Yet Another Bullet That the Lone-Gunman Theory Cannot Explain

[John Corbett]

Nothing from MTG for over 48 hours on this thread he started. I wonder if he has thrown in the towel and left Michael Capasse to die on this hill.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Quote from: Tim Nickerson on September 10, 2026, 02:15:06 AM
The memo is about the fragments removed from Connally. I posted it as an example of an FBI agent referring to bullet fragments as a bullet. If you were familiar with the subject, you wouldn't have ended up with your foot in your mouth.

That memo is clearly bullet and fragments. A bullet mentioned several times

I see exactly what it says. Call it stupidity all day long. He is referring to the bullet and what he was told about fragments.

How can you think a memo with the name OP Wright and the word bullet is referring to fragments as the same? I'm not aware of him finding - being given - or having anything to do - with any fragment from JBC or JFK. He only found a bullet.

You are of course undeniably correct. Wright played no role in handling the Connally wrist fragments, but he did play a role in the handling of the bullet that eventually became CE 399. The main subject of the memo is clearly the bullet that was removed from Connally, and the information about what Wright was told about the wrist fragments is an aside and is unrelated to the bullet.

But you'll never get Nickerson or Corbett to admit this fact. You've dealt with Corbett enough to know what he's all about.

Let me tell you a little about Nickerson: In my thread on why the back-of-head bullet fragments destroy the lone-gunman theory, he made the astonishing and hilarious claim that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are the same object, even though both objects can be plainly seen on the AP x-ray, even though they have different dimensions and shapes, and even though they are located at opposite ends of the skull. At first I thought he had misspoken, but he soon made it clear that he was actually making this argument. When I pointed out that both objects are clearly visible on the AP x-ray, that they are located at opposite ends of the skull, and that they look nothing like each other, he still refused to admit his blunder. Why? Because he knows that the 6.5 mm object is fatal to the lone-gunman theory.

So if he will not admit such an undeniable, bald-faced blunder as that, he's not about to admit that the Loeffler memo is clearly mainly talking about CE 399 and that the wrist fragments are an aside.

Objective readers will see that the likes of Nickerson and Corbett have nothing but strained, unreasonable, and disingenuous explanations for Dr. Young's straightforward, corroborated account. You couldn't ask for a more credible and powerful witness, not to mention a more decidedly hostile witness.

Since Dr. Young was such an ardent believer in the lone-gunman theory, WC apologists here don't dare accuse him of lying, so they must resort to the comical argument that it was either all a giant "misunderstanding" or an amazing hallucination.

Lame Explanation 1: Even though Dr. Young made it clear in his 11/23/63 notes that he saw the bullet, and even though he said that Chief Mills confirmed to him the finding of the bullet in the limo, and even though Chief Mills tacitly but clearly confirmed this, well, you know, gosh, this was all just a "misunderstanding" and Dr. Young really only just assumed the envelope contained a bullet.

Lame Explanation 2: Dr. Young, looked at two small metal fragments that made up a tiny fraction of a bullet's mass and somehow, someway experienced a hallucination and saw instead a brass-colored misshapen bullet with a bent tip! Or, Dr. Young was so exhausted on 11/23/63 from having been up most of the night at the autopsy and then the embalming that he somehow merely dreamed that he saw a bullet when in reality he had not seen it but had merely assumed the envelope contained a bullet, even though he described the bullet in the notes he wrote that day.

And Dr. Young was so thoroughly convinced from this giant misunderstanding or stunning delusion that when he learned that the Warren Report had not discussed the bullet, (1) he wrote to former President Gerald Ford to ask if he had any info about the bullet; (2) he asked Arlen Specter about the bullet and even sent Specter a copy of his 11/23/63 notes; (3) he phoned Chief Mills to ensure that his recollection about the bullet was accurate; and (4) he repeated this huge misunderstanding or amazing delusion in his third 2001 oral history interview and even read from his 11/23/63 notes during the interview! Even more amazingly, Chief Mills must have experienced the same incredible misunderstanding or hallucination because he clearly tacitly confirmed to Navy historian Jan Herman that he and Chief Martinell found a bullet in the limo. 

Here's the problem: For WC apologists this is a do-or-die issue. They cannot admit that Dr. Young  saw a bullet that was found in the limo during the autopsy because such an admission destroys the lone-gunman theory. Regardless of how credible Dr. Young was, regardless of the fact that he wrote his first account less than 24 hours after the autopsy, and regardless of the fact that Chief Mills corroborated his account, WC apologists aren't going to accept his account unless they're willing to abandon the lone-gunman theory.
 

