The FBI memo is dated 11.22.
The Autopsy Night (November 22, 1963): During the postmortem examination at Bethesda Naval Hospital, Dr. Young dispatched two Navy petty officers to inspect the presidential limousine for bone fragments. (Young would later say they found a whole slug)
I think the Dr. Young episode is too late in the day to be captured in the 11.22 FBI memo.
It depends on what time on 11/22 the FBI memo was written. Also, the memo may have actually been finalized on 11/23 and back-dated to 11/22 because its drafting was begun on 11/22. This happens from time to time with government memos.
MG: This just shows what a dishonest juvenile you are. No, your misuse of the term "fragmented bullet" is not "far more accurate" than my fact-based term "misshapen bullet."
Explain why.
You really need this explained? Really? Ok, here's the explanation: No one but you would argue with a straight face that two fragments that make up less than half the mass of a bullet constitute a "fragmented bullet."
If only two pieces of a bowling ball were found in a room and they amounted to less than half of the ball, would anyone say that a "fragmented bowling ball" was found in the room? If only two pieces of a vase were found in a room and the pieces made up less than half of the vase, would anyone say that "a fragmented vase" was found in the room? If only two pieces of a pencil were found in a room and the pieces made up less than half of the pencil, would anyone say that a "broken pencil" was found in the room? No, of course not. Nobody would do this. They would say "two pieces of a bowling ball were found in the room"; "two pieces of a vase were found in the room"; and "two pieces of a pencil were found in the room."
I know I've said this before, but it bears repeating that you just don't seem to realize how badly you discredit yourself when you display such immaturity and dishonesty in refusing to admit even the most obvious, self-evident facts.
MG: The only "silly word game" here is your misleading use of the term "fragmented bullet." Two fragments that make up less than half the mass of a bullet are not a "fragmented bullet." But you can't even muster up the maturity and honesty to admit this self-evident fact.
The only thing self-evident is that your are playing games with semantics. So you have appointed yourself the semantics arbiter.
No, you're just a dishonest juvenile who can't even admit that two fragments that make up less than half the mass of a bullet are not a "fragmented bullet." It is truly pathetic that we are still having this discussion.
CE399 lost a few tiny fragments of lead from its core yet is still called a bullet. How much material has to be missing from a bullet before it stops being a bullet?
What?! Huh?! These two statements have to rank high on the all-time list of examples of embarrassingly bad logic.
No fragments from CE 399 were ever found anywhere, and no one ever claimed those fragments were a "fragmented bullet."
And we are not talking about how much material has to be missing from a bullet before it is no longer a bullet. We are talking about the exact opposite. Sheesh, just how uneducated and immature can you prove yourself to be?
What the hell does NAA testing have to do with matching a bullet to a rifle? They are two entirely different processes.
Oh, so I guess your scenario now has Oswald using different bullets besides the ones he allegedly used?! Hey?! Now do you understand why the follow-up NAA studies are important, and why they gouge another hole in your version of the shooting?
Ballistics matching has long been accepted as valid evidence by our courts and VSA has not, yet you treat the latter as if it is empirical evidence and dismiss the former which has long been accepted by our criminal courts. Of course you do. You're a silly JFKA CT. It's what you do.
I've answered this polemic at least three times now and have provided multiple scientific sources on the widely recognized problems with ballistic matching. But, you just keep repeating this same talking point and ignoring the scientific objections to ballistic matching.
I guess all the scientists who have raised objections to ballistic matching are just "silly," hey?
For the benefit of other readers, here are two of my replies to Corbett that present evidence that scientists have presented about the problems with ballistic matching:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5258.msg187383.html#msg187383https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5258.msg187251.html#msg187251People who read those replies are going to wonder how you can repeat your talking point on ballistic matching while failing to deal with the objections that scientists have raised and the many court rulings that have limited or banned the use of ballistic matching as evidence in criminal trials.
Here are several articles explaining the lack of validity of VSA:
https://liedetectortest.com/alert/voice-stress-analysis-vsa-why-it-is-not-a-lie-detector
https://scienceinsights.org/what-a-voice-stress-analysis-test-actually-measures/
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/221502.pdf
You obviously still have not read the articles that I've cited in previous replies on VSA technology. If you had, you would know that those articles answer the claims in the articles you've cited. You would also know that the articles you've cited do not address any of the scientific evidence for the reliability of VSA technology. Let me refresh your memory, for the sake of other readers and newcomers to the thread:
Over 25,000 various VSA systems are in use worldwide. More than 3500 U.S. law enforcement agencies use VSA. The U.S. Department of Defense uses VSA in its fight against worldwide terrorism.
Unlike the polygraph the DVSA does not report “inconclusive” results. Polygraph examiners report up to 60% “inconclusive” examinations.
