please
quote verbatim from Fritz's notes where he says Oswald told him this. I
only recall Fritz saying that he saw the two men at some point during
lunch.
"I contend Oswald then goes to the front of the TSBD eating an apple. He
is out front standing behind Bill Shelley finishing his lunch and sees
the excitement. Again this is confirmed by Fritz's testimony and notes.
Could I have made an error? Of course, I could have the place where he
ate the apple and the cheese sandwich reversed."
Har. Nothing of the sort is "confirmed" by Fritz's testimony and notes.
Fritz said Oswald claimed that he was *inside* the building when the
motorcade passed by and did not go outside until *afterward* to go talk
to William Shelley across the street. And where are you getting Oswald
standing behind Shelley from? I do hope you are not one of those people
who "still believes" that that is Oswald instead of Billy Lovelady this
many decades after that silly myth was conclusively debunked. Or are
you referring to some other person in the photographs? I've never seen
anyone in those photographs who looks even remotely like Oswald. I
never did even think that Lovelady looked all that much like Oswald,
although others have said they do.
Below this, when talking about the Dillard and Murray photos, you say,
"Upon close examination of this figure in the window, it appears that it
is a white male, Caucasian, approximately 35 years old."
Good lordy, how on earth can you, or any other human, possibly come even
remotely close to attributing an *age* to that extremely blurry and
grainy image, which might or might not even be a person?
Then further down:
"This is a cropped photo showing the shooter. Can you see him?
No, I honestly can't.
"A face circled cropping of the shooter appears on down the web page. Or
if you go to the address
http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/YellowHighlighter
you can see where I have highlighted it."
Yeah, and in the original black and white, I can't even tell there's
anyone there. In your yellow highlighted version, it appears to me that
you simply chose a spot to put that in arbitrarily. And you're getting
all sorts of things like age and race from THAT? Even in your
highlighted version no facial features can be made out at all. Can't
even tell if it's a man or woman, if it really is someone there. This
is awfully meager evidence.
Further down:
"The first shot is fired at approximately Zapruder frame number 180-181.
This is the shot that Governor Connally hears."
It is? Strange then that this conflicts directly with what Connally
actually said. He said he heard a shot and turned to his right to look
for the source of the sound. His head plainly turns to the right no
later than Z165 and remains continuously facing right all the way to
when he disappears behind the sign. When he emerges from behind the
sign his head is still turned to the right for a few more frames. He
said he turned to the right *after* he heard the shot, not *before* he
heard the shot. You've got him hearing the shot *after* he turned to
the right, which is exactly the opposite of what he said.
In the sentences immediately following what I quoted above you say this
was the shot that hit JFK in the back only, but that he didn't
necessarily think it to be different from his normal back pain. You
also say that this bullet penetrated only a little way. But nowhere do
you explain why it would penetrate such a short distance, "no more than
a little finger's depth," when it had not yet struck anything hard
enough, such as bone, to penetrate much farther in.
In the next paragraph:
"The second shot is from the grassy knoll and strikes JFK in the throat.
This occurs at approximately Zapruder frame number 199-200. This
bullet's fragments were reported by autopsy x-ray technician Jerrol
Custer to have been seen on an x-ray that is now missing. I postulate a
small .22 caliber hollow nose short lead bullet and subsonic velocity.
The autopsy doctors did not know of this bullet entry during its
procedures. After the autopsy, the autopists learned from Parkland
Hospital's Dr. Perry about the small throat wound that was obscured by
the tracheostomy performed to assist the President's breathing. All
Parkland Hospital medical personnel that saw this wound thought that it
was one of entrance. I speculate that this projectile was fired from one
of the two barrels of a hunter's 'over and under' rifle. The shooter is
behind the small concrete wall on the grassy knoll to JFK's right front.
JFK unmistakably reacts to these first two shots at Z225."
So you have JFK waiting to react to both shots until Z225. Strange.
And again, nowhere here do you explain why a frontal shot to his throat
would not exit the other side of the body when it didn't strike any bone
to slow it down enough not to exit.
Next paragraph:
"The third shot strikes Governor Connally. It is from the Texas School
Book Depository shooter. It enters his back and exits his chest. The
bullet lodges itself in JBC's thigh at approximately Zapruder frame
number 228-229. It is lost at Parkland Hospital during the efforts to
save JBC's life. JBC thought the bullet was found by a nurse in Trauma
Room no.2. The shot occurs as JFK is in full reaction to his wounds.
Connally's wife, Nellie says she turned upon hearing noise and saw the
President with his hands up towards his throat, then her husband John
was hit. JBC reacts visibly at Zapruder frame number 237 to 238 with his
cheeks puffing out with air from his pierced collapsing lung. Oswald's
rifle scope was misaligned to shoot high and to the right."
Interesting that you make no mention that Connally begins to jerk
violently at almost exactly the same frame you give above for the
beginning of JFK's visible reaction. Really it's Z226 rather than Z225
for both men, but that's trivial. But I'm not going to believe you or
anyone else who says they "don't see" the flip of Connally's hat that
clearly begins no later than Z226.
Now let's get into the next paragraph:
"The fourth shot hits JFK in the head at Zapruder frame number 312-313.
It is from the grassy knoll. It deflects upon entry towards JFK's right.
Its fragments are mostly lost to the left rear of the limousine causing
reports of a bullet striking the street."
Wrong. Obviously. Not nearly all reports of a bullet striking the
street were associated with that shot. Virgie Rachley Baker, for
example, said she saw something strike the street with the *first* shot.
And the bullet deflected upon entry to JFK's right? You mean right back
toward the shooter? Yet you say the fragments mostly went to the left
rear? You are contradicting yourself.
Three sentences later:
"All witnesses to the head wound said there was a large opening in the
rear of JFK's head."
No, they did not "all" say that, but the majority of them did. However,
most of them also said it was in the *right* rear of his head. What on
earth is a shot from the *right* front doing exiting the *right* rear of
his head. Wouldn't it exit the *left* rear of his head?
Of course that hole in the right rear of his head wasn't caused by a
bullet exiting anyway, as I have explained many times.
Oh, and I love the first sentence in the next paragraph:
"The final shot is from the TSBD at approximately Zapruder frame number
322-323 and it strikes JBC in the wrist."
Sorry, I don't remember Connally ever saying that he felt a separate
strike to his wrist. Also by Z322 Nellie has pulled him down in the
seat. Strange that you make no mention of how a trajectory from the
TSBD to his wrist would work at this point. Wouldn't his wrist be too
low in the car by then to be hit by a shot from there?
Let's keep going:
"The grassy knoll shooter is shown in Mary Moorman's photo and named
"Badge Man" but is really much closer in my opinion than behind the
stockade fence."
Objection. The grassy knoll shooter is *allegedly* shown in that photo.
It has never come anywhere even remotely close to being conclusively
proven that there is really a person there. You also fail to mention
how none of the witnesses in that area ever said that any single shot
sounded much louder and closer than the other shots.
"He is positioned in "Black Dog Man's" location behind the low concrete
wall. BM is BDM. He used a hunter's 'over and under' rifle (a .22
caliber barrel and a .3xx type caliber barrel) in my opinion."
You even claim to know what type of rifle he probably used? This is
some of the wildest speculation I've ever seen in this case, from any CT
or LN.
