Yet Another Bullet That the Lone-Gunman Theory Cannot Explain

[Michael Capasse]

I've looked at a number of online dictionary definitions of "missile", some of which would apply to a bullet fragment and others which would not. It really isn't important. It is what the person who used the term "missile" meant by it. If that person considered a fragment to be a missile, then it is a missile.

Does nothing to clarify the receipt dated 11/22/63
lame with a bit of mumbo-jumbo on the side

[John Corbett]

Does nothing to clarify the receipt dated 11/22/63
lame with a bit of mumbo-jumbo on the side

According to my list of witnesses, neither Siebert nor O'Neill were ever called to testify before the WC, the HSCA, or the ARRB. So where does that leave us determining what they meant by a missile?

[Michael Capasse]

According to my list of witnesses, neither Siebert nor O'Neill were ever called to testify before the WC, the HSCA, or the ARRB. So where does that leave us determining what they meant by a missile?

A receipt made out to Captain J.H. Stover, Jr., Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Medical School, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
That clearly states (a) missile.  singular.  NOTHING about multiple fragments (2) - or "portion of the projectile" wording used in the autopsy report.

  I gotta go with a bullet was in the room, then it wasn't.

[Benjamin Cole]

MC--

It is difficult to believe that not one but two FBI agents would use the word "missile" to mean something other than a whole bullet.

Forgotten today, in 1963--

Under longtime Director J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI accepted applicants who possessed either a law degree or a four-year college degree in accounting.---AAI

In the early 1960s, FBI agents were smart guys. Obviously literate.

There is something fishy when it comes to the topic of bullets and the JFKA. Too many bullets spoils the plot?

While I do not subscribe to a "Deep State" crime and cover-up of the JFKA, it is clear that LBJ and WC pursued the LNT to the exclusion of all else. No nuke wars with Russia!

The second official investigation, the HSCA 1979, into the JFKA found there was likely a JFKAC.

And there it stands.

Caveat emptor, and draw your conclusions.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Dr. Young showed good judgment and common sense in examining the contents of the limo-bullet envelope given to him by Chief Mills before giving it to Dr. Humes. Any competent officer would have verified the envelope's contents before handing it over to the chief pathologist at the autopsy of the century of a U.S. president killed in the Crime of the Century.

It is quite possible that the deformed limo bullet that Dr. Young gave to Dr. Humes was the bullet described in the Sibert and O'Neill 11/22/63 receipt to Captain Stover, which acknowledged receipt of a "missle" from Humes: "We hereby acknowledge receipt of a missle recoved [sic] by Commander James J. Humes."

The mistyped word "recoved" has usually been taken to mean "recovered" or "removed." However, Denise Hazelwood and Dr. David Mantik have perceptively argued that, given the omission of "i" in "missle," the mistyped word "recoved" may have been intended to be "received."

When the FBI receipt surfaced, the cover story was given that Sibert and O'Neill were actually referring to the two small bullet fragments that Humes removed from the skull during the autopsy.

Of course, this is nonsense. Those two fragments were small, 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm.  Also, both fragments had a very small width, i.e., a very small thickness. The thickest of the two, the 7 x 2 mm fragment, has an optical-density measurement of only 1.44. The 7 x 2 mm fragment weighs 1.65 grains and the 3 x 1 mm fragment weights 0.15 grains, for a total of 180 grains. A WCC 6.5 FMJ bullet weighs 159-161 grains. Thus, these two fragments constituted only about 1.12% of the mass of one bullet of the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used. No one with two functioning eyes would describe two such small, thin fragments as a missile. 

It should be noted that two other autopsy witnesses said they saw a whole bullet during the autopsy. They were Captain David P. Osborne and Captain James Stover, Navy O-6s. Captain Osborne said he actually held the bullet in his hand, adding that it was "copper clad" and "fully intact" and was "not a fragment." It was later claimed that Osborn retracted his account, but this turned out to be false and that Osborn had insisted to his HSCA interviewer that he was certain about the bullet because he had held the bullet in his hands. Captain Stover said he recalled that the bullet was brought to the autopsy in an envelope, confirming Dr. Young's account that he handed Humes an envelope that contained the limo bullet.

Captains Stover, Osborne, and Young may have been referring to the same bullet. Dr. Mantik:

Since Stover did recall a bullet, “missle” may actually have described the intact bullet that White House physician James Morningstar Young, MD, reported as found inside the presidential limousine that night. Young reported that White House Medical Corpsman Chief Petty Officer Thomas Mills gave him the bullet in an envelope after he returned from the White House garage to retrieve skull fragments from the rear of the limousine.