[Tim Nickerson]

Let me tell you a little about Nickerson: In my thread on why the back-of-head bullet fragments destroy the lone-gunman theory, he made the astonishing and hilarious claim that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are the same object, even though both objects can be plainly seen on the AP x-ray, even though they have different dimensions and shapes, and even though they are located at opposite ends of the skull. At first I thought he had misspoken, but he soon made it clear that he was actually making this argument. When I pointed out that both objects are clearly visible on the AP x-ray, that they are located at opposite ends of the skull, and that they look nothing like each other, he still refused to admit his blunder. Why? Because he knows that the 6.5 mm object is fatal to the lone-gunman theory.

Humes removed the "6.5 mm object". It was the 7 x 2 mm fragment that was "somewhat behind the President's eye" and "in the brain tissue". Humes would later view the enhanced AP X-Ray and , after some difficulty, identify that 6.5 mm object as being the 7 x 2 mm fragment.  Edward Reed and Jerrol Custer identified it without hesitation.

Gunn: Okay. Can you go back and look at it once again, from the left on the screen to the right on the body? There is a semi-circular white dot there. Do you see that?
Reed: Yes. I do.
Gunn: Do you recall seeing that on the night of the autopsy?
Reed: Yes. I did.
Gunn: What was your understanding of what that Was?
Reed: That is a metallic fragment from the bullet.
-------------------------------

Gunn: Can you identify that as an autopsy X-Ray that you took on the night of November 22nd/23rd 1963?
Custer: Yes, sir. Correct.
Gunn: HOW can you identify that as being one that you took?
Custer: Bullet fragment, right orbital ridge.
...................
Gunn: Earlier you pointed to what I’m going to call the half-circle that appears to be at the lightest part of the film, and you referred to that as a bullet fragment; is that right?
Custer: Yes, sir.
Gunn: Where was that bullet fragment located? Let me withdraw that question, and ask another question. Do you know where the bullet fragment located on the body?
Custer: Right orbital ridge, superior.
=========

And there's this from Joseph N Riley, Ph.D.:

"the location in terms of distance from vertex of the round fragment corresponds exactly with a bullet fragment located at the front of the skull at the "height" of the upper part of the frontal sinus. This corresponds, in the frontal x-ray, to the circular fragment located at the level of the right supraorbital ridge. Using an optical micrometer, the cross-sectional diameter of these two fragments is identical. (In the author's measurements, both fragments were measured to be 7mm in diameter; the Panel, using better quality material, measured the circular fragment as 6.5mm in diameter and Is almost certainly more accurate.) There can be no doubt that the large circular fragment represents a bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. In non-technical language, this corresponds to the bone behind the right eyebrow.
The sole rationale for this contention by the Panel is that a sharp radiopaque image usually represents an object close to the x-ray film. For example, when Humes met with the Panel, the following exchange occurred (HSCA 7:251):

DR. PETTY. Now, may I ask you one other question on this X-ray, Dr. Humes.
Here is a view taken, I assume, with the radiation point above the face and the film behind the back of the head.
DR. HUMES. Not being a radiologist, I presume that.
DR. PETTY. If that's true, then the least distorted and least fuzzy portion of the radiopaque materials would be closest to the film, and we would assume then that this peculiar semilunar object with the sharp edges would be close to the film and therefore represent the piece that was seen In the lateral view —
DR. HUMES. Up by the eyebrow.
DR. PETTY. No. Up by the — in the back of the skull.

The anatomical evidence is unequivocal; however, for the sake of completeness, it may be pointed out that the clarity of a radiographic image, assuming sufficient beam intensity, depends upon the coherence ("sharpness") of the radiopaque image on the photographic emulsion. Physical factors that determine coherence include radiopaqueness (100% for a metal fragment), sharpness of the edge (minimizing beam scatter), and location relative to the radiation beam (minimizing defraction). In general, distance will correlate with clarity (the greater the distance to the emulsion, the greater the displacement due to scatter) but it is not causal. A bullet fragment in cross-section and located near the center of the radiation beam would be expected to produce an image such as that observed in the frontal x-ray. The essential points, however, are: (1) It is anatomically impossible that the "high" fragment is the circular fragment in the frontal x-ray and (2) The round fragment correlates exactly in size and location to the fragment in the lateral x-ray immediately superior to the frontal sinus.
There is a major bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. The evidence is unequivocal and, without qualification, the Panel is in error in equating the round fragment in the frontal x-ray with the "high" fragment in the lateral x-ray." -- Joseph N Riley, Ph.D.  - "Respected neurologist who specialized in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology. His neurological research was published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, including the Journal of Comparative Neurology, Cell and Tissue Research, and Brain Research, and his research was cited by many other neuroscientists. He taught neuroscience at the University of Florida, the University of California, and the State University of New York."

https://archive.org/details/nsia-RileyJosephN/nsia-RileyJosephN/Riley%20Joseph%20N%2005/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater

===========

Post the enhanced AP X-Ray with an arrow pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in it. And while you're at it, point an arrow at the fragment that my red arrow is pointed at in the lateral view below.