Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory

[Michael T. Griffith]

Many obvious facts refute the lone-gunman theory. Here are some of them:

-- Even the HSCA admitted that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit with a shot at around Z186-190. JFK's cheeks puff at Z188. At around Z200, JFK's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the middle of a waving motion; his right hand also drops to the chin or throat level in a fraction of a second and stays there until he disappears behind the freeway sign at Z207; and his head moves rapidly from the right toward his wife on his left. The HSCA's photographic experts detected a strong blur/jiggle episode from Z189-197. Here's the problem for the lone-gunman theory: The sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK was obscured by the intervening oak tree from Z166-209. Obviously, this shot did not come from the sixth-floor window.

-- At least 2 seconds after JFK visibly reacts to the Z186-190 shot, he is clearly struck again at Z226. Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and the position of his hands and elbows--particularly his elbows--changes dramatically, as they are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements are quite startling when one compares Z226, where they are first discernible, to Z232 just 1/3-second later.

Although the WC, and to a great extent the HSCA, ignored these movements, they are among the most dramatic and visible reactions in the entire Zapruder film. In addition, Dr. Luis Alvarez and HSCA photographic experts Hartmann and Scott noted a blur/jiggle episode at around Z225-229. This shot must have hit at right around Z224. Needless to say, this means the Zapruder film shows that JFK suffered two non-fatal shots, which means that at least five shots were fired at him (Z186-190, Z224, Z234, Z312, and the Tague curb shot).

-- There is strong evidence in the Zapruder film that a shot was fired at right around Z285:

* There is a blur/jiggle episode from Z289-295. 

* Special Agent Warren Taylor said he heard a shot at the very instant his left foot touched the ground after he opened the door to exit the vehicle in which he was riding. A photo taken by newsman James Altgens at Z255, shows Taylor in the process of opening the door--1.65 seconds before Z285.

* Texas Highway Patrolman Milton Wright said he heard a shot just as his car turned onto Elm Street. The above-mentioned Altgens photo shows that Wright’s car had not made that turn by Z255 but was nearing the corner. By Z300, Wright's car was on Elm Street.

* SSA William Greer, the limousine's driver, snaps his head to the rear beginning
at Z301.

* SSA Roy Kellerman, who is sitting next to Greer, seems to duck his head beginning at Z293. His head tips noticeably forward, in an apparent ducking motion.

* Jean Hill begins to snap her head to the right at around Z295.

Government-hired experts have studiously avoided dealing with the clear photographic and jiggle-analysis evidence of a shot at around Z285, but many private researchers have discussed it. The Z285 shot refutes the lone-gunman theory because it means that at least six shots were fired (Z186-190, Z224, Z234, Z285, Z312, and the Tague curb shot).

More information on these shots can be found in this article:

Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view

-- Firearms experience and extensive testing have established that CE 543, the dented shell found in the sniper's nest, could not have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination because the dent is so severe that it would have prevented the shell from discharging the missile. The fact that this shell was not fired during the assassination is also seen in the following facts:

CE 543 does not have the alleged murder weapon’s characteristic chambering mark on its side, whereas the two other shells do. CE 543 has follower marks on its bottom, but these marks do not appear on the two other shells nor on any of the shells that were ejected from the rifle in the WC’s test firings. CE 543 could not have been marked by the alleged murder weapon’s magazine follower during the assassination because it was not the last shell in the clip. No experiment, including Chad Zimmerman's, has produced a shell as dented as CE 543 (see my discussion on this point in my article cited below).

Thus, unless the police "missed/overlooked" a shell in the sixth-floor sniper's nest, the sixth-floor gunman could have only fired two shots.

For more information on the dented shell, see this article:

The Dented Bullet Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ihue8a0GmN_Ptl38bPjpu1F99nqU0Z6f/view

[Walt Cakebread]

Many obvious facts refute the lone-gunman theory. Here are some of them:

-- Even the HSCA admitted that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit with a shot at around Z186-190. JFK's cheeks puff at Z188. At around Z200, JFK's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the middle of a waving motion; his right hand also drops to the chin or throat level in a fraction of a second and stays there until he disappears behind the freeway sign at Z207; and his head moves rapidly from the right toward his wife on his left. The HSCA's photographic experts detected a strong blur/jiggle episode from Z189-197. Here's the problem for the lone-gunman theory: The sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK was obscured by the intervening oak tree from Z166-209. Obviously, this shot did not come from the sixth-floor window.