"Knoll witness Gordon Arnold claims the knoll shooter had an unusual
looking rifle and that the man kicked him upon stopping to take away the
film from his camera."
Strange that you don't mention that it has never been proven that Gordon
Arnold was even there that day. He didn't come forward until 1978. You
also don't mention that Arnold thought ALL of the shots had come from
the same rifle directly behind him. Not just one of the shots. Not
just some of the shots. ALL of the shots. That means no shots at all
from the TSBD. He can be used to support a grassy knoll shooter only.
He CANNOT be used to support MULTIPLE shooters.
Further down:
"The Walther FBI report confirms a conspiracy because a lone nut Oswald
would not extend both hands holding his rifle out of the window before
the shooting. But a conspirator would do this to show his partner in
crime that the patsy Oswald brought in the rifle and the assassination
can continue as planned."
I honestly cannot follow your logic here. Why, exactly, wouldn't a lone
nut extend both hands out? He could still be seen from below whether he
stuck his hands out or not. Several of the other witnesses saw him when
he wasn't sticking his hands out too.
Oh no, and down below I see this:
"Approximately 60 seconds of that time was spent kicking Gordon Arnold
and taking away the film in his camera on the ground behind the wall
just as he related in the video The Men Who Killed Kennedy. If you had
just shot the President of the United States and you knew that the
person behind you had filmed you doing it, would not you take the time
to get that film?"
Unbelievable. You claimed Arnold was behind the shooter.
Arnold said the shooter was behind *him*. He said one of the bullets
whizzed right past him. He *never* said that he might have captured the
shooter on film.
A little farther down:
"DPD Fritz's notes (first one) quote Oswald as saying he was out front."
No. Fritz's notes say that Oswald claimed to have gone out front AFTER
the shooting and to have talked to William Shelley. Fritz's notes do
NOT say that Oswald claimed to be out front DURING the shooting.
"The Altgens photo shows a man that looks like Oswald out front during
the shooting. The Wiegman film shows this man also but shows another man
that could be Oswald. They both can't be Lovelady."
One of them obviously is. The other? Who knows? But he can't be seen
with nearly enough clarity to come within one-million light-years of
proving it's Oswald.
"The encounter of DPD Baker and Oswald in the second floor lunchroom is
enough time for Oswald to go up the front stairs but not enough time to
come from the sixth floor SE corner window."
Nonsense. I tested it in that very building. Also, Victoria Adams said
she and Sandra Styles got to the first floor about a minute after the
last shot, and that Baker and Truly had not even reached the elevator
yet, since she said she didn't see them there and the stairway emerged
onto the first floor right beside the elevator. Nor did Baker and Truly
see the two women either. So if Adams was correct in her timing, Baker
and Truly took longer to get to the 2nd floor than any of their
recreations showed, and Baker freely admitted that the actual time on
the day could have been longer than the recreations.
"Oswald was calm when confronted by Baker with his drawn gun. Marina
said Oswald was visibly shaken after shooting at General Edwin Walker.
Oswald developed nerves of steel in six months?"
Too many people exaggerate Baker's description of Oswald in the
lunchroom. Baker observed him for only a few seconds at most, and then
was immediately told by Truly that Oswald was an employee; Baker then
immediately dismissed Oswald as a suspect and turned away from him and
went back to the stairs. Oswald did not even speak the entire time.
Baker's observation of him was far too brief and insubstantial for him
to be certain that Oswald was calm. How do you know that Oswald would
have *sounded* calm, for example, had he spoken? No one has any
possible way of knowing that since he didn't speak. And was Marina's
impression of Oswald being shaken after the Walker shooting at least
partially based on the way he *sounded*? Any reasonable person would
think so. She also observed him for a much longer time than Baker did.
"A very credible eye witness, Lillian Mooneyham told the FBI that she
saw a man staring out of the sixth floor window after the shots. This
person could not have been Oswald or an investigating officer."
Why, exactly, is she "very credible"? Is she corroborated on this by
any other witness?
"The three fifth floor ear witnesses did not hear anyone walking away
from the sixth floor window nor did they hear anyone walking down the
wooden stairs even though Norman could hear even an empty shell hit the
floor."
You seem to envision Oswald stomping on the floor as loudly as possible.
And duh, of *course* they didn't hear anyone walking down the wooden
stairs. Those stairs were in the *rear* of the building. The three men
stayed at the *front* of the fifth floor for several minutes after the
shooting.
"Oswald is seen on the first floor in a storage closet after the Baker
encounter by the vice president of the TSBD."
I do not remember Ochus Campbell, the very vice president you're talking
about, ever saying anything even remotely like that. There is a
secondhand claim made to Harold Weisberg that a person heard a
*reporter* claim that Mr. Campbell said that, but I am not finding any
original document quoting Campbell *himself* saying that.
"The Oswald's rifle bullet, CE 399 found at Parkland Hospital broke
bones we are told but shows no damage that could be reasonably expected."
I strongly disagree. I think it shows *exactly* the expected damage and
no more. The bullet went through JFK first, which would obviously slow
it down considerably, but did not strike any bone. It was quite
obviously tumbling upon exiting his throat because the entry in
Connally's back was elongated. If the bullet had not gone through
anything before entering his back, why would it be tumbling? Wouldn't
the entrance be circular instead? Now yes, in it's passage through his
torso it did indeed strike his rib, but there is no evidence that it
struck the rib nose first, and plenty of evidence that it entered his
back sideways. There is also no evidence that upon exiting his chest it
struck his wrist nose first either. So shattering or fragmentation of
the bullet wouldn't necessarily be expected. What we do see is severe
flattening of the base of the bullet. The bullet would have also been
slowed down by first passing through JFK, so its velocity when striking
Connally's bones would obviously be slower than if the bullet only
injured Connally, more evidence that it wouldn't necessarily fragment
when striking those bones.
"Parkland medical personnel described wounds to the throat and head of
JFK that were consistent from some one firing from the front."
Duh, because they didn't know about the back wound at the time.
"JFK is shown in the Zapruder film of the assassination moving violently
back and to the left after the head shot. It is not unreasonable to
believe that a powerful force from the front caused that movement."
It is also not unreasonable to believe that powerful force to be a great
deal of matter exploding forward out of his head.
"Many ear witnesses said they thought there were shots from the front of
JFK."
Typical CT misdirection. Nearly all of those same witnesses thought ALL
the shots came from in front of JFK. Not just one of the shots. Not
just some of the shots. ALL of the shots.
"There are witnesses that heard more than three shots and many that
heard a double bang at the end."
A *very* small minority of the witnesses said they heard more than three
shots. And there were not "many" who heard a double bang at the end.
Some did, yes. Others said the amount of time between shots 1 and 2 was
approximately twice the amount of time as between shots 2 and 3. Still
others simply said that shots 2 and 3 were closer together, but never
said how much closer together.
"In the Dillard photograph there appears to be a man with a policeman's
uniform standing in the SN window set. His standing appearance matches
Lillian Mooneyham's description of him."
That's one of the wildest stretches I've ever seen. Even in your yellow
outline, if I didn't know this was about the JFK assassination I would
honestly say that I couldn't even tell if that's a man or a woman there,
much less anything else about the person.
"Oswald tells his family while in jail 'not to believe the so called
evidence'."
