JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on August 28, 2026, 02:19:16 PM
-
There is yet another bullet, another missed shot, that the lone-gunman theory cannot explain. During the autopsy, a misshapen bullet was found in JFK's limo by two senior Navy non-commissioned officers (NCOs), Chief Mills and Chief Martinell. The two Navy NCOs gave the bullet to Dr. James Young in the Bethesda morgue, and Dr. Young gave it to Dr. James Humes, the chief autopsy pathologist.
For years, Dr. Young assumed the bullet was entered into evidence and discussed in the Warren Report. When he learned, much to his surprise, that it was not, he tried to find out why the bullet had been ignored and why it had vanished. Before he contacted then-Senator Arlen Specter, he checked with one of the Navy NCOs, Chief Mills, to ensure he had his story straight, and Chief Mills confirmed the finding of the deformed bullet.
Dr. Young's account is so compelling because he was an ardent believer in the Warren Commission's version of the shooting. He assumed the bullet was one of the shots that Oswald allegedly fired.
In an attempt to find out what had happened to the bullet, on December 27, 2000, Dr. Young wrote a letter to former President Gerald Ford, a former member of the WC. Among other things, Dr. Young told Ford the following:
Two of the corpsmen left and returned sometime later with three varying sized pieces of President Kennedy’s skull bones. In addition, they brought back in an envelope a spent misshapen bullet which they had found on the back floor of the “Queen Mary” where they had found the pieces of skull bones. The bullet and pieces of skull were given to Dr. Jim Humes.
Dr. Young discussed the finding of the bullet with the Navy’s Office of Medical History in 2001, but the interview was not published until 2013. Here is an excerpt from his interview:
They picked up the bullet off of the floor in the back of the car. Well, I decided that this is something, you know, the third bullet has never been decided about ever, apparently. So what I did was I decided there was only one person still alive from the original Warren Commission. I went through the entire Warren Commission book. I've got the whole report of the Warren Commission as a matter of fact. I went through the whole thing and there was nothing in it.
Now, at that particular time nobody said anything about this. And I know what we did. We brought that in, I mean Chief Martinell and Chief Mills went to the White House, went to the Queen Mary, got the stuff off of the floor in the back seat, brought it back out to us and we gave that to Commander Humes at the time.
I don't know what happened to it, so I decided that what I would do is I would write to President Ford, which I did. I wrote to President Ford and asked him, this was this past summer. I asked him about, you know, did he know anything about this particular bullet that was given to the autopsy surgeons and he wrote me back a very nice letter, said, “No, he didn't know anything about it, had not heard anything about it ever.” Well, at that point then I began to look around for other issues and I found that Senator Arlen Specter had been an Assistant Counsel to the Warren Commission.
So I made a telephone call to Senator Specter's office, got one of his individuals, told that individual about what I had and what I was concerned about, and I wanted to talk with Senator Specter. Well, he did call me back and we spent half an hour on a Friday night about ten thirty at night, he called me back and we talked about it. And he said, “well send me the material,” he said, “and I'll see what we can do.” So I have sent him a copy of What Price a Rose? [Dr. Young’s book] and asked him to look into what happened to that bullet.
Now just to reassure myself, Chief Martinell unfortunately has died. Chief Mills had become a Lieutenant Commander in a Medical Service Corps and retired from the Navy.
However, I found him living in Johnson City, Texas, where he had been working for the Johnson family on the ranch and whatnot. But he had retired in Johnson City. I picked up the phone and I called him. He confirmed exactly what I had put down in my notes, that there was a bent brass slug that they had brought out that they had picked up off the floor of the Queen Mary. (Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, “Navy Medicine and President Kennedy’s Autopsy: Recollections from a former White House Physician,” Washington, D.C.: Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, 2013, pp. 10-11)
The 2021 documentary JFK: Destiny Betrayed includes an excellent segment on this historic disclosure. I discuss Dr. Young's account at length in my book A Comforting Lie: The Myth That a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy (pp. 83-86).