-- At least 2 seconds after JFK visibly reacts to the Z186-190 shot, he is clearly struck again at Z226. Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and the position of his hands and elbows--particularly his elbows--changes dramatically, as they are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements are quite startling when one compares Z226, where they are first discernible, to Z232 just 1/3-second later.

Although the WC, and to a great extent the HSCA, ignored these movements, they are among the most dramatic and visible reactions in the entire Zapruder film. In addition, Dr. Luis Alvarez and HSCA photographic experts Hartmann and Scott noted a blur/jiggle episode at around Z225-229. This shot must have hit at right around Z224. Needless to say, this means the Zapruder film shows that JFK suffered two non-fatal shots, which means that at least four shots were fired at him.

-- There is strong evidence in the Zapruder film that a shot was fired at right around Z285:

* There is a strong blur/jiggle episode from Z289-295. 

* Special Agent Warren Taylor said he heard a shot at the very instant his left foot touched the ground after he opened the door to exit the vehicle in which he was riding. A photo taken by newsman James Altgens at Z255, shows Taylor in the process of opening the door--1.65 seconds before Z285.

* Texas Highway Patrolman Milton Wright said he heard a shot just as his car turned onto Elm Street. The above-mentioned Altgens photo shows that Wright’s car had not made that turn by Z255 but was nearing the corner. By Z300, Wright's car was on Elm Street.

* SSA William Greer, the limousine's driver, snaps his head to the rear beginning
at Z301.

* SSA Roy Kellerman, who is sitting next to Greer, seems to duck his head beginning at Z293. His head tips noticeably forward, in an apparent ducking motion.

* Jean Hill begins to snap her head to the right at around Z295.

Government-hired experts have studiously avoided dealing with the clear photographic and jiggle-analysis evidence of a shot at around Z285, but many private researchers have discussed it. The Z285 shot refutes the lone-gunman theory because it means that at least four shots were fired.

More information on these shots can be found in this article:

Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view

-- Firearms experience and extensive testing have established that CE 543, the dented shell found in the sniper's nest, could not have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination because the dent is so severe that it would have prevented the shell from discharging the missile. The fact that this shell was not fired during the assassination is also seen in the following facts:

CE 543 does not have the alleged murder weapon’s characteristic chambering mark on its side, whereas the two other shells do. CE 543 has follower marks on its bottom, but these marks do not appear on the two other shells nor on any of the shells that were ejected from the rifle in the WC’s test firings. CE 543 could not have been marked by the alleged murder weapon’s magazine follower during the assassination because it was not the last shell in the clip. No experiment, including Chad Zimmerman's, has produced a shell as dented as CE 543 (see my discussion on this point in my article cited below).

Thus, unless the police "missed/overlooked" a shell in the sixth-floor sniper's nest, the sixth-floor gunman could have only fired two shots.

For more information on the dented shell, see this article:

The Dented Bullet Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ihue8a0GmN_Ptl38bPjpu1F99nqU0Z6f/view

 The sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK was obscured by the intervening oak tree from Z166-209. Obviously, this shot did not come from the sixth-floor window.


   Michael...  I applaud your post, and I can verify that you are 100% correct in stating that the tree blocked the line of sight  from Z166 to Z209.     Many years ago I built a scale model of the area and I used a large cardboard box scaled to the size of the TSBD ...... I cut out the sixth floor window so that I could look down on the area on Elm street from behind the sixth floor window,  .......I used a drinking straw as a sighting device and was not surprised, but never-the-less, I was stunned to verify that the live oak tree blocked the line of sight  to JFK at the time when photos and films clearly show that he had been shot..... 

[Michael T. Griffith]

The sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK was obscured by the intervening oak tree from Z166-209. Obviously, this shot did not come from the sixth-floor window.


   Michael...  I applaud your post, and I can verify that you are 100% correct in stating that the tree blocked the line of sight  from Z166 to Z209.     Many years ago I built a scale model of the area and I used a large cardboard box scaled to the size of the TSBD ...... I cut out the sixth floor window so that I could look down on the area on Elm street from behind the sixth floor window,  .......I used a drinking straw as a sighting device and was not surprised, but never-the-less, I was stunned to verify that the live oak tree blocked the line of sight  to JFK at the time when photos and films clearly show that he had been shot.....