Oh, like it's unusual for a true murderer to say things like that?
Then much farther down:
"Conspiracy was proven over 40 years ago. If you choose false trails of
evidence to follow then you will never solve the assassination crimes. I
submit that just Lillian Mooneyham's FBI report proves conspiracy. This
lady innocently reported what she saw and heard. In three instances in
her report she proves there was a conspiracy in the murder of JFK. The
only way for this not to be correct is that she would have to be lying.
If you believe she lied then you have lied to yourself. Mistaken floor
after a month when everyone in the world knew which window? Mistaken
when she heard the last two shots? Not likely."
Where on earth are you getting this stuff from? I'm looking right at
that very report in the midst of typing this sentence. I don't see her
being mistaken as to when she heard the last two shots. It is simply
said there that they were closer together than shots 1 and 2, just as I
said above. It says nothing about how *much* closer together they were.
I believe they were closer together too. Yet I also believe in one
shooter. "Strange" how I'm able to reconcile that. And why can't she
be honestly mistaken about how long after the shots were fired that she
supposedly saw the man in the window? That is not at all an unusual
mistake. Remember how Emmett Hudson said the last shot was fired
several minutes after the others? How do you know that Mooneyham didn't
take longer to walk over there than she thought? And if the assassin
was there that late, 4 to 5 minutes after the shooting, when she said
she saw the man, where did he go? So many people make so much out of
Adams and Styles not hearing or seeing Oswald coming down the stairs,
and no other TSBD employee hearing or seeing him either. Wouldn't that
be exactly the same problem for a different assassin as well? And
you're having this assassin leave the floor a good deal later than
Oswald would have, so an even greater possibility that he'd be unable to
get out of the building undetected. And when did he enter the building?
No TSBD employee said any strange man was seen anywhere in the building
prior to the shooting.
Research
Oct 20, 2012, 8:49:22 PM10/20/12
to
"Bill Clarke" <Bill_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:k5qfi...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <b5d7190a-8f17-42b9...@googlegroups.com>,
> charles
> wallace says...
>>
>>The Empty Shell Theory (EST)
>> From:
>> (charles wallace)
>>
>>Three empty shells were found in the SN. One of the three (CE 543)
>>support Oswald's innocence.
>>
>>The empty shell, (Warren Commission Exhibit) CE 543 characteristics:
>>1) It has marks indicating it was in another rifle at some point in
>>time.
>>2) It has a dented lip that would prevent it from holding a bullet and
>>fitting in the firing chamber.
>
> We have been over this dented lip numerous times.
>
> 1. The case in question did in fact hold a bullet. It did in fact fit
> into the
> chamber.
>
> 2. The case lip was bent on extraction AFTER the bullet was fired and
> AFTER the
> case had been in the chamber until extraction.
>
> 3. Seems to my Oswald had a full box of WWW ammunition for his weapon.
>
> Bill Clarke
>
Where can we find the photos of the spent shells. I've found the clip
> charles
> wallace says...
>>
>>The Empty Shell Theory (EST)
>> From:
>> (charles wallace)
>>
>>Three empty shells were found in the SN. One of the three (CE 543)
>>support Oswald's innocence.
>>
>>The empty shell, (Warren Commission Exhibit) CE 543 characteristics:
>>1) It has marks indicating it was in another rifle at some point in
>>time.
>>2) It has a dented lip that would prevent it from holding a bullet and
>>fitting in the firing chamber.
>
> We have been over this dented lip numerous times.
>
> 1. The case in question did in fact hold a bullet. It did in fact fit
> into the
> chamber.
>
> 2. The case lip was bent on extraction AFTER the bullet was fired and
> AFTER the
> case had been in the chamber until extraction.
>
> 3. Seems to my Oswald had a full box of WWW ammunition for his weapon.
>
> Bill Clarke
>
photos, bullets, rifle and shells on the floor. But can't find the photos
of the spent shells themselves?
witness. Besides after supposedly hearing the rifle bolt working and rifle
firing. Norman ran to the west side of the building. Why? James Jarman who
was standing right beside Norman testified he thought the shots came from
the knoll. Victoria Adams one floor below them said the shots came from
the knoll.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 20, 2012, 10:58:25 PM10/20/12
to
also look for the HSCA photos. I found one independent researcher who
took his own photos.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Chapman5.jpg
Some magazines and LIFE published some photos taken by a freelance
photographer.
charles wallace
Oct 21, 2012, 7:13:16 PM10/21/12
to
On Friday, October 19, 2012 2:23:03 PM UTC-5, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article <b5d7190a-8f17-42b9...@googlegroups.com>, charles
>
> wallace says...
>
> >
>
> >The Empty Shell Theory (EST)
>
> > From:
>
> > (charles wallace)
>
> >
>
> >Three empty shells were found in the SN. One of the three (CE 543)
>
> >support Oswald's innocence.
>
> >
>
> >The empty shell, (Warren Commission Exhibit) CE 543 characteristics:
>
> >1) It has marks indicating it was in another rifle at some point in
>
> >time.
>
> >2) It has a dented lip that would prevent it from holding a bullet and
>
> >fitting in the firing chamber.
>
>
>
> We have been over this dented lip numerous times.
>
>
>
> 1. The case in question did in fact hold a bullet. It did in fact fit into the
>
> chamber.
>
>
>
> 2. The case lip was bent on extraction AFTER the bullet was fired and AFTER the
>
> case had been in the chamber until extraction.
>
>
>
> 3. Seems to my Oswald had a full box of WWW ammunition for his weapon.
>
>
>
> Bill Clarke
>
Clarke,
> In article <b5d7190a-8f17-42b9...@googlegroups.com>, charles
>
> wallace says...
>
> >
>
> >The Empty Shell Theory (EST)
>
> > From:
>
> > (charles wallace)
>
> >
>
> >Three empty shells were found in the SN. One of the three (CE 543)
>
> >support Oswald's innocence.
>
> >
>
> >The empty shell, (Warren Commission Exhibit) CE 543 characteristics:
>
> >1) It has marks indicating it was in another rifle at some point in
>
> >time.
>
> >2) It has a dented lip that would prevent it from holding a bullet and
>
> >fitting in the firing chamber.
>
>
>
> We have been over this dented lip numerous times.
>
>
>
> 1. The case in question did in fact hold a bullet. It did in fact fit into the
>
> chamber.
>
>
>
> 2. The case lip was bent on extraction AFTER the bullet was fired and AFTER the
>
> case had been in the chamber until extraction.
>
>
>
> 3. Seems to my Oswald had a full box of WWW ammunition for his weapon.
>
>
>
> Bill Clarke
>
Could you explain why this shell has TWO firing pin hits? Could you
explain why this shell has NO side indent mark like other shells know to
have been fired in Oswald's rifle?
Charles
http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK
charles wallace
Oct 21, 2012, 9:51:44 PM10/21/12
to
On Friday, October 19, 2012 2:23:03 PM UTC-5, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article <b5d7190a-8f17-42b9...@googlegroups.com>, charles
>
> wallace says...
>
> >
>
> >The Empty Shell Theory (EST)
>
> > From:
>
> > (charles wallace)
>
> >
>
> >Three empty shells were found in the SN. One of the three (CE 543)
>
> >support Oswald's innocence.