For online sources regarding Dr. Young's disclosure, see the following:
“Navy Doctor: Bullet Found in JFK’s Limousine, and Never Reported,” WhoWhatWhy website, 10/6/2017 (https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/)
"Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view)
"White House Physician, Autopsy Eyewitness, Questions President Ford about Missing Bullet" (https://aarclibrary.org/2017/09/08/white-house-physician-autopsy-eyewitness-questions-president-ford-about-missing-bullet/)
"Bending the Story on a Bent Bullet" (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/bending-the-story-on-a-bent-bullet)
-
For this half-assed story to make sense, JFK's limo would have to have been driven to Bethesda. Why the hell would that have been done and what is your evidence that was done. Inquiring minds want to know.
-
Here is an actual account written by Captain James Young on 11/21/2013. The only mention of any bullets was when he was writing about the bullets that had struck JFK. Nothing about a bullet being found in the limo.
https://www.med.navy.mil/Media/News/Article/2608993/what-price-a-rose-a-navy-physician-remembers-nov-22-1963/
Do you ever bother to vet the horseshit stories you post?
-
For this half-assed story to make sense, JFK's limo would have to have been driven to Bethesda. Why the hell would that have been done and what is your evidence that was done. Inquiring minds want to know.
Another one of your blundering, frivolous replies. Did you even actually read the OP and/or any of the links therein?
If you had gathered up the courage and objectivity to read any of the links on Dr. Young's account, you would have learned that the limo was at the White House garage, and that the two senior Navy NCOs were sent to the garage to check the limo for evidence, especially skull fragments. The White House garage was only about 20 minutes from Bethesda.
Here is an actual account written by Captain James Young on 11/21/2013. The only mention of any bullets was when he was writing about the bullets that had struck JFK. Nothing about a bullet being found in the limo.
https://www.med.navy.mil/Media/News/Article/2608993/what-price-a-rose-a-navy-physician-remembers-nov-22-1963/
Do you ever bother to vet the *&*^% stories you post?
Oh my goodness. I'm sure your subconscious asked the frontal lobe of your brain this very question.
First off, the 2013 article you are citing is a highly condensed version of the same article that I quote in the OP! The version you are citing consists of some excerpts from the full article. The excerpts were selected by a historian at the U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery's Office of Medical History, Andre Sobocinski. Did you not notice that the byline of the version you are citing explains that it was edited by Sobocinski? The full version of the 2013 article is 12 pages long, whereas the excerpted version you are citing is only three pages long.
Second, as I explain in the OP, the full 2013 article, titled “Navy Medicine and President Kennedy’s Autopsy: Recollections from a former White House Physician,” was based on an interview done with Dr. Young in 2001 by the Office of Medical History. You can find the full 2013 article here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Navy_Medicine_and_President_Kennedy%E2%80%99s_Autopsy-_Recollections_from_a_former_White_House_Physician_(IA_NMAndTheKennedyAssassination).pdf
Yeah, whoops, you have posted another embarrassing gaffe. Do you ever get tired of making an absolute fool of yourself?
Moving on from Corbett's latest blundering, I should make four follow-up points about Dr. Young's disclosure:
-- Dr. Young was the chief assistant of Dr. George Burkley, JFK's personal physician. Dr. Burkley was a Navy admiral at the time. Dr. Young was a Navy captain at the time. Before JFK's body arrived at Bethesda, Burkley contacted Young and told him to prepare for the autopsy.
The rank of captain in the Navy is a very high rank; it is equivalent to a full-bird colonel in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps, or O-6. It is the rank immediately below admiral in the Navy.
-- Chiefs Thomas Mills and William Martinell were Dr. Young's assistants. Dr. Young was the one who ordered them to go to the White House garage to inspect JFK's limo.
-- Jan K. Herman, one of the two historians from the Office of Medical History who interviewed Dr. Young in 2001, contacted Chief Mills and asked him about Dr. Young's account. Chief Mills acknowledged the finding of the bullet and confirmed that Dr. Young later called him to verify his recollection.