In the fall of 2000, Air Force Research Laboratories (AFRL), Rome, NY, and the National Institute Of Justice’s National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center released their findings on voice stress analysis (VSA) technology. Those results confirm the accuracy and validity of VSA technology at 100%. An edited copy of the AFRL news release follows:
A three-year study by Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate engineers here has concluded several features of voice stress analysis are effective for detecting when a person is answering questions under stress. “The Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) provided us with tapes of investigations from two murder cases where the suspects eventually confessed and were found guilty,” “Using voice stress analyzers … (the) machines were accurate on 45 out of 45 instances.” Ed. Note: That is 100% accuracy. . . .
Earlier studies conducted by both government and private organizations show similar VSA validity and reliability.
Since its inception in the early 1970s, Voice Stress Analysis credibility assessment technique is now utilized throughout the world by law enforcement investigators, arson investigators, military intelligence & counterintelligence units, psychologists, psychiatrists, insurers, and government agencies. VSA technology is effectively utilized worldwide in locations such as the European Community, South Africa, Central and South America, Middle East, Asia, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and the Balkans. (https://www.bakerdvsa.com/how-dvsa-works/)We need to understand that the attacks on VSA lie detection mainly come from two camps: (1) people who oppose the use of
all lie-detection devices, whether traditional polygraph or VSA, and (2) the polygraph industry, led by the American Polygraph Association.
VSA analysts have formed their own association, the International Association of Voice Stress Analysts (IAVSA), and numerous companies now produce VSA devices for a wide range of government and private entities. The IAVSA was established in 1995 and is the oldest and most prestigious VSA association in existence. The largest American association of VSA analysts is the National Association of Computer Voice Stress Analysts (NACVSA).
Let me continue by quoting from the article "The History of Voice Stress Analysis: The Original Dektor Counterintelligence and Security Inc.," published on the website of NITV Federal Services, which manufactures the Computer Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSA):
Everything we knew about “lie detection” changed in 1972. That was the year Allan D. Bell, Jr., Wilson H. Ford, and Charles R. McQuiston—the three principals of Dektor Counterintelligence and Security, Inc.—came up with something brilliant. The retired U.S. Military officers took on the polygraph monolith when they patented an invention which would become known as the “Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE).” . . .
The founders of Dektor all brought their unique skills to the table; Ford was an electronics inventor, Bell had expertise in counterintelligence, and McQuiston was a polygraph examiner. Their work began when Ford adapted a discovery made by three other brilliant minds. In 1956, Martin Halliday and Joe Redfearn discovered tremors in the musculature of humans that could be measured as oscillations or frequencies. Olof Lippold took the research further in 1957, relating these microtremors to physiological stress and recording these oscillations, which vibrate as muscles tighten and relax. Lippold used an Electromyograph (EMG) to evaluate this data.
Building upon the work of these previous researchers, Ford recorded the human voice, slowed it down, filtered it, and recorded it onto an EKG to highlight the microtremors. Ford focused on the muscles regulating the voice and found that when the body goes into fight-or-flight mode, the vibrations increase in speed. They were building on the same premise upon which the polygraph was founded—that deception produces psychological stress and physiological symptoms. So, by analyzing these vocal tremors, their invention was able to indicate potential lies.
Originally named the “Physiological Response Analysis Method and Apparatus,” Dektor’s invention used a method called the McQuiston-Ford algorithm, which is similar to the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithm. The McQuiston-Ford detects microtremors which typically fall into the range of 8 to 12 Hz in an individual who is not experiencing stress or being deceptive. These FM frequencies are not audible to the naked human ear and can only be captured through this method. The algorithm simply computes a sequence and converts it into patterns or charts. As a person is being deceptive, the stress they feel causes variations in the frequency modulation, which shows a flattening effect on the graphic display or chart. This allows trained examiners to read the charts in relation to questions that caused this flattening event and correlate it to a stressor.