>
> >
>
> >The empty shell, (Warren Commission Exhibit) CE 543 characteristics:
>
> >1) It has marks indicating it was in another rifle at some point in
>
> >time.
>
> >2) It has a dented lip that would prevent it from holding a bullet and
>
> >fitting in the firing chamber.
>
>
>
> We have been over this dented lip numerous times.
>
>
>
> 1. The case in question did in fact hold a bullet. It did in fact fit into the
>
> chamber.
>
>
>
> 2. The case lip was bent on extraction AFTER the bullet was fired and AFTER the
>
> case had been in the chamber until extraction.
>
>
>
> 3. Seems to my Oswald had a full box of WWW ammunition for his weapon.
>
>
>
> Bill Clarke
>
>
Clarke,
>
> wallace says...
>
> >
>
> >The Empty Shell Theory (EST)
>
> > From:
>
> > (charles wallace)
>
> >
>
> >Three empty shells were found in the SN. One of the three (CE 543)
>
> >support Oswald's innocence.
>
> >
>
> >The empty shell, (Warren Commission Exhibit) CE 543 characteristics:
>
> >1) It has marks indicating it was in another rifle at some point in
>
> >time.
>
> >2) It has a dented lip that would prevent it from holding a bullet and
>
> >fitting in the firing chamber.
>
>
>
> We have been over this dented lip numerous times.
>
>
>
> 1. The case in question did in fact hold a bullet. It did in fact fit into the
>
> chamber.
>
>
>
> 2. The case lip was bent on extraction AFTER the bullet was fired and AFTER the
>
> case had been in the chamber until extraction.
>
>
>
> 3. Seems to my Oswald had a full box of WWW ammunition for his weapon.
>
>
>
> Bill Clarke
>
>
Could you explain why the shell has two firing pin hits? Could you explain
why there is no side indent mark that is seen on every shell known to have
been fired in Oswald's rifle?
Charles
http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK
>
>
>
>
>
>
Charles
http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Oct 21, 2012, 9:53:28 PM10/21/12
to
speak English and you know nothing about ballistics. Any cartridge can
have an addition shallow indentation from the firing pin if it has been
accidentally reinserted into the chamber and the trigger pulled. What are
you calling side indent marks?
Show me on the other shells. Maybe you mean follower marks caused by the
bottom shell being pushed up by the spring. The top shell loaded would not
have any such mark because it is being pushed up by the bullets underneath
it. Is that what you mean? Hard to tell from the way you write so vaguely.
Is Dr. Chapman's theory what you are talking about?
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Chapman5.jpg
> Charles
> http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK
>
Bill Clarke
Oct 21, 2012, 11:33:10 PM10/21/12
to
In article <866edfd4-f4e9-40cd...@googlegroups.com>, charles
wallace says...
I think Marsh gave you some idea on these questions in his post. Are we
clear on the dented lip?
Bill Clarke
wallace says...
clear on the dented lip?
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
Oct 22, 2012, 4:53:40 PM10/22/12
to
heard something somewhere and can't remember what it was.
charles wallace
Oct 22, 2012, 4:55:25 PM10/22/12
to
Do you read what you write? Are you claiming that CE 543 was fired during
the assassination, then it was accidentally reinserted and attempted to be
fired again?
You pretend that Dr. Chapman and Dr. Thompson have not presented
conclusive proof that CE 543 was not fired in Oswald's rifle or even fired
that day.
You know that the FBI duplicated CE 543 by having two hits by the firing
pin. You know that "Six seconds in Dallas" shows CE 543 does not have a
side indent mark that Oswald's rifle makes. You know there are follower
marks on the shell that do not match Oswald's rifle.
Sir, you are pretending not to know certain things,why?
Charles
Ace Kefford
Oct 22, 2012, 8:02:46 PM10/22/12
to
Sorry, I misread it as the Empty SKULL Theory.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 22, 2012, 8:04:25 PM10/22/12
to
know were fired from Oswald's rifle. So your "every shell known" in
unnecessary swaggering. If you mean the follower marks left by the spring
pushing up, the rounds could have been loaded into the clip several
different time and maybe the bottom shell late became the top shell and
the last shell put in the clip might have been that day the top shell in
the clip so that the spring never touched it. Hence no dents on that
shell. Or it could have been in the middle and thus would not have been
dented by the spring.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 22, 2012, 8:14:52 PM10/22/12
to
explanations.
> You know that the FBI duplicated CE 543 by having two hits by the firing
> pin. You know that "Six seconds in Dallas" shows CE 543 does not have a
> side indent mark that Oswald's rifle makes. You know there are follower
> marks on the shell that do not match Oswald's rifle.
>
my shells just by putting them into the bottom of the magazine.
Try loading an empty shell into a Carcano by hand.
> Sir, you are pretending not to know certain things,why?
>
> Charles
>
Research
Oct 23, 2012, 12:54:18 PM10/23/12
to
The very idea that an assassin would load an empty shell into a rifle and
take it to the shooting, is ludicrous. It is pure crazy. What about all the
witneses who say there were 3 or four shots? And why would the shooter place
an empty shell in the middle of the clip? I'm SORRY, BUT this issue does not
make any sense to me.
take it to the shooting, is ludicrous. It is pure crazy. What about all the
witneses who say there were 3 or four shots? And why would the shooter place
an empty shell in the middle of the clip? I'm SORRY, BUT this issue does not
make any sense to me.
fatol...@gmail.com
Oct 23, 2012, 8:15:54 PM10/23/12
to
one of them just just happening to be dented, therefore impossible to have
been fired, thus proving that they were planted. The point would be that
whoever was shooting whatever gun from wherever, according to your theory,
that Oswald was setup by the shells being planted there, maybe by somebody
who was firing a Mauser, and Oswald's gun being planted also. Maybe even,
Oswald was there shooting, but had the good sense to pick up his shells
and then somebody else planted the ones that were found. Many scenarios
could use such evidence.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 23, 2012, 8:16:17 PM10/23/12
to
after firing the rifle before, Oswald did not eject the shell and it
stayed in the chamber until 11/22/63.
What do you mean by "all"? You mean 5 or 6 people?
Do not rely on witnesses. That's why it was analyzed scientifically.
And the HSCA found 4 shots. But exactly 3 of them were fired from the
sniper's nest.
FYI no one proposed that the shooter put an empty shell in the middle of
the clip. The clip holds 6 rounds.
I think you are trying to be obtuse for effect.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 24, 2012, 1:07:12 PM10/24/12
to
On 10/23/2012 8:15 PM, fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:54:18 PM UTC-4, Research wrote:
>> The very idea that an assassin would load an empty shell into a rifle and
>>
>> take it to the shooting, is ludicrous. It is pure crazy. What about all the
>>
>> witneses who say there were 3 or four shots? And why would the shooter place
>>
>> an empty shell in the middle of the clip? I'm SORRY, BUT this issue does not
>>
>> make any sense to me.
>
> The idea kinda makes sense if you think all the shells were planted there,
> one of them just just happening to be dented, therefore impossible to have
Dented how? CE 543 was fired and then dented during ejection.
> On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:54:18 PM UTC-4, Research wrote:
>> The very idea that an assassin would load an empty shell into a rifle and
>>
>> take it to the shooting, is ludicrous. It is pure crazy. What about all the
>>
>> witneses who say there were 3 or four shots? And why would the shooter place
>>
>> an empty shell in the middle of the clip? I'm SORRY, BUT this issue does not
>>
>> make any sense to me.