-- Once Dr. Young realized that the misshapen bullet had not been addressed by the Warren Commission, he was reluctant to go public with his disclosure, which is why the 2001 interview was not published until 2013.
-
Another one of your blundering, frivolous replies. Did you even actually read the OP and/or any of the links therein?
If you had gathered up the courage and objectivity to read any of the links on Dr. Young's account, you would have learned that no one said the limo was driven to Bethesda. No one even implied this, and I certainly say no such thing in the OP.
The limo was in the White House garage, and the two senior Navy NCOs were sent to the garage to check the limo for evidence, especially skull fragments.
Oh my goodness.
First off, the 2013 article you are citing is a highly condensed version of the same article that I quote in the OP! The version you are citing consists of some excerpts from the full article. The excerpts were selected by a historian at the U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery's Office of Medical History, Andre Sobocinski. Did you not notice that the byline of the version you are citing explains that it was edited by Sobocinski? The full version of the 2013 article is 12 pages long, whereas the excerpted version you are citing is only three pages long.
Second, as I explain in the OP, the full 2013 article, titled “Navy Medicine and President Kennedy’s Autopsy: Recollections from a former White House Physician,” was based on an interview done with Dr. Young in 2001 by the Office of Medical History. You can find the full 2013 article here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Navy_Medicine_and_President_Kennedy%E2%80%99s_Autopsy-_Recollections_from_a_former_White_House_Physician_(IA_NMAndTheKennedyAssassination).pdf
Yeah, whoops, you have posted another embarrassing gaffe. Do you ever get tired of making an absolute fool of yourself?
Moving on from Corbett's latest blundering, I should make four follow-up points about Dr. Young's disclosure:
-- Dr. Young was the chief assistant of Dr. George Burkley, JFK's personal physician. Dr. Burkley was a Navy admiral at the time. Dr. Young was a Navy captain at the time. Before JFK's body arrived at Bethesda, Burkley contacted Young and told him to prepare for the autopsy.
The rank of captain in the Navy is a very high rank; it is equivalent to a full-bird colonel in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps, or O-6. It is the rank immediately below admiral in the Navy.
-- Chiefs Thomas Mills and William Martinell were Dr. Young's assistants. Dr. Young was the one who ordered them to go to the White House garage to inspect JFK's limo.
-- Jan K. Herman, one of the two historians from the Office of Medical History who interviewed Dr. Young in 2001, contacted Chief Mills and asked him about Dr. Young's account. Chief Mills acknowledged the finding of the bullet and confirmed that Dr. Young later called him to verify his recollection.
-- Once Dr. Young realized that the misshapen bullet had not been addressed by the Warren Commission, he was reluctant to go public with his disclosure, which is why the 2001 interview was not published until 2013.
I don't doubt that you've found some BS: stories about a bullet being found in the limo by a couple of Navy NCOs. I also don't doubt that you would be gullible enough to believe them. The internet is loaded with sensational stories such as this. They are the modern equivalent of supermarket tabloids. I'll bet you used to eat those up as well.
The story makes no sense. I can believe that Dr. Young would have sent the NCOs to the White House garage if the Secret Service had found bone fragments in the limo. That would be relevant to the autopsy. Why would the Secret Service turn over a bullet to those NCOs? Did they turn over the fragmented bullet they found in the limo? Of course they didn't. So why would they turn over a bullet?
What you have demonstrated here is your complete lack of critical thinking. If you find a story anywhere that supports your belief that JFK died as the result of a conspiracy, you will accept it at face value. You don't even care if those stories are compatible with one another.
All one has to do is look at your sources and see they are obscure websites. I've never heard of any of them.
Wikimedia Commons?
WhoWhatWhy.org? Now there's a pillar of American Journalism?
Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC)? I'll bet they wanted people to think they were associated with ARRB. It wouldn't surprise me if you think they were.
Your post reminds me of a joke from a TV commercial from a couple decades ago.
"You can't put something on the internet that isn't true."
"Where did you hear that."
"On the internet."