Good stuff. Yes, even the WC admitted that the sixth-floor gunman's view of the limo would have been obstructed from Z166-209.

Thus, it is not surprising that we now know that the Z186-190 shot was the subject of intense debate among the HSCA, precisely because they, too, recognized that this shot came when the sixth-floor window's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree. To his great credit, Blakey came down on the side of the Z186-190 shot, and so the shot made it into the final report as a fully endorsed and expert-identified shot. (In contrast, the WC's "experts" simply ignored JFK's pre-Z207 reactions.)

The Z186-190 shot was clearly the throat shot. Barely half a second after this shot, almost immediately after JFK's motions freeze, he starts to reach toward his throat just before he disappears behind the freeway sign at Z207, and he clearly has his hands up to his throat when he reemerges from behind the freeway sign at Z225. Even the HSCA's photographic experts admitted this: "at Zapruder frame 225, the President makes a clutching motion with his hands toward his neck." Obviously, he had just been shot in the throat. This was the small, neat, punched-in entrance wound described by the Dallas doctors.

The back-wound shot came at Z224, when, two frames later, his upper body is jolted forward and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward. Second only to the Z312 head shot reactions, these are JFK's most obvious reactions to a shot in the entire Zapruder film (the reactions to the Z186-190 shot are the third most visible reactions).

But these dramatic reactions in Z226-232 have been virtually ignored by government panels, for obvious reasons. Shaneyfelt made a brief, oblique reference to them in his WC testimony, but did not describe them at all. The HSCA's photographic experts merely said that a few frames after Z224, Kennedy and Connally appear to show "reaction-type movements," but said nothing--literally nothing--to describe JFK's dramatic movements in Z226-232, since those frames clearly show him being knocked forward.

The obvious facts, plain to anyone with functioning eyes, are that JFK stopped waving and reached for his throat when the Z186-190 shot hit him, and that he was visibly and dramatically knocked forward when the Z224 shot hit him. But LNers can't, or won't, admit these obvious facts because they destroy the lone-gunman theory.

[Joe Elliott]

Many obvious facts refute the lone-gunman theory. Here are some of them:

-- Even the HSCA admitted that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit with a shot at around Z186-190. JFK's cheeks puff at Z188. At around Z200, JFK's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the middle of a waving motion; his right hand also drops to the chin or throat level in a fraction of a second and stays there until he disappears behind the freeway sign at Z207; and his head moves rapidly from the right toward his wife on his left. The HSCA's photographic experts detected a strong blur/jiggle episode from Z189-197. Here's the problem for the lone-gunman theory: The sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK was obscured by the intervening oak tree from Z166-209. Obviously, this shot did not come from the sixth-floor window.

. . .

-- There is strong evidence in the Zapruder film that a shot was fired at right around Z285:

. . .

Michael's definition of a "fact" is different from mine. He seems to have a low bar for declaring a "fact". If a majority of the HSCA concludes a bullet was fired during z186-z190, that make it a "fact". Or the opinion of Dr. Luiz Alvarez, whom he disagrees on most things about the assassination, makes a shot at z285 a "fact". Any "fact" that supports multiple shooters gets the nod from Michael, however the slim the reasons are. Even if it is the opinions of those who support a "fact" he believes were largely deluded about the JFK assassination on so many other details. If one of them supports a "fact" that supports multiple shooters, that makes it a "fact".

The jiggle of the camera just after z153 was much stronger than the jiggle just after z285. But that doesn't matter. To Michael, a shot at z285 is a "fact" and a shot at z153 is just a falsehood. Clearly a falsehood. Because a shot at z285 supports the multiple shooter scenario while a shot at z153 does not.

What are my "facts" on the JFK assassination? I don't have any "facts". I believe, that most likely, Oswald fired shots around z153, z222 and z312. But none of these are "facts". Particularly for the shot at z153. I just believe the evidence for a shot around z153 is pretty compelling, but not a "fact". And I may change my mind in the future, as I have on other issues, like the importance in the "Jet Effect" in explaining why JFK's head and torso went backwards after z313 (I now think the "Jet Effect" had minimum effect).

