Yet Another Bullet That the Lone-Gunman Theory Cannot Explain

[Tim Nickerson]

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." 

I know that I've seen a single fragment referred to as a missile by the FBI. I'll see if I can find an example. In the meantime, here is FBI Supervisor Joseph Loeffler referring to multiple bullet fragments as "the bullet".

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/McKnight%20Working%20Folders/Part%203/Evidence%20-%20Re%20Fragments%20From%20Connally%20Wrist/Evidence%20Connally%20Fragments%2002.pdf

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.

From the ARRB Deposition of Francis O'Neill:

O'NEILL: Now, I know there’s been some controversy also about- Because we saw them put into a jar, and Jim and I signed for that jar. We signed for a missile. That was exactly what the Navy terminology is for a bullet-anything which flies through the air is a missile. It’s changed since then, because they now have the guided missiles and things such as that.  But at that time, anything which went through the air was a missile. And that’s the way the wrote it up, and that’s the way we signed for it.
GUNN : When you say that you signed a receipt for that, I’d like to show you a document marked Exhibit No. 69, and ask YOU whether that’s a
reproduction of the receipt that you signed?
O'NEILL: Yes .And it says a missile. There were two pieces of it there. But that is correct, yes.
GUNN:  Did you sign any receipts other than the one represented by Exhibit No. 69?
O'NEILL:  No, sir

From the ARRB Deposition of James Sibert:

SIBERT:  Yes, I recall. I’d Iike to elaborate a little further on this. Here,  we get to this term “missile”.  Now, some things I’ve read about the agents giving a receipt -This receipt was prepared by Navy personnel. I think a Navy corpsman typed it up. And this terminology is U.S. Navy about the “missile”. Now, had I been preparing or making out a receipt and giving it to them, I would have said “fragments” here. This is another thing that’s been kicked
 around a lot in books and everything. I’ve gotsome notes here from a guy who called me about this very thing, a “missile”.
 GUNN: Other than the document that’s now marked Exhibit No. 69, did you sign any other receipts on the night of November 22nd/23rd related to fragments or missiles?
SIBERT: No
...
GUNN: And the document that we have here, Exhibit 69. was attached in a sense to Commission Exhibit 843 - the bottle that’s in front of you?
SIBERT: Right

[Mitch Todd]

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." 

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.

MG: Repeating pure hogwash does not improve it

Capesse is the baseless repeater. Tell him that.


MG: 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.

The one example we have is the Sibert/O'Neill receipt from the autopsy. Should go without saying, should it not?

Anyway, If you want to claim that there is no "FBI or investigative document" that refers to fragments as a "missile," it is up to you to demonstrate this. Neither I nor anyone else is required to disprove your baseless assertion.  Asserting something, then demanding that everyone else disprove the assertion is shifting the burden of proof.


MG: 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.

You are correct. I see no need to mention something that doesn't actually exist.


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.

Since Sibert and O'Neill did not generate the receipt, whatever terms they themselves used is immaterial. There is, then, no need to mention it.


MG: 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.

Note that Boyers and Sibert said "fragments" and not "bullet." Since the current argument revolves around the assertion that the "missle" was a bullet, the Boyers and Sibert statements are solid arguments against that assertion. Not sure why you wanted to bring it up. BTW, Sibert told the HSCA that there were two fragments, both in his interview and the affidavit he presented. O'Neil likewise told the HSCA that only two fragments were removed. Their 1963 report specifically states that the fragments were the 1x3mm and 7x2mm fragments....that is, exactly two fragments.


You ignored all these points and falsely cited me as if I had contradicted Michael Capasse's arguments.

I ignored your points (no big loss, see above) because I responded to something that Capasse said. Namely, his statement: "Well then, it should be easy to find clarification in the official documents for such a major discrepancy." I pointed out that the ARRB statements of Sibert and O'Neill qualify as such. They are, after all, part of the "official record," and in these official records S&O both state that the receipt was given for fragments, not a whole bullet. When Capasse foolishly repeated himself, I repeated my original point and noted that you and Corbett had, at the time of my reply, been discussing Sibert and O'Neill's statements that the receipt really was for fragments, even if it said "missle." There is nothing misleading or dishonest about what I said; it is completely true. Sibert and O'Neill have repeatedly and exclusively stated that the receipt was for fragments, not a bullet. Your attempt to say that I've been dishonest is wrong, and is itself dishonest.