>
> The idea kinda makes sense if you think all the shells were planted there,
> one of them just just happening to be dented, therefore impossible to have
fatol...@gmail.com
Oct 24, 2012, 4:56:34 PM10/24/12
to
According to an account reportedly by Marina Oswald, while they were in New Orleans, Oswald "dry fired" the rifle for practice. I would assume that he used empty shells for this, and that sort of practicing could have produced a shell with a dent like the one found in the sniper's nest. Somebody with access to Oswald's stuff, maybe even Oswald himself, could have just grabbed 3 of his practice shells without thinking to check for dents and planted them in the sniper's nest.
fatol...@gmail.com
Oct 24, 2012, 5:01:03 PM10/24/12
to
Perhaps I had read some crap about that. I thought the FBI tests had determined that an empty shell being loaded would produce that dent. I see now that it was said to the HSCA that 1 in 4 ejected shells got that dent in tests. Guess I'll have to get a Mannlicher-Carcano and see for myself.
Bill Clarke
Oct 24, 2012, 5:33:32 PM10/24/12
to
In article <508769d3$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
want to understand. I'm not sure which.
Bill Clarke
>
>On 10/23/2012 8:15 PM, fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:54:18 PM UTC-4, Research wrote:
>>> The very idea that an assassin would load an empty shell into a rifle and
>>>
>>> take it to the shooting, is ludicrous. It is pure crazy. What about all the
>>>
>>> witneses who say there were 3 or four shots? And why would the shooter place
>>>
>>> an empty shell in the middle of the clip? I'm SORRY, BUT this issue does not
>>>
>>> make any sense to me.
>>
>> The idea kinda makes sense if you think all the shells were planted there,
>> one of them just just happening to be dented, therefore impossible to have
>
>Dented how? CE 543 was fired and then dented during ejection.
I tried to explain this to them but they either don't understand or don't
>On 10/23/2012 8:15 PM, fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:54:18 PM UTC-4, Research wrote:
>>> The very idea that an assassin would load an empty shell into a rifle and
>>>
>>> take it to the shooting, is ludicrous. It is pure crazy. What about all the
>>>
>>> witneses who say there were 3 or four shots? And why would the shooter place
>>>
>>> an empty shell in the middle of the clip? I'm SORRY, BUT this issue does not
>>>
>>> make any sense to me.
>>
>> The idea kinda makes sense if you think all the shells were planted there,
>> one of them just just happening to be dented, therefore impossible to have
>
>Dented how? CE 543 was fired and then dented during ejection.
want to understand. I'm not sure which.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
Oct 24, 2012, 10:23:15 PM10/24/12
to
On 10/24/2012 4:56 PM, fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
> According to an account reportedly by Marina Oswald, while they were in
> New Orleans, Oswald "dry fired" the rifle for practice. I would assume
> that he used empty shells for this, and that sort of practicing could have
> produced a shell with a dent like the one found in the sniper's nest.
> Somebody with access to Oswald's stuff, maybe even Oswald himself, could
> have just grabbed 3 of his practice shells without thinking to check for
> dents and planted them in the sniper's nest.
>
No, on the Carcano you can't use empty shells to dry fire it. Maybe he
> According to an account reportedly by Marina Oswald, while they were in
> New Orleans, Oswald "dry fired" the rifle for practice. I would assume
> that he used empty shells for this, and that sort of practicing could have
> produced a shell with a dent like the one found in the sniper's nest.
> Somebody with access to Oswald's stuff, maybe even Oswald himself, could
> have just grabbed 3 of his practice shells without thinking to check for
> dents and planted them in the sniper's nest.
>
just practiced using the bolt. To load a round into the rifle properly you
need to have it in the clip. Riva demonstrated that to Crescent Arms when
customers complained that they could not load rounds into their Carcanos.
Research
Oct 25, 2012, 5:13:58 PM10/25/12
to
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5086e3cd$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 10/23/2012 12:54 PM, Research wrote:
>> The very idea that an assassin would load an empty shell into a rifle and
>> take it to the shooting, is ludicrous. It is pure crazy. What about all
>> the
>> witneses who say there were 3 or four shots? And why would the shooter
>> place
>> an empty shell in the middle of the clip? I'm SORRY, BUT this issue does
>> not
>> make any sense to me.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> I don't think anyone proposed that. I think what they meant is that after
> firing the rifle before, Oswald did not eject the shell and it stayed in
> the chamber until 11/22/63.
>
>
> What do you mean by "all"? You mean 5 or 6 people?
> Do not rely on witnesses. That's why it was analyzed scientifically.
> And the HSCA found 4 shots. But exactly 3 of them were fired from the
> sniper's nest.
Yeah the HSCA concluded with 4 shots. So we have a conspiracy. NO DOUBT. Why
>> The very idea that an assassin would load an empty shell into a rifle and
>> take it to the shooting, is ludicrous. It is pure crazy. What about all
>> the
>> witneses who say there were 3 or four shots? And why would the shooter
>> place
>> an empty shell in the middle of the clip? I'm SORRY, BUT this issue does
>> not
>> make any sense to me.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> I don't think anyone proposed that. I think what they meant is that after
> firing the rifle before, Oswald did not eject the shell and it stayed in
> the chamber until 11/22/63.
>
>
> What do you mean by "all"? You mean 5 or 6 people?
> Do not rely on witnesses. That's why it was analyzed scientifically.
> And the HSCA found 4 shots. But exactly 3 of them were fired from the
> sniper's nest.
did the investigation end there? The committee closed and ran for the hills.
Yet LNers STILL claim 3 shots all from the dep. The CTs claim the shell had
two pin marks. I don't see but one and I can't find these marks you all are
talking about. The dent is obvious. It had to occur after it was fired
because the bullet itself would keep the shell from being dented. When the
dent occurred is the question.
Saintly Oswald
Oct 25, 2012, 5:14:59 PM10/25/12
to
I think I found where I got this notion. I'm not saying it is correct, but I'll just post it in case you or anybody else is interested. http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/dent.htm
Quoted from that web page below is a Howard Donahue, "a court-certified firearms expert and a world-class marksman."
"I will refer you to Professor Thompson's book, Six Seconds in Dallas, page 144, exhibit no. 543. Dr. Thompson discovered this case had been fired (dry fired) at least three times."
This is why I tend not to discuss this kind of evidence. One person say he discovered that the shell had been dry fired. Another says that can't even be done. What am I supposed to do? I'd have to buy the gun myself to find out. That's why I like the photo evidence.
Quoted from that web page below is a Howard Donahue, "a court-certified firearms expert and a world-class marksman."
"I will refer you to Professor Thompson's book, Six Seconds in Dallas, page 144, exhibit no. 543. Dr. Thompson discovered this case had been fired (dry fired) at least three times."
This is why I tend not to discuss this kind of evidence. One person say he discovered that the shell had been dry fired. Another says that can't even be done. What am I supposed to do? I'd have to buy the gun myself to find out. That's why I like the photo evidence.
Bill Clarke
Oct 25, 2012, 9:52:48 PM10/25/12
to
In article <ca9981fa-50f1-46b9...@googlegroups.com>,
fatol...@gmail.com says...
