Yet Nicol is talking about doing what you say only an imbecile would do:
"And it was on the basis of the match of these patterns that I would conclude that this cartridge had been introduced into a chamber at least three times prior to its final firing. So that this would represent, you might say, a practice or dry-run loading the gun and unloading it for purpose of either determining its-how it functions, or whether it was in proper function, or just for practice.'
How many times can a cartridge be "fired" so that it has two such firings before the "final firing"?
Normally "dry-firing" would be firing the gun without any ammunition in the chamber. But Eisenberg seems to be using the term 'dry-firing' as 'dry loading and unloading'. He is suggesting that ejector marks found on the shell could have been produced by "dry-firing" as opposed to "actual firing" (3 H 510):
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, again, if it is an ejector mark, might the difference have been caused by the fact that it may have been associated with a dry firing rather than an actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. That might be possible.
Now, when a cartridge is actually fired, only the shell is ejected. So he is suggesting that it was ejected as something other than an empty shell.
The HSCA analysis was seriously flawed. No one reported having difficulty hearing distinct shots. Echos will vary with observers who are all over the place. If ear-witnesses were fooled by echos, they would have over-estimated or "inflated" the number of shots as they suggest. The HSCA was trying to argue that there were more shots than the witnesses recalled hearing.
Most observers recalled that the last two shots were closer than the first two but still distinct. Many indicated that the space between 2 and 3 was about half that between 1 and 2.
If you are arguing that the last two shots were really a shot and an echo, the witness perception of the time between them would vary widely depending on their positions. That isn't the case. And if there was more than a second between them, which most said was the case, the reflecting surface providing the echo would have to be more than 565 feet farther away from the source than the observer was (so that the reflected sound travelled 1130 feet longer to reach the observer). What large reflecting surfaces in Dealey Plaza were 565 farther away from an observer than the 6th floor TSBD SN? The only one I can think of was the Post Office Building south of Commerce St.
Also, if the witnesses heard an echo from the shots and there were only two shots, they would have been fooled into reporting 4 shots because there is no reason to believe that they would hear the echo only on the second of two shots.
Finally, most witnesses were within 300 feet of the SN. So any echo at least 1 second after the shot will have travelled at least an additional 1130 feet or more than 4 times farther (1330/300=4.4) which means it would be much less loud than the initial sound (1/20th at most). The witnesses did not observe this. They heard similar shots.
If the concept of dry firing is confusing to you maybe don't post about it. First you were talking about cycling all the shells, now I guess just one. Nicol and Eisenberg are talking about cartridge "case", in other words the shell.
Mason:
"Your understanding of "dry firing" and Nicol's are different. Nicol explained that dry firing is simply working the bullets from the clip through the chamber and unloading without pressing the trigger."
Here is the rest of Nicol's testimony that you did not post for obvious reasons.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Now, is it possible that the reason the marks were present on this cartridge but not on the other cartridge case on this cartridge case but not on the other cartridge cases you examined--is because these marks were produced by dry firing as opposed to actual firing?
Mr. Nicol.
This is possible. The weight of the empty shell would be different of course from one which had a projectile in it, so that its dynamics might be different, and it might produce a different mark-- although in the absence of accessibility of the weapon, or the absence of these marks on the tests, I really am unable to say what is the precise origin of those marks, except to speculate that they are probably from the extractor, and that the second mark that appears here, which I have indicated with a similar number, is probably an ejector mark.
Now, this, I might add, is a different type of ejector mark than the mark found on the rim from the normal firing of these tests and the evidence cartridges.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Now, you stated that another mark appeared in all three associated in juxtaposition with the three marks you have been describing?
Mr. Nicol.
Yes; and in the same angular relationship to a radii through the center of the head.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Now, again, if it is an ejector mark, might the difference have been caused by the fact that it may have been associated with a dry firing rather than an actual firing?
Mr. Nicol.
That might be possible.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Do you think a person would apply a different bolt pressure in a dry firing as opposed to an actual firing?
Mr. Nicol.
Well, since this is a manually operated weapon, it is quite possible that no two operations are done with exactly the same force. However, with reasonable reproduceability, all these marks appear to the same depth and to the same extent, so that it would appear that whatever produced them operated in identically the same fashion.
-----------------------------
The child like pseudo math aside, if you choose to ignore the conclusions of the HSCA about their own report that is your business. Offering your opinion on the subject does not change the fact that both the HSCA and WC believed the witnesses had been influenced to inflate the number of shots. You have never presented a single piece of evidence that they were wrong.