-
I went to the Navy's website to find the original article and this is what it had to say:
"They picked up the bullet off of the floor in the back of the car. Well, I
decided that this is something, you know, the third bullet has never been decided
about ever, apparently. So what I did was I decided there was only person still alive
from the original Warren Commission. I went through the entire Warren
Commission book. I've got the whole report of the Warren Commission as a matter
of fact. I went through the whole thing and there was nothing in it.
Now, at that particular time nobody said anything about this. And I know
what we did. We brought that in, I mean Chief Martinell and Chief Mills went to the
White House, went to the Queen Mary, got the stuff off of the floor in the back seat,
brought it back out to us and we gave that to Commander Humes at the time.
I don't know what happened to it, so I decided that what I would do is I
would write to President Ford, which I did. I wrote to President Ford and asked
him, this was this past summer. I asked him about, you know, did he know anything
about this particular bullet that was given to the autopsy surgeons and he wrote me
back a very nice letter, said, "No, he didn't know anything about it, had not heard
anything about it ever." Well, at that point then I began to look around for other
issues and I found that Senator Arlen Specter had been an Assistant Counsel to the
Warren Commission. "
Young wasn't specific about who the "They" were in the opening sentence but it only makes sense that "They" were the Secret Service. The Navy NCOs were sent to retrieve the bone fragments, not search the limo. The fragments apparently were placed in an envelope which was later given to Humes. Young might have simply assumed the envelope also contained the bullet found on the floor of the limo. Nothing I have read indicates Young actually saw a bullet. As I observed earlier that it would make no sense that the Secret Service would turn over a whole bullet to the Navy NCOs while retaining the fragmented bullet. The only thing that makes sense is that the bullet Young had heard about and the fragmented bullet the Secret Service found were one and the same and that Young simply assumed the bullet was in the envelope. Misunderstandings such as this are the source for so many of the myths surrounding the JFKA.
Humes never said anything about receiving a bullet with the bone fragments and Young never said he saw a bullet so where is the evidence a bullet was received at Bethesda
-
Humes never said anything about receiving a bullet with the bone fragments and Young never said he saw a bullet so where is the evidence a bullet was received at Bethesda
Lame excuses every time you post and fall flat on your face (again).
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md69/pages/md69_0001a.gif
22 November 1963
From: Francis X. O’Neill, Jr., Agent FBI
James W. Sibert, Agent, FBI
To: Captain J.H. Stover, Jr., Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Medical School, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
1. We hereby acknowledge receipt of a missile [sic] removed by Commander James J. Humes, MC, USN on this date.
(signed)
Francis X. O’Neill, Jr.
(signed)
James W. Sibert
-
Lame excuses every time you post and fall flat on your face (again).
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md69/pages/md69_0001a.gif
22 November 1963
From: Francis X. O’Neill, Jr., Agent FBI
James W. Sibert, Agent, FBI
To: Captain J.H. Stover, Jr., Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Medical School, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
1. We hereby acknowledge receipt of a missile [sic] removed by Commander James J. Humes, MC, USN on this date.
(signed)
Francis X. O’Neill, Jr.
(signed)
James W. Sibert
Note that the "missle" was "removed by Commander James J. Humes." That is, it was removed from the body during the autopsy, rather than received in from outside. It can't be anything found in the limo and delivered to Bethesda, as Young would have it.
BTW, while "missile" can in this context refer to a bullet, it can also refer to a bullet fragment, bone fragment, tooth, button, or any other object propelled through a body by external force.
-
Note that the "missle" was "removed by Commander James J. Humes." That is, it was removed from the body during the autopsy, rather than received in from outside. It can't be anything found in the limo and delivered to Bethesda, as Young would have it.
BTW, while "missile" can in this context refer to a bullet, it can also refer to a bullet fragment, bone fragment, tooth, button, or any other object propelled through a body by external force.
Well then, it should be easy to find clarification in the official documents for such a major discrepancy.
Missile is a bullet, I'm not aware of any reference of other fragments found in this case called "missiles".
Even if "removed" Humes made no further reference to it, The document was hidden until 1972.