>
>Perhaps I had read some crap about that. I thought the FBI tests had determ=
>ined that an empty shell being loaded would produce that dent. I see now th=
>at it was said to the HSCA that 1 in 4 ejected shells got that dent in test=
>s. Guess I'll have to get a Mannlicher-Carcano and see for myself.=20
Perhaps Mr. Marsh will loan you his MC. I don't have one either but I've
shot a good many rifles and have experienced this dented case lip on
occasion. It was not a rare occurrence.
This idea that this particular case could or did not hold a bullet is
proposed by those that have no experience shooting. It is on it's face
rather foolish.
Bill Clarke
>On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 1:07:13 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 10/23/2012 8:15 PM, fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
>>=20
>> >> The very idea that an assassin would load an empty shell into a rifle =
>and
>>=20
>> >>
>>=20
>> >> take it to the shooting, is ludicrous. It is pure crazy. What about al=
>l the
>>=20
>> >>
>>=20
>> >> witneses who say there were 3 or four shots? And why would the shooter=
> place
>>=20
>> >>
>>=20
>> >> an empty shell in the middle of the clip? I'm SORRY, BUT this issue do=
>es not
>>=20
>> >>
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> > The idea kinda makes sense if you think all the shells were planted the=
>re,
>>=20
>> > one of them just just happening to be dented, therefore impossible to h=
>ave
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> > been fired, thus proving that they were planted. The point would be tha=
>t
>>=20
>> > whoever was shooting whatever gun from wherever, according to your theo=
>ry,
>>=20
>> > that Oswald was setup by the shells being planted there, maybe by someb=
>ody
>>=20
>> > who was firing a Mauser, and Oswald's gun being planted also. Maybe eve=
>n,
>>=20
>> > could use such evidence.
>>=20
>> >
>
>
fatol...@gmail.com says...
>
>Perhaps I had read some crap about that. I thought the FBI tests had determ=
>ined that an empty shell being loaded would produce that dent. I see now th=
>at it was said to the HSCA that 1 in 4 ejected shells got that dent in test=
>s. Guess I'll have to get a Mannlicher-Carcano and see for myself.=20
Perhaps Mr. Marsh will loan you his MC. I don't have one either but I've
shot a good many rifles and have experienced this dented case lip on
occasion. It was not a rare occurrence.
This idea that this particular case could or did not hold a bullet is
proposed by those that have no experience shooting. It is on it's face
rather foolish.
Bill Clarke
>On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 1:07:13 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 10/23/2012 8:15 PM, fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:54:18 PM UTC-4, Research wrote:
>>=20
>> >> The very idea that an assassin would load an empty shell into a rifle =
>and
>>=20
>> >>
>>=20
>> >> take it to the shooting, is ludicrous. It is pure crazy. What about al=
>l the
>>=20
>> >>
>>=20
>> >> witneses who say there were 3 or four shots? And why would the shooter=
> place
>>=20
>> >>
>>=20
>> >> an empty shell in the middle of the clip? I'm SORRY, BUT this issue do=
>es not
>>=20
>> >>
>>=20
>> >> make any sense to me.
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> > The idea kinda makes sense if you think all the shells were planted the=
>re,
>>=20
>> > one of them just just happening to be dented, therefore impossible to h=
>ave
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Dented how? CE 543 was fired and then dented during ejection.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> > been fired, thus proving that they were planted. The point would be tha=
>t
>>=20
>> > whoever was shooting whatever gun from wherever, according to your theo=
>ry,
>>=20
>> > that Oswald was setup by the shells being planted there, maybe by someb=
>ody
>>=20
>> > who was firing a Mauser, and Oswald's gun being planted also. Maybe eve=
>n,
>>=20
>> > Oswald was there shooting, but had the good sense to pick up his shells
>>=20
>> > and then somebody else planted the ones that were found. Many scenarios
>>=20
>> > could use such evidence.
>>=20
>> >
>
>
Bill Clarke
Oct 25, 2012, 10:52:56 PM10/25/12
to
In article <55ffa2cd-c7b3-4d78...@googlegroups.com>, Saintly
Oswald says...
>
>I think I found where I got this notion. I'm not saying it is correct, but =
>I'll just post it in case you or anybody else is interested. http://www.mtg=
>riffith.com/web_documents/dent.htm
>Quoted from that web page below is a Howard Donahue, "a court-certified fir=
> 144, exhibit no. 543. Dr. Thompson discovered this case had been fired (dr=
>discovered that the shell had been dry fired. Another says that can't even =
>be done. What am I supposed to do? I'd have to buy the gun myself to find o=
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)."
True, the dented case couldn't be fired but they ignore the fact that it
was dented AFTER firing on extraction. I'm rather surprised at the
confusion here, especially by people alleging to be experts.
What concerns me more is the supposedly two or even three indention marks
on the primer. This is hard to explain. A primer only works the first
time so what caused the other marks. Have you seen a picture of this
primer?
As for dry firing with the case without a bullet I doubt it. Without the
bullet to guide the case into the chamber you would have many jams I
think. On top of that I have had people other than Marsh tell me you
cannot load the MC by hand so that rules that out.
Dry firing refers to working the bolt and pulling the trigger without a
round in the chamber. This is hard on the firing pin and can even cause
it to break. They make dummy rounds to put in the chamber to prevent this
injury so maybe Oswald knew this from Marine days and put an empty round
into the chamber to practice with.
Is there a photo of this case head on the net?
Bill Clarke
Oswald says...
>
>I think I found where I got this notion. I'm not saying it is correct, but =
>I'll just post it in case you or anybody else is interested. http://www.mtg=
>riffith.com/web_documents/dent.htm
>Quoted from that web page below is a Howard Donahue, "a court-certified fir=
>earms expert and a world-class marksman."
>
>"I will refer you to Professor Thompson's book, Six Seconds in Dallas, page=
>
> 144, exhibit no. 543. Dr. Thompson discovered this case had been fired (dr=
>y fired) at least three times."
>
>This is why I tend not to discuss this kind of evidence. One person say he =
>
>discovered that the shell had been dry fired. Another says that can't even =
>be done. What am I supposed to do? I'd have to buy the gun myself to find o=
>ut. That's why I like the photo evidence.
I read the article and this is just flat wrong; "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)."
True, the dented case couldn't be fired but they ignore the fact that it
was dented AFTER firing on extraction. I'm rather surprised at the
confusion here, especially by people alleging to be experts.
What concerns me more is the supposedly two or even three indention marks
on the primer. This is hard to explain. A primer only works the first
time so what caused the other marks. Have you seen a picture of this
primer?
As for dry firing with the case without a bullet I doubt it. Without the
bullet to guide the case into the chamber you would have many jams I
think. On top of that I have had people other than Marsh tell me you
cannot load the MC by hand so that rules that out.
Dry firing refers to working the bolt and pulling the trigger without a
round in the chamber. This is hard on the firing pin and can even cause
it to break. They make dummy rounds to put in the chamber to prevent this
injury so maybe Oswald knew this from Marine days and put an empty round
into the chamber to practice with.
Is there a photo of this case head on the net?
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Oct 25, 2012, 10:53:22 PM10/25/12
to
In article <5089...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Research says...
It occurred on extraction after it was fired. Jean one posted a good
article on how the case lip is dented on extraction. Unfortunately I
forgot to save it.