Dektor was ahead of its time, and the invention didn’t gain ground as it should have due to unrelenting attacks by the polygraph industry. (https://www.cvsa1.com/blog/the-history-of-voice-stress-analysis-the-original-dektor-counterintelligence-and-security-inc/)Here are some additional sources that present evidence that VSA devices are reliable:
"The Most Important Features of Lie Detection Using Voice Stress," published in the third volume of the 2024
Al-Iraqia Journal of Scientific Engineering Researchhttps://ijser.aliraqia.edu.iq/index.php/ijser/article/view/149"Evaluation of Voice Stress Analysis Technology," published in
Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences in 2005
https://www.computer.org/csdl/pds/api/csdl/proceedings/download-article/12OmNyUFfWr/pdf"Voice Stress Analysis: A New Framework for Voice and Effort in Human Performance," published in the November 2018 issue of
Frontiers in Psychologyhttps://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01994/full"Acoustic Analysis of Speech Under Stress," published in the
International Journal of Bioinformatics Research and Applications in 2015
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26558301/https://www.iavsa.com/post/acoustic-analysis-of-speech-under-stress-international-journal-of-bioinformatics-research-and-appliCase Studies Proving VSA Lie Detection Is Valid
https://www.cvsa1.com/blog/category/case-studies/"Voice Stress Detection," published in volume 2 of the 2013 issue of the
International Journal of Electrical, Electronics, and Computer Engineeringhttps://share.google/90Beq6zVMLkmcBD0iEXCERPT:
Finally we conclude that VSA technology can identify stress better than polygraph systems."Voice Stress Analysis" article on the Baltimore Police Museum website on the Mark II Voice Stress Analyzer
https://baltimorepolicemuseum.com/en/component/content/article/470-voice-stress-analysisEXCERPT:
The Mark II Voice Stress Analyzer is the most advanced, accurate and simple instrument of its kind. It allows the user to automatically detect, measure and analyze the exact degree of psychological stress in a word or phrase spoken by anyone. It can be used in person, through recorded messages or by telephone, or in radio communications.
When a subject tries to cheat, or has emotional difficulty with certain questions, he will experience psychological distress. Any misrepresentation or psychological stress induced by stimuli causes a lack of synchronization between the control of the voice of the brain and the mechanism of the voice in the throat. This stress connection produces an inaudible roughness in the voice called tremolo. Tremolos related to stress occurs uniformly in all human allocations, independent of language or sex.The
Journal of Credibility Assessment Techniques (JCAT) has published numerous scientific articles on the validity of VSA lie detection. The IAVSA page on the JCAT explains that "the JCAT is a semiannual professional publication, consisting of articles and papers about the principles and practice of utilizing voice stress analysis for truth verification and credibility assessments." Here are some recent issues:
IAVSA Journal Volume 3 Number 2 (Current Edition)
https://www.iavsa.com/_files/ugd/61470a_a44a0662685b416b8ea120c877d63f9d.pdfIAVSA Journal Volume 3 Number 1
https://www.iavsa.com/_files/ugd/61470a_e0181e35779b4a7daa132e1eed07fbe7.pdfIAVSA Journal Volume 2 Number 2
https://www.iavsa.com/_files/ugd/61470a_1cf8af4420d742b7bc761ba413e7a37f.pdfIAVSA Journal Volume 2 Number 1
https://www.iavsa.com/_files/ugd/61470a_708ea223adb847aa94e111a719c4b13d.pdfIAVSA Journal Volume 1 Number 1
https://www.iavsa.com/_files/ugd/61470a_10e296aaecaa4e27b561a1a8655c883d.pdfResearch and Scientific Studies That Support VSA Lie Detection
https://www.cvsa1.com/blog/category/research-and-scientific-studies/"Voice Stress Analysis Used to Identify Dishonesty"
https://www.safeguard.co.zw/voice-stress-analysis-used-to-identify-dishonesty/"Deception Detection Examinations -- Voice Stress," published on the Pro First Police Background Investigations website
https://www.profirsttraining.com/vsa-examinations"CVSA Gets Results," published on the NACVSA website
https://www.nacvsa.org/cvsa-gets-results/"NACVSA Exposes Inaccuracies of Polygraph Tests," published on the NACVSA website
https://www.nacvsa.org/nacvsa-exposes-inaccuracies-of-polygraph-tests/EXCERPT:
. . . a disturbing trend has been exposed involving innocent people failing polygraph examinations and then being interrogated until they confess. Had it not been for the advent of DNA evidence and other advanced investigative technologies many of the thousands of people who failed polygraphs and were later wrongly convicted of crimes would spend their lives in prison, or worse, have been executed. . . .
According to an article published in Law and Order, the Computer Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSA) is far superior to the error-prone polygraph, and the CVSA is now being used by over 3,000 law enforcement agencies worldwide including those in Atlanta, Nashville, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Miami as well as the California Highway Patrol and the US Federal Courts.
According to the NACVSA, serious questions remain about the 100-year old polygraph device and its well documented high error rate."The Truth About Lie Detection Technology," published in the August 2010 issue of
Law Enforcement Technologyhttps://www.cvsa1.com/app/uploads/sites/2/2024/06/LEArticle.pdfEXCERPT:
. . . the National Institute for Truth Verification (NITV) estimates about 1,800 local, state and federal law enforcement agencies are using its patented Computer Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSA) products. . . .
James Chapman, education and standards director of the National Association of Computer Voice Stress Analysts, (NACVSA). . . . asks: Chapman is professor emeritus and former director of the Criminal Justice Program and Forensic Crime Laboratory at the State University of New York in Corning. Prior tohis career in education, he served in law enforcement and the U.S. Marine Corps.