[John Corbett]

MTG is trying to conjure up a bullet where none existed and then expects the LNs to explain his imaginary bullet.

[Paul May]

Young's story has "false memory" written all over it.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/false-memories-5225965

The interview where he gave his account took place 38 years after the assassination. Lots of time for false memories to take hold, especially if he began with the assumption that a bullet was in the envelope the NCOs picked up. The bent bullet he describes sounds very much like CE399. It's easy to see how he could have conflated a picture he saw of CE399 with a bullet he assumed had been in the envelope given to Humes. Humes made no mention of receiving a bullet or a fragment during the autopsy. Ford knew nothing about this. There is no corroboration for Young's story. Martinell had died. The only source for Mills remembering seeing a bullet is Young himself. That's hardly corroboration. Can you quote one person, other than Young himself, who said Humes was given a recovered bullet in addition to the skull fragments?

You didn't even attempt to explain why if the Secret Service had recovered a whole bullet in addition to the fragmented bullet, that they would turn over the whole bullet and keep the fragmented bullet. It makes no sense. Nothing about this story makes sense.

The only thing worse than witness testimony is 40 year old witness testimony. Griffith goes on endlessly with this type of crap.

[Zeon Mason]

Whomever  typed up the document using the  word “recoved” and the singular word “missile” to represent multiple fragments made a gross mistake. Seems odd that given the serious unique situation of a President of the USA being ASSASSINATED, that some individual given responsibility to type up reports ACCURATELY would be so careless. This kind of  negligence is pervasive through out the entire process of the Will Fritz team gathering and documenting  evidence and securing the crime scene. It is equally troubling in many FBI documents and snafus such as the failure of communication between Lt. Day and FBI agent Drain.

Given the magnitude of errors in the process which go beyond what the probability is for random errors in other cases, it is not unreasonable that the public might  tend to be suspicious. It’s gets even more difficult to accept these snafus when FBI agents such as Odum and Hosty  deny a report attributed to their name or introduce new notes that they had kept secret.



 

[John Corbett]

The only thing worse than witness testimony is 40 year old witness testimony. Griffith goes on endlessly with this type of crap.

Well said.

[Michael T. Griffith]

The only thing worse than witness testimony is 40 year old witness testimony. Griffith goes on endlessly with this type of crap.

Perhaps you should learn to read. As I've noted and documented several times already in this thread, Dr. Young's first statements about the finding of a bullet in the limo and the bullet's appearance were written in his 11/23/63 hand-written essay "What Price a Rose?" So he wrote that essay on the afternoon of 11/23, less than 24 hours after the autopsy. That wasn't even 40 hours after the fact, much less 40 years. It is revealing that you guys keep ignoring this crucial fact.

Furthermore, Dr. Young wrote his letter to Gerald Ford in December 2000, not 2003, and he gave his first three Navy oral history interviews in 2001, not 2003. Additionally, he brought his 11/23/63 "What Price a Rose?" essay with him to those interviews and read from it during the interviews, as I've also mentioned and documented several times herein.

And, of course, never mind that Chief Mills corroborated Dr. Young's account, right?

I know that I've seen a single fragment referred to as a missile by the FBI. I'll see if I can find an example. In the meantime, here is FBI Supervisor Joseph Loeffler referring to multiple bullet fragments as "the bullet".

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/McKnight%20Working%20Folders/Part%203/Evidence%20-%20Re%20Fragments%20From%20Connally%20Wrist/Evidence%20Connally%20Fragments%2002.pdf

Nice try. Loeffler was referring to two separate items: (1) the stretcher bullet, which O. P. Wright assumed had come from Connally's stretcher/body, and (2) the fragments that were removed from Connally's wrist.