You can look at the case in question and state that the case could not be
fired. Hell, that is a no brainer. You have a case with a dented lip that
would prevent it from holding a bullet, the primer has been used, all the
powder has been burned and there is no bullet. Of course it couldn't be
fired.
Bill Clarke
article on how the case lip is dented on extraction. Unfortunately I
forgot to save it.
You can look at the case in question and state that the case could not be
fired. Hell, that is a no brainer. You have a case with a dented lip that
would prevent it from holding a bullet, the primer has been used, all the
powder has been burned and there is no bullet. Of course it couldn't be
fired.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
Oct 25, 2012, 10:59:27 PM10/25/12
to
On 10/25/2012 5:13 PM, Research wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:5086e3cd$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> On 10/23/2012 12:54 PM, Research wrote:
>>> The very idea that an assassin would load an empty shell into a rifle and
>>> take it to the shooting, is ludicrous. It is pure crazy. What about all
>>> the
>>> witneses who say there were 3 or four shots? And why would the shooter
>>> place
>>> an empty shell in the middle of the clip? I'm SORRY, BUT this issue does
>>> not
>>> make any sense to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think anyone proposed that. I think what they meant is that after
>> firing the rifle before, Oswald did not eject the shell and it stayed in
>> the chamber until 11/22/63.
>>
>>
>> What do you mean by "all"? You mean 5 or 6 people?
>> Do not rely on witnesses. That's why it was analyzed scientifically.
>> And the HSCA found 4 shots. But exactly 3 of them were fired from the
>> sniper's nest.
>
> Yeah the HSCA concluded with 4 shots. So we have a conspiracy. NO DOUBT. Why
> did the investigation end there? The committee closed and ran for the hills.
They ran out of money. Each committee is only funded for one calendar
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:5086e3cd$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> On 10/23/2012 12:54 PM, Research wrote:
>>> The very idea that an assassin would load an empty shell into a rifle and
>>> take it to the shooting, is ludicrous. It is pure crazy. What about all
>>> the
>>> witneses who say there were 3 or four shots? And why would the shooter
>>> place
>>> an empty shell in the middle of the clip? I'm SORRY, BUT this issue does
>>> not
>>> make any sense to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think anyone proposed that. I think what they meant is that after
>> firing the rifle before, Oswald did not eject the shell and it stayed in
>> the chamber until 11/22/63.
>>
>>
>> What do you mean by "all"? You mean 5 or 6 people?
>> Do not rely on witnesses. That's why it was analyzed scientifically.
>> And the HSCA found 4 shots. But exactly 3 of them were fired from the
>> sniper's nest.
>
> Yeah the HSCA concluded with 4 shots. So we have a conspiracy. NO DOUBT. Why
> did the investigation end there? The committee closed and ran for the hills.
year.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 26, 2012, 3:33:01 PM10/26/12
to
On 10/25/2012 9:52 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article <ca9981fa-50f1-46b9...@googlegroups.com>,
> fatol...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> Perhaps I had read some crap about that. I thought the FBI tests had determ=
>> ined that an empty shell being loaded would produce that dent. I see now th=
>> at it was said to the HSCA that 1 in 4 ejected shells got that dent in test=
>> s. Guess I'll have to get a Mannlicher-Carcano and see for myself.=20
>
>
> Perhaps Mr. Marsh will loan you his MC. I don't have one either but I've
> shot a good many rifles and have experienced this dented case lip on
> occasion. It was not a rare occurrence.
>
As I said before, it used to happen on my .22 AR-7 semi-automatic rifle.
> In article <ca9981fa-50f1-46b9...@googlegroups.com>,
> fatol...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> Perhaps I had read some crap about that. I thought the FBI tests had determ=
>> ined that an empty shell being loaded would produce that dent. I see now th=
>> at it was said to the HSCA that 1 in 4 ejected shells got that dent in test=
>> s. Guess I'll have to get a Mannlicher-Carcano and see for myself.=20
>
>
> Perhaps Mr. Marsh will loan you his MC. I don't have one either but I've
> shot a good many rifles and have experienced this dented case lip on
> occasion. It was not a rare occurrence.
>
The empty shell would catch and not be ejected and then the bolt would
slam forward and the lip would be jammed onto he mouth of the chamber,
jamming the rifle.
Saintly Oswald
Oct 26, 2012, 3:36:04 PM10/26/12
to
This is a photo said to be of CE 543 of the relevant part, I believe. I
can't get to the actual web page because I have been banned from that
forum, for heresy. I got it from a Google picture search and put it on my
profile page.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-oDTEkSG677M/UIpNVfW8WuI/AAAAAAAAAWA/_tExHn9FRVM/s600/CE543Primer.jpg
This is a crop and enlargement I did, adjusting the contrast and brightness. https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-v5fKtuZ8ZLA/UIpOa4NWSyI/AAAAAAAAAWk/uu1ELdFkTYM/s539/CE543PrimerCrop.jpg
If you search Google Images for "CE 543 primer" you will find the page I'm
not allowed to see. Maybe it says something there.
can't get to the actual web page because I have been banned from that
forum, for heresy. I got it from a Google picture search and put it on my
profile page.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-oDTEkSG677M/UIpNVfW8WuI/AAAAAAAAAWA/_tExHn9FRVM/s600/CE543Primer.jpg
This is a crop and enlargement I did, adjusting the contrast and brightness. https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-v5fKtuZ8ZLA/UIpOa4NWSyI/AAAAAAAAAWk/uu1ELdFkTYM/s539/CE543PrimerCrop.jpg
If you search Google Images for "CE 543 primer" you will find the page I'm
not allowed to see. Maybe it says something there.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 26, 2012, 10:04:42 PM10/26/12
to
On 10/26/2012 3:36 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> This is a photo said to be of CE 543 of the relevant part, I believe. I
> can't get to the actual web page because I have been banned from that
> forum, for heresy. I got it from a Google picture search and put it on my
> profile page.
>
> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-oDTEkSG677M/UIpNVfW8WuI/AAAAAAAAAWA/_tExHn9FRVM/s600/CE543Primer.jpg
>
> This is a crop and enlargement I did, adjusting the contrast and brightness. https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-v5fKtuZ8ZLA/UIpOa4NWSyI/AAAAAAAAAWk/uu1ELdFkTYM/s539/CE543PrimerCrop.jpg
>
Thanks. I don't see a second impact mark.
> This is a photo said to be of CE 543 of the relevant part, I believe. I
> can't get to the actual web page because I have been banned from that
> forum, for heresy. I got it from a Google picture search and put it on my
> profile page.
>
> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-oDTEkSG677M/UIpNVfW8WuI/AAAAAAAAAWA/_tExHn9FRVM/s600/CE543Primer.jpg
>
> This is a crop and enlargement I did, adjusting the contrast and brightness. https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-v5fKtuZ8ZLA/UIpOa4NWSyI/AAAAAAAAAWk/uu1ELdFkTYM/s539/CE543PrimerCrop.jpg
>
This is why I ask the kooks if they really know what the claim is about
when they recycle myths from conspiracy books.
Bill Clarke
Oct 27, 2012, 12:26:58 PM10/27/12
to
In article <ee788f5e-1206-45a1...@googlegroups.com>, Saintly
Oswald says...