While others may argue there is not enough scientific evidence to demonstrate voice stress analysis is a science, Chapman emphatically states the debate is over. He says VSA technology is an accurate, reliable and legally sound truth verification tool. And, he adds, CVSA has no inconclusive results. Voice stress analysis has its origins in the work of three former U.S. Army commanding officers. The first system became commercially available in 1971 and Chapman has been using voice stress analysis since then. As a criminologist, he had been looking for an investigative tool applying to both natural and behavioral science.
After 39 years of conducting voice stress analysis and a 19-year study, Chapman’s work has resulted in a confession rate of more than 95 percent. In five cases where there were 18 homicides and one suicide, the suspects passed a polygraph examination and were cleared. They were then retested using voice stress analysis and the suspects did not pass the exam. All cases and suspects were successfully adjudicated. “Most importantly,” he says, “VSA testing was able to accurately identify innocent individuals who were suspected of wrongdoing, thus removing them from suspicion. . . ."
John Trice retained Chapman on many different cases when Trice was district attorney for Chemung County(N.Y.) from 2000 to 2008, and was an assistant DA from 1984 to 1998.He says he has a lot of confidence in the machine because he’s seen it work in many cases. He describes one case that stands out in his mind: Person A, a bank robbery suspect, told police that Person B was the robber. A CVSA exam resulted in Person A admitting he lied and he, Person A, was the one who robbed the bank. CVSA results, along with corroborating evidence, exonerated Person B and all criminal charges against him were dropped. Trice adds he’s never seen it fail, and he knows of no known counter measures.Even proponents of VSA recognize questions must be structured correctly for the test to have validity:
https://www.cji.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Using_Technology_to_Separate_Truth_from_Lies.pdf
"The questions asked during a CVSA exam can not be formulated haphazardly. The need for appropriately structured questions was noted by John Larson in the early 1900s, and its importance is still recognized (National Research Council, 2003, p. 296). In the NITV operating manual, at the beginning of the chapter entitled “Question Formulation & Test Formats”, they have a warning that states “If the question formulation criteria outlined in this chapter are not followed, errors in analysis of charts will [emphasis added] be made.”
The questions Oswald responded to were not at all structured and therefore of no use for VSA purposes.
Oh, boy. This is what you get when you go scrambling to the Internet and uncritically latch onto to any source that says what you want to believe. VSA is not just for formal interrogations where the person knows he's being tested and where the examiner poses prepared questions. VSA is often used for lie detection in situations where the person is unaware they are being tested, especially by intel and security agencies. VSA can also be used for lie detection on recordings of suspects in a wide variety of circumstances, as long as a veracity baseline can be established, which it usually can be.
O'Toole addressed the issue of using VSA on recordings at some length in his book
The Assassination Tapes. Two other VSA experts and a leading polygraph examiner at the time confirmed the validity of using VSA to determine the truth or falsehood of recorded statements.
MG: I see you are also still peddling the dubious talking point that the limo fragments were "positively matched to the rifle found in the TSBD [uh-huh, through the disputed method of ballistic matching]." Yeah, never mind that NAA testing found that those fragments could have come from other bullets besides the ones Oswald used; never mind that no chain of evidence was cooked up for those fragments until several weeks later; never mind that ballistic matching has come under increasing attack from the scientific community; never mind that ballistic matching has been found to be unreliable in a number of cases; and never mind that those fragments are more severely bent than any of the fragments from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test.
You don't seem to know the difference between factoids and facts.
Yeah, you bet. You're just making up nonsense again. Every one of those statements is factual.
Neither Mills nor Martinell said they turned a bullet over to Dr. Young. None of the prosectors reported receiving a bullet during the autopsy. Apparently, that was a misunderstanding on the part of Young or a false memory developed over several decades. It would make no sense at all for such evidence to be turned over to the medical team. A bullet or bullet fragment should have been turned over to the FBI crime lab for analysis and that is what was done with the bullet fragments found in the limo. Only bone fragments were sent to Bethesda and that is how it should have been.
It is amazing how you just keep repeating arguments and ignoring counter arguments and contrary facts. You will make a claim; I and/or others will present facts to you that contradict the claim; I and/or others will point out problems with the claim; and yet in subsequent replies you will simply repeat the claim and pretend that the contrary facts and counter arguments don't exist.
Mills confirmed to Navy historian Jan Herman that Dr. Young called him to verify his recollection and that he verified Dr. Young's recollection when Dr. Young called him.
For other readers, if you want to see the arguments and facts that have been presented to Corbett about Dr. Young's account, here's the link to my thread on the subject titled "Yet Another Bullet That the Lone-Gunman Theory Cannot Explain":
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5194.0.html
Topic: 11.22 FBI Memo About an Secret Service Agent Finding a Bullet in the Limo (Read 2071 times)