From the ARRB Deposition of Francis O'Neill:

O'NEILL: Now, I know there’s been some controversy also about- Because we saw them put into a jar, and Jim and I signed for that jar. We signed for a missile. That was exactly what the Navy terminology is for a bullet-anything which flies through the air is a missile. It’s changed since then, because they now have the guided missiles and things such as that.  But at that time, anything which went through the air was a missile. And that’s the way the wrote it up, and that’s the way we signed for it.
GUNN : When you say that you signed a receipt for that, I’d like to show you a document marked Exhibit No. 69, and ask YOU whether that’s a
reproduction of the receipt that you signed?
O'NEILL: Yes .And it says a missile. There were two pieces of it there. But that is correct, yes.
GUNN:  Did you sign any receipts other than the one represented by Exhibit No. 69?
O'NEILL:  No, sir

From the ARRB Deposition of James Sibert:

SIBERT:  Yes, I recall. I’d Iike to elaborate a little further on this. Here,  we get to this term “missile”.  Now, some things I’ve read about the agents giving a receipt -This receipt was prepared by Navy personnel. I think a Navy corpsman typed it up. And this terminology is U.S. Navy about the “missile”. Now, had I been preparing or making out a receipt and giving it to them, I would have said “fragments” here. This is another thing that’s been kicked
 around a lot in books and everything. I’ve got some notes here from a guy who called me about this very thing, a “missile”.
 GUNN: Other than the document that’s now marked Exhibit No. 69, did you sign any other receipts on the night of November 22nd/23rd related to fragments or missiles?
SIBERT: No
...
GUNN: And the document that we have here, Exhibit 69. was attached in a sense to Commission Exhibit 843 - the bottle that’s in front of you?
SIBERT: Right

Umm, I already addressed Sibert and O'Neill's ARRB statements. Did you miss that? I notice you said nothing about the problems I noted with them. I also notice you said nothing about their HSCA statements. I also notice you said nothing about Boyers' claim that the evidence bottle contained three or four bullet fragments, not two, and that Sibert likewise indicated there were more than two fragments in his HSCA testimony. I further notice you said nothing about the fact that Sibert and O'Neill failed to say a word about signing for either a missile or bullet fragments in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy. Let me refresh your memory, mainly for the sake of any newcomers and other readers:

I find it strange that Sibert and O'Neill said nothing about signing a receipt for a missile or fragments in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy. They mentioned that Humes removed the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm fragments from the head but oddly said nothing about signing a receipt for those fragments. Could they have omitted this significant event from their report because they were uneasy about having signed a receipt that said "missile" when the evidence bottle contained only three, four, or a few more fragments -- fragments that clearly did not constitute the mass of a bullet? Or, did they omit this important event because by 11/26 the existence of a bullet or bullets at the autopsy could not be acknowledged? 

- In 1978, along came Chester Boyers, the Chief Petty Officer at Bethesda who typed the receipt that Sibert and O'Neill signed. Boyers threw a bit of a monkey wrench into the cover story.

Boyers told the HSCA that he "submitted several missile fragments, probably three or four, all of which came from President Kennedy's head" (Investigation Interview, HSCA, 4/25/1978, p. 4, ARRB document MD 62).

He also said that "even though the receipt only stated that 'a' missile was given to Sibert and O'Neill, several fragments of a missile were submitted and that he only prepared one receipt" (p. 4).

But Humes said that he only removed two bullet fragments from the skull (from the right orbit), the 7x1 mm and 3x1 mm fragments, whose combined weight was only 180 grains, a small fraction of the mass of a bullet.

Boyers did not explain, and was not asked, why he would have used the term "missile" to describe several bullet fragments instead of just writing "three missile fragments" or "four missile fragments."

-- When Sibert was interviewed by the HSCA in 1977, he made a number of statements that contradict the cover story. He referred to more than just two fragments, saying "a lot of the metal fragments were tiny," that "all that were removed" were put in a "jar with a black top," and that they signed a receipt for those fragments (Memorandum: Interview with James W. Sibert, HSCA, 8/29/1977, p. 4, ARRB document MD 85).

So clearly we have a major conflict in the record. Both Boyers and Sibert said there were more than two fragments.

-- When Sibert's HSCA interviewers (Jim Kelly and Andy Purdy) specifically him asked about the receipt for a "missile," he actually criticized the receipt's author and its wording, saying that the receipt "was prepared by someone else," that he "would have listed the items as metal fragments," and that to him "a single 'missile' means quite a bit of substance -- more of a whole bullet" (pp. 4-5)!

We are left to wonder why the HSCA interviewers did not ask him the obvious follow-up question:

"If you thought the receipt was so inaccurate, why did you sign it? Why didn't you just tell the guy to retype it so that it read 'fragments' instead of 'missile,' since this would have only taken a few minutes?"

-- Things get even more curious and suspicious when we consider O'Neill HSCA affidavit.

O'Neill said the "saw" the autopsy doctors remove a fragment from "further back in the head" (O'Neill Affidavit for HSCA, 11/8/78  p. 4, ARRB document MD 47).