>. https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-v5fKtuZ8ZLA/UIpOa4NWSyI/AAAAAAAAAWk/uu=
Thanks for your information. There is certainly only one indention mark on the
primer but it does seem to be deeper than what we usually see. I assume that
the other two primers were not penetrated so deep?
Simply because the penetration of the primer is deeper doesn't necessary mean
that the primer was struck twice. The firing pin only goes so far and stops so
striking the primer again shouldn't deepen the mark on the primer.
To tell you the truth, I can't explain it.
If you find something on this please let me know.
Bill Clarke
>On Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:52:57 PM UTC-4, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <55ffa2cd-c7b3-4d78...@googlegroups.com>, Saint=
>ly
>>=20
>> Oswald says...
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >I think I found where I got this notion. I'm not saying it is correct, b=
>ut =3D
>>=20
>> >I'll just post it in case you or anybody else is interested. http://www.=
>mtg=3D
>>=20
>> >riffith.com/web_documents/dent.htm
>>=20
>> >Quoted from that web page below is a Howard Donahue, "a court-certified =
>fir=3D
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >"I will refer you to Professor Thompson's book, Six Seconds in Dallas, p=
>age=3D
>>=20
>> > 144, exhibit no. 543. Dr. Thompson discovered this case had been fired =
>(dr=3D
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >This is why I tend not to discuss this kind of evidence. One person say =
>he =3D
>>=20
>> >discovered that the shell had been dry fired. Another says that can't ev=
>en =3D
>>=20
>> >be done. What am I supposed to do? I'd have to buy the gun myself to fin=
>d o=3D
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> I read the article and this is just flat wrong; "Thus, the evidence prove=
>s=20
>>=20
>> conclusively that Commission Exhibit 543 could not have been fired from=
>=20
>>=20
>> Oswald's rifle. . . . (Crime of the Century, Knoxville: University of=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> True, the dented case couldn't be fired but they ignore the fact that it=
>=20
>>=20
>> was dented AFTER firing on extraction. I'm rather surprised at the=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> What concerns me more is the supposedly two or even three indention marks=
>=20
>>=20
>> on the primer. This is hard to explain. A primer only works the first=
>=20
>>=20
>> time so what caused the other marks. Have you seen a picture of this=20
>>=20
>> primer?
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> As for dry firing with the case without a bullet I doubt it. Without the=
>=20
>>=20
>> bullet to guide the case into the chamber you would have many jams I=20
>>=20
>> think. On top of that I have had people other than Marsh tell me you=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Dry firing refers to working the bolt and pulling the trigger without a=
>=20
>>=20
>> round in the chamber. This is hard on the firing pin and can even cause=
>=20
>>=20
>> it to break. They make dummy rounds to put in the chamber to prevent this=
>=20
>>=20
>> injury so maybe Oswald knew this from Marine days and put an empty round=
>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Bill Clarke
>
Oswald says...
>
>This is a photo said to be of CE 543 of the relevant part, I believe. I
>can't get to the actual web page because I have been banned from that
>forum, for heresy. I got it from a Google picture search and put it on my
>profile page.
>
>https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-oDTEkSG677M/UIpNVfW8WuI/AAAAAAAAAWA/_tExHn9FRVM/s600/CE543Primer.jpg
>
>This is a crop and enlargement I did, adjusting the contrast and brightness=
>This is a photo said to be of CE 543 of the relevant part, I believe. I
>can't get to the actual web page because I have been banned from that
>forum, for heresy. I got it from a Google picture search and put it on my
>profile page.
>
>https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-oDTEkSG677M/UIpNVfW8WuI/AAAAAAAAAWA/_tExHn9FRVM/s600/CE543Primer.jpg
>
>. https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-v5fKtuZ8ZLA/UIpOa4NWSyI/AAAAAAAAAWk/uu=
>1ELdFkTYM/s539/CE543PrimerCrop.jpg
>
>If you search Google Images for "CE 543 primer" you will find the page I'm
>not allowed to see. Maybe it says something there.
Sorry about you being kicked out of a club but what the hell. It happens.
>
>If you search Google Images for "CE 543 primer" you will find the page I'm
>not allowed to see. Maybe it says something there.
Thanks for your information. There is certainly only one indention mark on the
primer but it does seem to be deeper than what we usually see. I assume that
the other two primers were not penetrated so deep?
Simply because the penetration of the primer is deeper doesn't necessary mean
that the primer was struck twice. The firing pin only goes so far and stops so
striking the primer again shouldn't deepen the mark on the primer.
To tell you the truth, I can't explain it.
If you find something on this please let me know.
Bill Clarke
>On Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:52:57 PM UTC-4, Bill Clarke wrote:
>ly
>>=20
>> Oswald says...
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >I think I found where I got this notion. I'm not saying it is correct, b=
>ut =3D
>>=20
>> >I'll just post it in case you or anybody else is interested. http://www.=
>mtg=3D
>>=20
>> >riffith.com/web_documents/dent.htm
>>=20
>> >Quoted from that web page below is a Howard Donahue, "a court-certified =
>fir=3D
>>=20
>> >earms expert and a world-class marksman."
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >"I will refer you to Professor Thompson's book, Six Seconds in Dallas, p=
>age=3D
>>=20
>> > 144, exhibit no. 543. Dr. Thompson discovered this case had been fired =
>(dr=3D
>>=20
>> >y fired) at least three times."
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >This is why I tend not to discuss this kind of evidence. One person say =
>he =3D
>>=20
>> >discovered that the shell had been dry fired. Another says that can't ev=
>en =3D
>>=20
>> >be done. What am I supposed to do? I'd have to buy the gun myself to fin=
>d o=3D
>>=20
>> >ut. That's why I like the photo evidence.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> I read the article and this is just flat wrong; "Thus, the evidence prove=
>s=20
>>=20
>> conclusively that Commission Exhibit 543 could not have been fired from=
>=20
>>=20
>> Oswald's rifle. . . . (Crime of the Century, Knoxville: University of=20
>>=20
>> Tennessee Press, 1982, pp. 50-51, emphasis added)."
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> True, the dented case couldn't be fired but they ignore the fact that it=
>=20
>>=20
>> was dented AFTER firing on extraction. I'm rather surprised at the=20
>>=20
>> confusion here, especially by people alleging to be experts.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> What concerns me more is the supposedly two or even three indention marks=
>=20
>>=20
>> on the primer. This is hard to explain. A primer only works the first=
>=20
>>=20
>> time so what caused the other marks. Have you seen a picture of this=20
>>=20
>> primer?
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> As for dry firing with the case without a bullet I doubt it. Without the=
>=20
>>=20
>> bullet to guide the case into the chamber you would have many jams I=20
>>=20
>> think. On top of that I have had people other than Marsh tell me you=20
>>=20
>> cannot load the MC by hand so that rules that out.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Dry firing refers to working the bolt and pulling the trigger without a=
>=20
>>=20
>> round in the chamber. This is hard on the firing pin and can even cause=
>=20
>>=20
>> it to break. They make dummy rounds to put in the chamber to prevent this=
>=20
>>=20
>> injury so maybe Oswald knew this from Marine days and put an empty round=
>=20
>>=20
>> into the chamber to practice with.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Is there a photo of this case head on the net?
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Bill Clarke
>
0 new messages