Find an official reference that missile means fragment would clarify it as not just another lame excuse
-
It is a common practice by the CT community when they come across an anomaly or discrepancy to automatically assume it is evidence of a conspiracy instead asking themselves if there is a non-sinister explanation available. In just about every case there is as this incident reveals but the CTs thrive on assuming the most sinister explanation is the correct one.
-
It is a common practice by the CT community when they come across an anomaly or discrepancy to automatically assume it is evidence of a conspiracy instead asking themselves if there is a non-sinister explanation available. In just about every case there is as this incident reveals but the CTs thrive on assuming the most sinister explanation is the correct one.
it is common practice for nutters to explain these discrepancies away with lame excuses.
Thumb1: they just pile up. every one. every time.
-
it is common practice for nutters to explain these discrepancies away with lame excuses.
Thumb1: they just pile up. every one. every time.
What you call excuses is nothing more than applying critical thinking. Rather than assume every discrepancy is evidence of a conspiracy we ask ourselves whether there is a more mundane, less sinister explanation available. Invariably, there is one and it is the far more likely choice than the sinister one.
-
I went to the Navy's website to find the original article and this is what it had to say:
"They picked up the bullet off of the floor in the back of the car. Well, I
decided that this is something, you know, the third bullet has never been decided
about ever, apparently. So what I did was I decided there was only person still alive
from the original Warren Commission. I went through the entire Warren
Commission book. I've got the whole report of the Warren Commission as a matter
of fact. I went through the whole thing and there was nothing in it.
Now, at that particular time nobody said anything about this. And I know
what we did. We brought that in, I mean Chief Martinell and Chief Mills went to the
White House, went to the Queen Mary, got the stuff off of the floor in the back seat,
brought it back out to us and we gave that to Commander Humes at the time.
I don't know what happened to it, so I decided that what I would do is I
would write to President Ford, which I did. I wrote to President Ford and asked
him, this was this past summer. I asked him about, you know, did he know anything
about this particular bullet that was given to the autopsy surgeons and he wrote me
back a very nice letter, said, "No, he didn't know anything about it, had not heard
anything about it ever." Well, at that point then I began to look around for other
issues and I found that Senator Arlen Specter had been an Assistant Counsel to the
Warren Commission. "
Young wasn't specific about who the "They" were in the opening sentence but it only makes sense that "They" were the Secret Service. The Navy NCOs were sent to retrieve the bone fragments, not search the limo. The fragments apparently were place in and envelope which was later given to Humes. Young might have simply assumed the envelope also contained the bullet found on the floor of the limo. Nothing I have read indicates Young actually saw a bullet. As I observed earlier that it would make no sense that the Secret Service would turn over a whole bullet to the Navy NCOs while retaining the fragmented bullet. The only thing that makes sense is that the bullet Young had heard about and the fragmented bullet the Secret Service found were one and the same and that Young simply assumed the bullet was in the envelope. Misunderstandings such as this are the source for so many of the myths surrounding the JFKA.
Humes never said anything about receiving a bullet with the bone fragments and Young never said he saw a bullet so where is the evidence a bullet was received at Bethesda.
People who read the sources you are quoting are going to see how dishonestly you are portraying the evidence and how brazenly you are misrepresenting what Dr. Young said. You continue to just make up stuff, offer lame spins, dishonestly ignore key evidence, and then issue baseless, misleading conclusions about the evidence. Obviously, you still have not bothered to read the links provided in the OP, or the transcript of the 2001 interview, which is linked in two of the links.
Contrary to your falsehood, Dr. Young saw the bullet and even described what it looked like. He talked about this in the 2013 article, in his 2001 interview, and in his essay What Price a Rose?. Let's read some of what you dishonestly left out:
Question: So, the bullet, again, was a copper jacketed bullet like a military bullet?