In April 1980, David Lifton contacted Stover, who had been the commanding officer (i.e., Humes’s immediate superior) of the US Naval Medical School and, like Osborne, had been present during the autopsy. Lifton said that Stover confirmed Osborne’s assertion that there was a bullet in the autopsy room, saying (my emphasis): “It seems to me that the one they found in Dallas they brought up….I think it was in a brown paper envelope."

So, we now have a scenario where the following individuals may all have seen the same bullet: Young, Mills, Martinell, Osborne, and Stover. (Curiously, Jerrol Custer described a “king-sized” metal fragment from JFK’s back.) But Osborne and Stover did not know the origin of this bullet, whereas the first three individuals (Young, Mills, and Martinell) did. Humes also must have known, but he remained eternally — and disingenuously — silent. . . .

Young’s bullet must not be confused with either CE 567 or with CE 569, which were only bullet fragments. Furthermore, CE 567 was discovered between the front seats, while CE 569 was discovered on the front floor. On the other hand, Young's bullet was found on the floor near the back seat of the JFK limousine.   

In addition, Young reported that his bullet had a tip. Do you see a tip in either CE 567 or in CE 569? Young not only reported a bullet tip, but he also described this bullet as a “bent brass slug.” Neither of these two fragments (CE 567 or CE 569) match Young’s intact bullet. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, pp. 332-333)

It should also be pointed out that CEs 567 and 569 were never brought to the autopsy but were turned over to the FBI and taken to FBI lab at FBI HQ. They were given to FBI Special Agent Orrin Bartlett by Secret Service Deputy Chief Paul Paterni and Assistant Special Agent in Charge Floyd M. Boring and were taken directly to the FBI lab.

Finally, it is worth noting that Dr. Young supported the EOP entry site, and that he also seemed to confirm the low fragment trail. Said Dr. Young,

It was determined that he had been struck by two bullets, the second most probably striking him in the right occiput with the bullet lodging in behind the right orbit or at least a fragment of the bullet lodging there. ("Oral History with CAPT (ret) James Morningstar Young, MC, USN," Interview 3, p. 52, https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Capt_James_Young_Interview.pdf)

The autopsy pathologists said the low fragment trail extended from the EOP site to the right orbit, the same wound path that Dr. Young described. However, as many here know, and as I've pointed out numerous times, the extant autopsy skull x-rays show no low fragment trail, no fragment trail that starts/ends anywhere near the EOP and no fragment trail that connects the EOP site with the two fragments located near the right orbit.

So either the autopsy pathologists were so unbelievably incompetent as to mistake the high fragment trail for a trail that was several inches lower and that neither started nor ended anywhere near the EOP or the right orbit, or they outright lied about the low fragment trail, or nearly all of the low fragment trail (except for the two fragments near the right orbit) was removed from the skull x-rays.

The evidence for the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report is indeed impressive. But, if the EOP site is correct, which it surely is, then the autopsy brain photos must be fraudulent, since they show no damage to the right occipital lobe and no damage to the cerebellum.

[John Corbett]

Dr. Young showed good judgment and common sense in examining the contents of the limo-bullet envelope given to him by Chief Mills before giving it to Dr. Humes. Any competent officer would have verified the envelope's contents before handing it over to the chief pathologist at the autopsy of the century of a U.S. president killed in the Crime of the Century.

It always amuses me when you offer your assumptions in lieu of any actual evidence.

It is quite possible that the deformed limo bullet that Dr. Young gave to Dr. Humes was the bullet described in the Sibert and O'Neill 11/22/63 receipt to Captain Stover, which acknowledged receipt of a "missle" from Humes: "We hereby acknowledge receipt of a missle recoved [sic] by Commander James J. Humes."

"Quite possible"? Now there's a compelling argument.

The mistyped word "recoved" has usually been taken to mean "recovered" or "removed." However, Denise Hazelwood and Dr. David Mantik have perceptively argued that, given the omission of "i" in "missle," the mistyped word "recoved" may have been intended to be "received."

Now you toss in a "may have".

When the FBI receipt surfaced, the cover story was given that Sibert and O'Neill were actually referring to the two small bullet fragments that Humes removed from the skull during the autopsy.

Since neither Siebert nor O'Neill ever testified what they meant by "missile", this is pure conjecture.

Of course, this is nonsense. Those two fragments were small, 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm.  Also, both fragments had a very small width, i.e., a very small thickness. The thickest of the two, the 7 x 2 mm fragment, has an optical-density measurement of only 1.44. The 7 x 2 mm fragment weighs 1.65 grains and the 3 x 1 mm fragment weights 0.15 grains, for a total of 180 grains. A WCC 6.5 FMJ bullet weighs 159-161 grains. Thus, these two fragments constituted only about 1.12% of the mass of one bullet of the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used. No one with two functioning eyes would describe two such small, thin fragments as a missile. 