This was undoubtedly the back-of-head fragment that Sibert and O'Neill mentioned in their report on the autopsy; they said this fragment was the second-largest fragment in the skull (p. 4). This is surely, unquestionably the very thin 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment that Dr. David Mantik discovered inside the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray via optical-density measurements and high-magnification viewing. This fragment also appears on the right lateral skull x-ray (but it is -- impossibly -- much smaller than the 6.5 mm object).

But Dr. Humes never admitted that he removed a bullet fragment from the back of the skull. He said the only two fragments he removed were the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm fragments that were very near and slightly above the right orbit.

-- O'Neill added that "a Navy man" made the receipt for the back-of-head fragment and for a fragment that was removed "from just behind the eye," that he and Sibert signed the receipt, and that the doctors did not remove a "full missile" (pp. 4-5).

O'Neill knew that the autopsy doctors removed two fragments from the right orbit -- this is mentioned in his and Sibert's report on the autopsy (p. 4). I suspect O'Neill knew what he was doing when he informed the HSCA that he saw a bullet fragment removed from the back of the head and that it was one of the fragments for which he and Sibert signed.

If the HSCA medical-evidence investigators had been doing their jobs, O'Neill's disclosure should have raised some huge red flags about Humes's version of events at the autopsy.

I think all of this suggests that Sibert and O'Neill were pressured to go along with the cover story. They were never willing to repudiate it, but they were willing to reveal information that raised serious doubts about it.

-- When Sibert and O'Neill were interviewed by the ARRB, they disclosed a lot of important information that destroys the single-bullet theory and the WC/HSCA claims about JFK's head wounds. But, they were unwilling to contradict the story that the receipt they signed referred only to the two fragments that Humes removed from the right orbit of the skull, even though they had previously revealed information that contradicted the story.

O'Neill offered a particularly lame excuse for signing a receipt that used the term "missile" to describe fragments:

Now I know there's been some controversy also about. Because we saw them put into a jar, and Jim and I signed for that jar. We signed for a missile. That was exactly what the Navy terminology is for a bullet -- anything which flies through the air is a missile.

It's changed since then because they now have the guided missiles and things such as that. But at that time anything which went through the air was a missile. And that's the way they wrote it up and that's the way we signed for it. (Deposition of Francis X. O'Neill, ARRB, 9/12/1997, p. 78)

Now, I'm sorry, but that's pure poppycock. If we were only talking about a single fragment, O'Neill's excuse would at least be minimally plausible, but neither the Navy nor any other government entity ever used the term "missile" to describe multiple bullet fragments or even multiple projectiles of any kind. Yes, the word "missile" was indeed Navy terminology "for a bullet," but we're not talking about a bullet, and O'Neill was not signing for a bullet.

The excuse Sibert offered was not much better:

I'd like to elaborate a little further on this. Here we get to this term "missile."

Now some things I've read about the agents giving a receipt. This receipt was prepared by Navy personnel. I think a Navy corpsman typed it up.
 
And this terminology is U.S Navy about the "missile." Now had I been preparing or making out a receipt and giving it to them, I would have said "fragments" here. (Deposition of James W. Sibert, ARRB, 9/11/1997, pp. 89-90)

At least Sibert once again admitted that he would have used the word "fragments" in the receipt, and not "missile," but he repeated O'Neill's specious suggestion that the Navy would use "missile" to describe multiple fragments of any kind. 

Sibert and O'Neill offered no explanation to the ARRB for why they would have signed such a markedly inaccurate receipt in the most important murder case of the century. Their answers smack of guilt and excuse-making. They obviously proved in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy that they knew that "missile" was not a synonym for "fragments." They themselves distinguished between "missile/bullet" and "fragments."

It is hard to imagine that two FBI agents would have signed a receipt that said "missile" when they could see that the evidence bottle only contained two small fragments, especially when the fragments constituted only a tiny fraction of a bullet's mass.

You guys just refuse to process and deal with contrary facts that refute your lame explanations. You want so desperately to reject Dr. Young's account that you repeatedly ignore facts that strongly support it, and just keep repeating your lame excuses, even after being forced to admit that Mills and Martinell did in fact search the limo at the White House garage, and even when faced with the fact that Captain Stover recalled that a bullet was brought to the autopsy in an envelope.