Answer: No, it was a brass jacket. . . . I don’t know, maybe it was copper, I couldn’t tell. But it was that color or brass and it was slightly bent on the end. It was not a straight bullet. In other words, it had hit something and it bent. . . . and so I called Tom Mills and I said, “Tom do you recall this situation?’ He said, "Yes I do" and he said, "You’re exactly right." He said, "We did bring that slug out from the back. . . ." (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/bending-the-story-on-a-bent-bullet)
These statements are only two paragraphs below the paragraphs that you quote. Why did you omit them and then falsely claim that Dr. Young never saw the bullet?
Let's read more of what Dr. Young said that you omitted:
They went down, both Chiefs Mills and Martinell went down to the White House and then this I'm going to continue. [Quoting 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 a centimeter in diameter and distorted. These were found on the floor of the blood-spattered convertible. The convertible was splattered with considerable brain tissue. This also, I noted, on the back of the jacket of Agent Greer, the President's driver. (Transcript of 2001 interview, p. 51, https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Capt_James_Young_Interview.pdf)
Now, gee, why did you leave out these key statements as well? In the interview transcript, they come just two pages before the statements you quote. So you left out key statements that come two pages before and a few paragraphs after the statements you quote. Obviously, you were trying to mislead readers.
You want people to believe your lie that Young never saw the bullet, so you omitted the statements where he made it clear that he saw the bullet.
I notice you dropped all your nonsense about the limo having to be driven to Bethesda. I also notice you failed to acknowledge your gaffe of quoting the highly condensed version of the 2013 edited by Sobocinski, obviously not realizing that it contained excerpts from only three of the 12 pages of the 2013 article.
I also notice that you simply ignored the fact that Chief Mills confirmed to Navy historian Jan Herman that he and Chief Martinell found a bullet in the limo and that Dr. Young later called him to confirm his recollection.
If you had read Milicent Cranor's article on Dr. Young's account, you would know that she debunks your theory that Dr. Young was referring to "the fragmented bullet the Secret Service found." You're talking about the two bullet fragments that the Secret Service found in the front of the limo (near the front driver's seat), whereas Mills and Martinell found a deformed whole bullet in the rear of the limo.
Even your description is dishonest. The Secret Service did not find a "fragmented bullet," but only two fragments, part of a nose and part of a tail, that constituted less than half of a bullet. And, again, those two fragments were found at the opposite end of the limo from where Mills and Martinell found the misshapen bullet.
Moreover, the two fragments found in the front of the limo were never taken to the autopsy. They were handed over to the FBI and never got anywhere near Bethesda Naval Hospital. So, clearly, those two fragments had nothing to do with the deformed whole bullet that Mills and Martinell found in the rear of the limo and that Dr. Young saw with his own eyes.
Oh, gee, Humes never admitted that he received a deformed whole bullet along with the skull fragments! Gosh and golly! What a surprise! LOL! Humes also never admitted that he determined for an absolute fact during the autopsy that the back wound had no exit point, yet we now know that he did. Humes never admitted that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point, yet we now know that he did. Humes never admitted that he knew about the throat wound by no later than 10:30 PM at the autopsy, yet we now know that he did (partly thanks to Dr. Ebersole, the autopsy radiologist). Humes never admitted that he did two separate brain exams and excluded xxxx from the first one, yet we know that he did. Humes never admitted that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment, yet Dr. Boswell admitted this to the HSCA and the ARRB. Humes never admitted that he sawed open the top part of the skull, yet two autopsy witnesses, including one of the morticians, revealed that he did. Humes never explained why he said nothing about the brazenly obvious high fragment trail in the autopsy report. And on and on we could go.
Here were have a former Navy O-6, a former Navy chief, and a Navy historian confirming the finding of a misshapen bullet in the limo, along with some skull fragments, and you falsely pretend that Dr. Young's account is just a fanciful story floating around the internet.
This is yet another example of the refusal of WC apologists to acknowledge evidence that refutes their theory, no matter how credible and compelling the evidence is. Even though Young's account was vetted by a Navy historian and was deemed worthy of publication in an official Navy history, and even though Chief Mills confirmed the finding of the bullet and confirmed Young's later phone call to verify his recollection, you guys reject Young's account and offer lame excuses, demonstrably false claims, and misleading omissions to justify your rejection.
