It always amuses me when you offer your assumptions in lieu of any actual evidence.
"Quite possible"? Now there's a compelling argument.
Now you toss in a "may have".
Since neither Siebert nor O'Neill ever testified what they meant by "missile", this is pure conjecture.
Yet another assumption. Keep up the good work. <chuckle>
Neither Stover nor Osborne ever testified to the WC, HSCA, nor ARRB. Great source. .
And now you toss another "may have" into your word salad.
And another "may have". Keep going.
You are really scraping bottom when you cite Lifton.
Take it easy on the "may haves". Too much of a good thing.
Who testified to that?
Young never testified to any of this. Reportedly, he said this in an interview 38 years after the assassination. In the "What Price a Rose" article Young wrote for himself in 2013, he made no mention of any of this.
That is, of course, what should have been done with those fragments which begs the question, why would the Secret Service have handled a whole bullet any differently? Why would they have not sent that to the FBI as well? Why would they send the bullet to the medical examiners when the medical examiners are supposed to turn any bullets they find over to the investigators? It makes no sense.
While there is some disagreement as to precisely where on the back of JFK's head the bullet entered, there is no disagreement among the medical examiners that the entry was in the back of the head which fits perfectly with the conclusion that the headshot was fired from behind by Oswald.
As for your conclusion that the brain photos are fraudulent, that is the musing of an incompetent amateur who has had no training or experience in the field of forensic pathology. Only a fool would accept that conclusion over that of the professionals with years of training and experience.
More absolute comedy consisting, as usual, of omissions, distortions, and falsehoods.
Here's an easy task for you: find me any other FBI document where two small fragments that constitute less than 2% of the mass of a bullet are described as a missile/bullet. Just find one that does this.
It is laughable that you have brainwashed yourself into believing, or that you pretend to believe, that Sibert and O'Neill described two small fragments as a missile.
Osborne was interviewed by the HSCA. How did you miss this fact in my reply?
I cited Lifton's
recorded interviews, which are available online for listening by anyone who wants to listen to them. Maybe in your uneducated mind, quoting from recorded interviews is "scraping bottom," but for most people such interviews are solid evidence.
Oh, there's "some disagreement among the medical examiners" about "precisely where" the rear head entry wound was located, hey?! "
Some disagreement"?! Umm, yeah, we're talking about a difference of a whopping 10 cm/4 inches on an area of skull that's no more than 7 inches tall, even though there were three fixed reference points available for use.
Also, the only "medical examiners" who actually saw, measured, and handled the wound in person said it was slightly above the EOP, not 10 cm/4 inches higher and in a different bone of the skull separated by the obvious anatomical reference point of the lambdoid suture. I should add that six autopsy witnesses confirmed the EOP site.
You keep dodging the fact that the only other proposed rear head entry wound site is the debunked cowlick site. As a reminder, even pro-WC doctor Dr. Robert Artwohl admitted that the autopsy photos at the National Archives show intact cerebral cortex in the exact spot of the cowlick entry site, just as Dr. Joseph Riley noted, and just as Dr. Mantik has confirmed. Surely even you can understand that if a bullet entered at the cowlick site, you could not have intact cerebral cortex just below the impact point. You can grasp this self-evident fact, right?
Your silly questions about how the Secret Service would have handled a whole bullet simply ignore the fact that Chief Mills confirmed to Navy historian Jan Herman that a deformed bullet was found in the limo and that Dr. Young later called to verify his recollection, not to mention the fact that Captain Stover recalled that the bullet was brought to the autopsy in an envelope, just as Dr. Young said. It is incredible that you just brush aside this powerful confirmation, not to mention that you argue that Dr. Young either outright lied about seeing the bullet or that he couldn't tell the difference between a whole bullet and two bullet fragments that were never even at the autopsy in the first place.
Are you ever going to stop dodging the fact that if you accept the EOP entry site, you cannot possibly believe the autopsy brain photos are authentic, since they show no damage to the right occipital lobe and no damage to the cerebellum, a physical impossibility if a bullet entered at the EOP site?
The FPP majority, whom you selectively cite as the final authority, pointed out that the brain photos categorically refute the EOP site because they show no damage to the right occipital lobe and no damage to the cerebellum. So if the FPP experts were correct, then you cannot accept the EOP site without repudiating the brain photos. It's one or the other.
Finally, we come to your howler that
In the "What Price a Rose" article Young wrote for himself in 2013, he made no mention of any of this.
Really? First off, he did not the article in 2013. He died in 2008. And, once again, you're relying on a brief excerpt, a 6-page excerpt with three photos, whereas the full article was 21 pages long. How many times are you going to commit this same blunder?
In the full version of "What Price a Rose?" Young mentioned the finding of the bullet, as I have already pointed out to you. Let's again read what he said on this in the article:
The envelope contained three pieces of skull bone, one about three inches in diameter, another two inches in diameter and the third about one to one and a half inches in diameter. It also contained a brass slug about half a centimeter in diameter and distorted.Young quoted this statement from "What Price a Rose?" during his third 2001 interview, as I've already proved to you, and as you can confirm by reading the interview transcript ("Oral History with CAPT (ret) James Morningstar Young, MC, USN," Interview 3, p. 51,
https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Capt_James_Young_Interview.pdf).
Honestly, I don't know how you have the nerve to keep posting given how many times you have made an absolute laughing stock of yourself with inexcusable blunders.