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Michael's definition of a "fact" is different from mine. He seems to have a low bar for declaring a "fact". If a majority of the HSCA concludes a bullet was fired during z186-z190, that make it a "fact". Or the opinion of Dr. Luiz Alvarez, whom he disagrees on most things about the assassination, makes a shot at z285 a "fact". Any "fact" that supports multiple shooters gets the nod from Michael, however the slim the reasons are. Even if it is the opinions of those who support a "fact" he believes were largely deluded about the JFK assassination on so many other details. If one of them supports a "fact" that supports multiple shooters, that makes it a "fact".

The jiggle of the camera just after z153 was much stronger than the jiggle just after z285. But that doesn't matter. To Michael, a shot at z285 is a "fact" and a shot at z153 is just a falsehood. Clearly a falsehood. Because a shot at z285 supports the multiple shooter scenario while a shot at z153 does not.

What are my "facts" on the JFK assassination? I don't have any "facts". I believe, that most likely, Oswald fired shots around z153, z222 and z312. But none of these are "facts". Particularly for the shot at z153. I just believe the evidence for a shot around z153 is pretty compelling, but not a "fact". And I may change my mind in the future, as I have on other issues, like the importance in the "Jet Effect" in explaining why JFK's head and torso went backwards after z313 (I now think the "Jet Effect" had minimum effect).

Yes, but they're not just "facts" to Mr. Griffith, they are "obvious facts." They have twice as much power as simply ordinary ones. More important, as you pointed out these are subjective interpretations of the Zapruder film, a film, by the way, that he thinks is inauthentic/faked. If it's faked then how can you say it's a reliable piece of evidence? Conspiracy game: if it shows a conspiracy it's real; if it contradicts a conspiracy it's faked. The same evidence mind you.

He's said that he believes that Jim Garrison showed that Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw conspired to shoot JFK. Then went to the CIA with their plan. Garrison also said (Shaw trial) that Oswald brought the rifle that was used to kill JFK, i.e., it was his rifle that was used. But he also said he believes John Newman's conclusion that it was the Pentagon not the CIA that killed JFK. He also believe Veciana's claims that Oswald was handled by Phillips. So was it the Pentagon or the CIA? Was Oswald framed or a willing participant?

You cannot believe all of these claims; they are contradictory and at odds with each other. But in conspiracy world consistency doesn't matter; if it promotes a conspiracy and can be used to do so then it's supported. This is their problem: it's been nearly 60 years and each one of these conspiracy hobbyists has his or her own theory as to what happened. The CIA, the Pentagon, the Birchers, rich Texas oilmen, the mob, anti-Castro Cubans. It's like a conspiracy cafeteria where each person picks what he desires and ignores everything else. Sometimes they want the meatloaf, the next day they want the soup, another day it's spaghetti.

[Walt Cakebread]

Yes, but they're not just "facts" to Mr. Griffith, they are "obvious facts." They have twice as much power as simply ordinary ones.

He's said that he believes that Jim Garrison showed that Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw conspired to shoot JFK. Then went to the CIA with their plan. Garrison also said (Shaw trial) that Oswald brought the rifle that was used to kill JFK, i.e., it was his rifle that was used. But he also said he believes John Newman's conclusion that it was the Pentagon not the CIA that killed JFK. He also believe Veciana's claims that Oswald was handled by Phillips. So was it the Pentagon or the CIA? Was Oswald framed or a willing participant?

You cannot believe all of these claims; they are contradictory and at odds with each other. But in conspiracy world consistency doesn't matter; if it promotes a conspiracy and can be used to do so then it's supported. This is their problem: it's been nearly 60 years and each one of these conspiracy hobbyists has his or her own theory as to what happened. The CIA, the Pentagon, the Birchers, rich Texas oilmen, the mob, anti-Castro Cubans. It's like a conspiracy cafeteria where each person picks what he desires and ignores everything else. Sometimes they want the meatloaf, the next day they want the soup, another day it's spaghetti.

You cannot believe all of these claims; they are contradictory and at odds with each other. But in conspiracy world consistency doesn't matter; if it promotes a conspiracy and can be used to do so then it's supported.

It's true that CT's do not agree on many things..... Unlike the LNer's who have the wonderful fairy tale ( The WR) as their bible.   

I'll have the meatloaf.....