-
People who read the sources you are quoting are going to see how dishonestly you are portraying the evidence and how brazenly you are misrepresenting what Dr. Young said. You continue to just make up stuff, offer lame spins, dishonestly ignore key evidence, and then issue baseless, misleading conclusions about the evidence. Obviously, you still have not bothered to read the links provided in the OP, or the transcript of the 2001 interview, which is linked in two of the links.
Contrary to your falsehood, Dr. Young saw the bullet and even described what it looked like. He talked about this in the 2013 article, in his 2001 interview, and in his book What Price a Rose?. Let's read some of what you dishonestly left out:
Question: So, the bullet, again, was a copper jacketed bullet like a military bullet?
Answer: No, it was a brass jacket. . . . I don’t know, maybe it was copper, I couldn’t tell. But it was that color or brass and it was slightly bent on the end. It was not a straight bullet. In other words, it had hit something and it bent. . . . and so I called Tom Mills and I said, “Tom do you recall this situation?’ He said, "Yes I do" and he said, "You’re exactly right." He said, "We did bring that slug out from the back. . . ." (Transcript of 2001 interview, p. 54, https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Capt_James_Young_Interview.pdf; see also https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/bending-the-story-on-a-bent-bullet)
These statements are only two paragraphs below the paragraphs that you quote. Why did you omit them and then falsely claim that Dr. Young never saw the bullet?
Let's read more of what Dr. Young said that you omitted:
They went down, both Chiefs Mills and Martinell went down to the White House and then this I'm going to continue. [Quoting 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 a centimeter in diameter and distorted. These were found on the floor of the blood-spattered convertible. The convertible was splattered with considerable brain tissue. This also, I noted, on the back of the jacket of Agent Greer, the President's driver. (Transcript of 2001 interview, p. 51, https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Capt_James_Young_Interview.pdf)
Now, gee, why did you leave out these key statements as well? In the interview transcript, they come just two pages before the statements you quote. So you left out key statements that come two pages before and a few paragraphs after the statements you quote. Obviously, you were trying to mislead readers.
You want people to believe your lie that Young never saw the bullet, so you omitted the statements where he made it clear that he saw the bullet.
I notice you dropped all your nonsense about the limo having to be driven to Bethesda. I also notice you failed to acknowledge your gaffe of quoting the highly condensed version of the 2013 edited by Sobocinski, obviously not realizing that it contained excerpts from only three of the 12 pages of the 2013 article.
I also notice that you simply ignored the fact that Chief Mills confirmed to Navy historian Jan Herman that he and Chief Martinell found a bullet in the limo and that Dr. Young later called him to confirm his recollection.
If you had read Milicent Cranor's article on Dr. Young's account, you would know that she debunks your theory that Dr. Young was referring to "the fragmented bullet the Secret Service found." You're talking about the two bullet fragments that the Secret Service found in the front of the limo (near the front driver's seat), whereas Mills and Martinell found a deformed whole bullet in the rear of the limo.
Even your description is dishonest. The Secret Service did not find a "fragmented bullet," but only two fragments, part of a nose and part of a tail, that constituted less than half of a bullet. And, again, those two fragments were found at the opposite end of the limo from where Mills and Martinell found the misshapen bullet.
Moreover, the two fragments found in the front of the limo were never taken to the autopsy. They were handed over to the FBI and never got anywhere near Bethesda Naval Hospital. So, clearly, those two fragments had nothing to do with the deformed whole bullet that Mills and Martinell found in the rear of the limo and that Dr. Young saw with his own eyes.
Oh, gee, Humes never admitted that he received a deformed whole bullet along with the skull fragments! Gosh and golly! What a surprise! LOL! Humes also never admitted that he determined for an absolute fact during the autopsy that the back wound had no exit point, yet we now know that he did. Humes never admitted that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point, yet we now know that he did. Humes never admitted that he knew about the throat wound by no later than 10:30 PM at the autopsy, yet we now know that he did (partly thanks to Dr. Ebersole, the autopsy radiologist). Humes never admitted that he did two separate brain exams and excluded xxxx from the first one, yet we know that he did. Humes never admitted that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment, yet Dr. Boswell admitted this to the HSCA and the ARRB. Humes never admitted that he sawed open the top part of the skull, yet two autopsy witnesses, including one of the morticians, revealed that he did. Humes never explained why he said nothing about the brazenly obvious high fragment trail in the autopsy report. And on and on we could go.
