So we now have confirmation from two independent sources that Chief Mills and Chief Martinell searched JFK's limo: an FBI memo dated 7/7/1964 (CD 1258) and Secret Service agent Charles Taylor's affidavit to the Church Committee dated 3/12/1976. This is strong confirmation of a key part of Dr. Young's account.
If the bullet was found in the Queen Mary, how is that confirmation that Martinelli searched the limo? Dr Young's claim 37 years after that assassination that Mills and Martinelli brought a bullet to him that they found in the Queen Mary is not believable at all. There is no support for his claim whatsoever. Reasonable people will generously see it as a faulty recollection.
On the contrary, reasonable people will see your reply as patently ridiculous and unserious. Leave it to you to be the one to make the absurd claim that Dr. Young was actually referring to the follow-up vehicle, the Queen Mary, when he made it crystal clear he was referring to JFK's limo. He simply got the nickname wrong. "Queen Mary" had been the nickname of several presidential motorcade vehicles since the 1930s, so Dr. Young's innocent mistake is understandable and meaningless, especially since he expressly said he was talking about JFK's limo. Let's read:
And Doctor Humes had said that he was missing some bones from the President's skull. And he wondered whether there might be some pieces left in the back of the Queen Mary and that he would like to get those pieces and bring them back to Bethesda so he could reconstruct the head.
Question: That was the Presidential limousine, the Queen Mary?
Answer: That's right. That was the car in which President Kennedy was riding in Texas. And they did. They went down, both Chiefs Mills and Martinell went down to the White House and then this I'm going to continue. [Reading from "What Price a Rose?"] "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 centimeter in diameter and distorted. These were found on the floor of the blood-spattered convertible." ("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; alternate link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uKNjrks72NYIJ7WXwumcuPPIxwMUyaLZ/view?usp=sharing)
So, obviously, Dr. Young was talking about JFK's limo; he simply mistakenly believed the limo was nicknamed "Queen Mary." (Note that the Navy historian conducting the interview did not realize the mistake either.)
And did you forget that you were the one who noted that CD 1258 says that Mills and Martinell searched JFK's limo?
Since you are just going to repeat yourself, I'll respond with what I said the last time:
The "major discrepancy" exists only in your own head and nowhere else. "Missile" has a range of meanings, and the fragments exchanged for the receipt falls within that. For that matter, Sibert and O'Neil both talk about the fragments and the receipt exchanged therefore in their ARRB depositions.
Repeating pure hogwash does not improve it. Again, let's see you produce just one example from any FBI or other investigative document where the term "missile" was used to refer to two small bullet fragments that constituted less than 2% of the mass of a bullet. Let's see it. We both know you can't produce such an example because it doesn't exist, because no one would be dumb enough or careless enough to willingly describe two small bullet fragments as a "missile."
Sibert and O'Neill also talked to the HSCA about the receipt. As in their HSCA depositions, they said the receipt was exchanged for fragments, not a bullet. Griffith and Corbett have already found this, but you are far, far behind everyone else.
Wow, I guess you saw no need to mention any of the problems and indications of fraud that I pointed out in Sibert and O'Neill's HSCA and ARRB statements. I guess you saw no need to mention that I documented that Sibert and O'Neill repeatedly distinguished between "missile/bullet" and "fragments" in their 11/26/63 report and in their HSCA and ARRB interviews. I guess you saw no need to mention that Boyers, the Navy corpsman who supposedly typed the "missile" receipt, said there were three or four fragments, not two, and that Sibert likewise indicated there were more than two fragments in the evidence bottle. You ignored all these points and falsely cited me as if I had contradicted Michael Capasse's arguments.
Some might view such omissions as an indication of an intent to mislead.
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 02:15:39 PMFinally, why do you keep using the dishonest term "fragmented bullet" to describe the two bullet fragments found in the front of the limo, when those fragments constituted less than half of the mass of a bullet?
CE 567 weighed 41.5 grains. CE 569 weighed 21 grains. The two fragments combined weighed only 62.5 grains. But, the average rifle bullet weighs between 150 and 180 grains, and a WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullet weighs 160.8 grains.
In other words, the two bullet fragments found in the front of the limo constituted only 39% of the mass of the kind of bullet that Oswald allegedly used, and constituted no more than 42% and as little as 35% of the mass of an average rifle bullet.
Now who's quibbling. Tell us why that matters.
LOL! "Quibbling"?! Phew! We're talking about a difference in mass of over 100%. I know you don't do math, but if a bullet weighs more than twice the weight of two fragments, that's a difference of over 100% in weight between the bullet and the two fragments.
Do you really, actually, honestly need me to explain to you why it matters? Are you really that immature and unserious?
Well, one reason it matters is that you keep using the dishonest, misleading term "fragmented bullet" to describe the two bullet fragments found in the limo when those fragments did not constitute even half the mass of a bullet. As you surely know, when you say "fragmented bullet," you are implying the finding of fragments that constituted a bullet.
I see that when I quoted SS agent Charles Taylor's Church Committee affidavit, you trotted out the lame argument that Taylor's statements did not necessarily prove that Mills and Martinell searched the limo. You even floated the juvenile argument that just because they "inspected" the limo doesn't mean they "searched" the limo!
Ah, but then you were undone by a fellow WC apologist, Tim Nickerson, who was nice enough to point out that CD 1258 (a 7/7/64 FBI report) says that Mills and Martinell were the ones who found the two bullet fragments in the front of the limo, proving that they obviously searched the limo. Uh-oh! Ouch! Wham! And off you went back-pedaling all over the place.
As I've said before, this thread is a prime example of the abject, unyielding, discrediting refusal of WC apologists to deal credibly and genuinely with solid evidence that refutes the lone-gunman theory.
Here we have a Navy captain, an O-6 (one rank below admiral), who spoke about the finding of a bullet in the limo
in an essay that he hand-wrote less than 24 hours after the autopsy, the day after the assassination. He even gave a description of the bullet in that account ("a brass slug about half a centimeter in diameter and distorted"), clearly indicating he had seen the bullet.
Then, after he re-read his 11/23/63 essay years later when he made copies of it for his children, he came across the reference to the limo bullet. He became concerned enough about it that in late December 2000 he wrote a letter to President Gerald Ford, a former WC member, in which he discussed the finding of the bullet and asked if Ford had any information about it.
Then, to further follow up on the matter, Dr. Young contacted then-Senator Arlen Specter, a former WC counsel, spoke with him about the bullet, and sent him a copy of his 11/23/63 "What Price a Rose?" essay.
Dr. Young was so concerned about making sure his recollection was correct that he phoned Chief Mills to verify his recollection, and Chief Mills later confirmed to Navy historian Jan Herman that Young did indeed make that phone call.
In his third 2001 Navy oral history interview, Dr. Young once again made it clear that he saw the bullet. It was after this interview that Herman contacted Chief Mills to verify Dr. Young's account.
We even have an account from another Navy captain at the autopsy, Captain John Stover, who recalled that
a bullet was brought to the autopsy in an envelope, exactly as Dr. Young reported.
Nevertheless, not a single WC apologist can bring himself to admit that Dr. Young saw a bullet that was found in JFK's limo. They can't bring themselves to admit this because they are so emotionally attached to the WC's lone-gunman fairy tale.