[Michael T. Griffith]

Michael's definition of a "fact" is different from mine. He seems to have a low bar for declaring a "fact". If a majority of the HSCA concludes a bullet was fired during z186-z190, that make it a "fact". Or the opinion of Dr. Luiz Alvarez, whom he disagrees on most things about the assassination, makes a shot at z285 a "fact". Any "fact" that supports multiple shooters gets the nod from Michael, however the slim the reasons are. Even if it is the opinions of those who support a "fact" he believes were largely deluded about the JFK assassination on so many other details. If one of them supports a "fact" that supports multiple shooters, that makes it a "fact".

The jiggle of the camera just after z153 was much stronger than the jiggle just after z285. But that doesn't matter. To Michael, a shot at z285 is a "fact" and a shot at z153 is just a falsehood. Clearly a falsehood. Because a shot at z285 supports the multiple shooter scenario while a shot at z153 does not.

What are my "facts" on the JFK assassination? I don't have any "facts". I believe, that most likely, Oswald fired shots around z153, z222 and z312. But none of these are "facts". Particularly for the shot at z153. I just believe the evidence for a shot around z153 is pretty compelling, but not a "fact". And I may change my mind in the future, as I have on other issues, like the importance in the "Jet Effect" in explaining why JFK's head and torso went backwards after z313 (I now think the "Jet Effect" had minimum effect).

Your reply is merely more of your usual evasion, distortion, and deception. Shall I note the obvious fact that you offered no explanation for any of the evidence that I presented in support of those facts? Your comments remind one of the comments that Flat Earthers make when asked about satellite photos that show a round Earth.

There will always be some people who will refuse to acknowledge facts, no matter how obvious they are and no matter how much evidence supports them, and you are a prime example of this. Just because diehard true believers in a false theory won't acknowledge facts that refute that theory does not mean those facts are not facts.

The fact that the Zapruder film shows JFK reacting to a shot from Z188-207 is obvious to anyone who is not committed to the lone-gunman myth. People don't start clutching at their throat for no reason, nor do they freeze their waving motion and rapidly turn their head for no reason. The HSCA PEP deserves great credit for being willing to acknowledge these reaction movements, and Blakey deserves great credit for ensuring that the acknowledgement of these reaction movements was not suppressed. But you can't acknowledge these reaction movements because doing so would destroy your silly lone-gunman myth.

The fact that the Zapruder film shows JFK being jolted forward and his elbows and hands being flung upward and forward starting at Z226 is even more obvious than his reactions in Z188-207. To ascribe these movements as reactions to your posited Z222 shot requires us to believe that it took four frames for the bullet to start jolting JFK forward. How could your Z312 shot have instantly started pushing JFK's head forward--it moves slightly forward at Z312--if your Z222 shot took four frames to start pushing JFK forward? And how could your Z222 shot have taken 14 frames to start pushing Connally's right shoulder down and forward?

When it comes to the Zapruder film, you guys will always be able to claim that you don't see this or that and come up with comical explanations to avoid the obvious implications and meanings of movements. Similarly, you guys offer only phony, laughable explanations for the fact that the nick in the tie knot is not on the edge and that there's no hole through the tie (and no photo/footage taken the motorcade shows JFK's tie off-center enough for the bullet to have missed it), and for the fact that the rear bullet holes in JFK's coat and shirt are at least five inches below the neck line (and no photo/footage of JFK taken during the motorcade shows his coat bunched more than an inch or two, and even though the buttoned-down tailor-made shirt could not have bunched in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat).

Contrary to your misleading claim, I do not posit a Z285 merely because of Alvarez, but also because of the reactions of three other people in the Zapruder film and because of the accounts of Wright and Taylor. But, of course, you must sweep all of this aside because your theory of the shooting does not allow you to accept more than three shots, and a shot at Z285 would mean that at least six shots were fired (Z186-190, Z224, Z234, Z285, Z312, and the Tague curb shot).

How about CE 543, the dented shell? I notice you said nothing about this. Zimmerman's own experiment failed to produce a single shell that was as dented as CE 543, as did the HSCA experiment. This is in addition to the fact that CE 543 does not have the alleged murder weapon’s chambering mark on its side, whereas the two other shells do, and that CE 543 has follower marks on its bottom, whereas these marks do not appear on the two other shells nor on any of the shells that were ejected from the rifle in the WC’s test firings.