Yet another assumption. Keep up the good work. <chuckle>

It should be noted that two other autopsy witnesses said they saw a whole bullet during the autopsy. They were Captain David P. Osborne and Captain James Stover, Navy O-6s. Captain Osborne said he actually held the bullet in his hand, adding that it was "copper clad" and "fully intact" and was "not a fragment." It was later claimed that Osborn retracted his account, but this turned out to be false and that Osborn had insisted to his HSCA interviewer that he was certain about the bullet because he had held the bullet in his hands. Captain Stover said he recalled that the bullet was brought to the autopsy in an envelope, confirming Dr. Young's account that he handed Humes an envelope that contained the limo bullet.

Neither Stover nor Osborne ever testified to the WC, HSCA, nor ARRB. Great source.

Captains Stover, Osborne, and Young may have been referring to the same bullet.

.

And now you toss another "may have" into your word salad.

Dr. Mantik:
Since Stover did recall a bullet, “missle” may actually have described the intact bullet that White House physician James Morningstar Young, MD, reported as found inside the presidential limousine that night. Young reported that White House Medical Corpsman Chief Petty Officer Thomas Mills gave him the bullet in an envelope after he returned from the White House garage to retrieve skull fragments from the rear of the limousine.

And another "may have". Keep going.

In April 1980, David Lifton contacted Stover, who had been the commanding officer (i.e., Humes’s immediate superior) of the US Naval Medical School and, like Osborne, had been present during the autopsy. Lifton said that Stover confirmed Osborne’s assertion that there was a bullet in the autopsy room, saying (my emphasis): “It seems to me that the one they found in Dallas they brought up….I think it was in a brown paper envelope."

You are really scraping bottom when you cite Lifton.

So, we now have a scenario where the following individuals may all have seen the same bullet: Young, Mills, Martinell, Osborne, and Stover. (Curiously, Jerrol Custer described a “king-sized” metal fragment from JFK’s back.) But Osborne and Stover did not know the origin of this bullet, whereas the first three individuals (Young, Mills, and Martinell) did. Humes also must have known, but he remained eternally — and disingenuously — silent. . . .

Take it easy on the "may haves". Too much of a good thing.

Young’s bullet must not be confused with either CE 567 or with CE 569, which were only bullet fragments. Furthermore, CE 567 was discovered between the front seats, while CE 569 was discovered on the front floor. On the other hand, Young's bullet was found on the floor near the back seat of the JFK limousine. 

Who testified to that?

 

In addition, Young reported that his bullet had a tip. Do you see a tip in either CE 567 or in CE 569? Young not only reported a bullet tip, but he also described this bullet as a “bent brass slug.” Neither of these two fragments (CE 567 or CE 569) match Young’s intact bullet. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, pp. 332-333)[/font]

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.

It should also be pointed out that CEs 567 and 569 were never brought to the autopsy but were turned over to the FBI and taken to FBI lab at FBI HQ. They were given to FBI Special Agent Orrin Bartlett by Secret Service Deputy Chief Paul Paterni and Assistant Special Agent in Charge Floyd M. Boring and were taken directly to the FBI lab.

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.

Finally, it is worth noting that Dr. Young supported the EOP entry site, and that he also seemed to confirm the low fragment trail. Said Dr. Young,

It was determined that he had been struck by two bullets, the second most probably striking him in the right occiput with the bullet lodging in behind the right orbit or at least a fragment of the bullet lodging there. ("Oral History with CAPT (ret) James Morningstar Young, MC, USN," Interview 3, p. 52, https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Capt_James_Young_Interview.pdf)

The autopsy pathologists said the low fragment trail extended from the EOP site to the right orbit, the same wound path that Dr. Young described. However, as many here know, and as I've pointed out numerous times, the extant autopsy skull x-rays show no low fragment trail, no fragment trail that starts/ends anywhere near the EOP and no fragment trail that connects the EOP site with the two fragments located near the right orbit.

So either the autopsy pathologists were so unbelievably incompetent as to mistake the high fragment trail for a trail that was several inches lower and that neither started nor ended anywhere near the EOP or the right orbit, or they outright lied about the low fragment trail, or nearly all of the low fragment trail (except for the two fragments near the right orbit) was removed from the skull x-rays.

The evidence for the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report is indeed impressive. But, if the EOP site is correct, which it surely is, then the autopsy brain photos must be fraudulent, since they show no damage to the right occipital lobe and no damage to the cerebellum.

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.

[Michael Capasse]

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 never 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.

muttering small talk at the wall.
  nobody cares