[Walt Cakebread]

Your reply is merely more of your usual evasion, distortion, and deception. Shall I note the obvious fact that you offered no explanation for any of the evidence that I presented in support of those facts? Your comments remind one of the comments that Flat Earthers make when asked about satellite photos that show a round Earth.

There will always be some people who will refuse to acknowledge facts, no matter how obvious they are and no matter how much evidence supports them, and you are a prime example of this. Just because diehard true believers in a false theory won't acknowledge facts that refute that theory does not mean those facts are not facts.

The fact that the Zapruder film shows JFK reacting to a shot from Z188-207 is obvious to anyone who is not committed to the lone-gunman myth. People don't start clutching at their throat for no reason, nor do they freeze their waving motion and rapidly turn their head for no reason. The HSCA PEP deserves great credit for being willing to acknowledge these reaction movements, and Blakey deserves great credit for ensuring that the acknowledgement of these reaction movements was not suppressed. But you can't acknowledge these reaction movements because doing so would destroy your silly lone-gunman myth.

The fact that the Zapruder film shows JFK being jolted forward and his elbows and hands being flung upward and forward starting at Z226 is even more obvious than his reactions in Z188-207. To ascribe these movements as reactions to your posited Z222 shot requires us to believe that it took four frames for the bullet to start jolting JFK forward. How could your Z312 shot have instantly started pushing JFK's head forward--it moves slightly forward at Z312--if your Z222 shot took four frames to start pushing JFK forward? And how could your Z222 shot have taken 14 frames to start pushing Connally's right shoulder down and forward?

When it comes to the Zapruder film, you guys will always be able to claim that you don't see this or that and come up with comical explanations to avoid the obvious implications and meanings of movements. Similarly, you guys offer only phony, laughable explanations for the fact that the nick in the tie knot is not on the edge and that there's no hole through the tie (and no photo/footage taken the motorcade shows JFK's tie off-center enough for the bullet to have missed it), and for the fact that the rear bullet holes in JFK's coat and shirt are at least five inches below the neck line (and no photo/footage of JFK taken during the motorcade shows his coat bunched more than an inch or two, and even though the buttoned-down tailor-made shirt could not have bunched in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat).

Contrary to your misleading claim, I do not posit a Z285 merely because of Alvarez, but also because of the reactions of three other people in the Zapruder film and because of the accounts of Wright and Taylor. But, of course, you must sweep all of this aside because your theory of the shooting does not allow you to accept more than three shots, and a shot at Z285 would mean that at least six shots were fired (Z186-190, Z224, Z234, Z285, Z312, and the Tague curb shot).

How about CE 543, the dented shell? I notice you said nothing about this. Zimmerman's own experiment failed to produce a single shell that was as dented as CE 543, as did the HSCA experiment. This is in addition to the fact that CE 543 does not have the alleged murder weapon’s chambering mark on its side, whereas the two other shells do, and that CE 543 has follower marks on its bottom, whereas these marks do not appear on the two other shells nor on any of the shells that were ejected from the rifle in the WC’s test firings.

 Zimmerman's own experiment failed to produce a single shell that was as dented as CE 543, as did the HSCA experiment.

The dents on CE 543 are FACTUAL visible evidence that CE 543 had been used as a filler cartridge in a Mannlicher carcano at some time prior to 11/22/63.   It had been the bottom cartridge in a clip of gartridges that were being used to dry fire a Carcano.    Charlie Collins posted several cutaway illustrations that clearly show that the bottom cartridge in a clip  is in contact with the cartridge elevator when the clip of cartridges is seated in the magazine. The cartridge elevator ( which is a strong leaf spring ) is in contact with the bottom cartridge and pushes up on stack of six cartridges. This action loads the top cartridge up and into the face of the bolt so that cartridge can be loaded into the firing chamber. When the cartridge is loaded as a live round with powder and projectile, it is a strong and solid casing....but after it has been fired he brass isn't a "Stiff " and the projectile isn't there to keep the empty casing in place ....thus the empty case can tip when the shooter loads the clip of cartridges The strong spring steel elevator spring  will dent the empty cartridge on the beveled shoulder just as CE 543 is dented.  This is visual, factual proof that the empty CE 543 was the bottom cartridge in a clip of cartridges.

I can also tell you how CE 543 became dented on the lip .....and I'll post that in a day or two.....