Here were have a former Navy O-6, a former Navy chief, and a Navy historian confirming the finding of a misshapen bullet in the limo, along with some skull fragments, and you falsely pretend that Dr. Young's account is just a fanciful story floating around the internet.
This is yet another example of the refusal of WC apologists to acknowledge evidence that refutes their theory, no matter how credible and compelling the evidence is. Even though Young's account was vetted by a Navy historian and was deemed worthy of publication in an official Navy history, and even though Chief Mills confirmed the finding of the bullet and confirmed Young's later phone call to verify his recollection, you guys reject Young's account and offer lame excuses, demonstrably false claims, and misleading omissions to justify your rejection.
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.
-
As I've mentioned, one of the things that makes Dr. Young's account so compelling, aside from the fact that it was confirmed by Chief Mills, is that Young devoutly believed in the Warren Commission's (WC's) version of the shooting. Young was so trusting and naive about the WC that he called Arlen Specter to try to get answers about the deformed limo bullet!
Let us read Dr. Young's complete answer from the interview transcript when he was asked if the limo bullet was a copper-jacketed bullet, instead of the slightly edited answer that appears in Milicent Cranor's article:
Question: So the bullet, again, was a copper-jacketed bullet like a military bullet?
Answer: No, it was a brass jacket. That's what I've described it as, a brass-jacketed bullet. It didn't look like it. I don't know, maybe it's copper, I couldn't tell. But it was that color of brass and it was slightly bent on the end. It was not a straight bullet. In other words, it had hit something and it bent. . . . ("Oral History with CAPT (ret) James Morningstar Young, MC, USN," Interview 3, p. 54, emphasis added, https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Capt_James_Young_Interview.pdf)
Notice that Dr. Young said the bullet "didn't look like" a copper-jacketed bullet, so he obviously saw the bullet.
Notice that Dr. Young also said that he "couldn't tell" if "maybe" the bullet had a copper jacket, that it was "that color of brass," and that it was was "slightly bent on the end." These statements are further clear proof that he saw the bullet.
A note of clarification about the interview transcript: There were actually six interviews. They occurred on December 4, 7, and 17, 2001, and on January 7, 14, and 23, 2002. Interviews 1, 2, and 3 were the 2001 interviews. Interviews 4, 5, and 6 were the 2002 interviews. The interview transcript, produced by the U.S. Navy Medical Department Oral History Program, combines all six interviews into one 114-page transcript, although it identifies each interview by number.
Interview 3 was the interview in which Dr. Young made the above-quoted statements "it didn't look like it"; "maybe it's copper, I couldn't tell"; "it was slightly bent"; "it was not a straight bullet"; and "it had hit something."
The Office of Medical History's 12-page 2013 article was based on the 2001 interviews. It did not include the above-quoted paragraph, although it did include the statements that a deformed bullet was found in the back of the limo and that Dr. Young called Chief Mills to verify his recollection before sending Specter information on the bullet (“Navy Medicine and President Kennedy’s Autopsy: Recollections from a former White House Physician,” pp. 8, 10-11, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Navy_Medicine_and_President_Kennedy%E2%80%99s_Autopsy-_Recollections_from_a_former_White_House_Physician_(IA_NMAndTheKennedyAssassination).pdf).
The Office of Medical History's 2013 article is 12 pages long, but the three 2001 interviews occupy 55 pages in the Oral History Program's 114-page transcript. So the Office of Medical History's 12-page 2013 article is a markedly condensed version of what Dr. Young said in his three 2001 interviews, and the 11/21/2013 Navy Medicine article that Corbett blunderingly cited is a highly condensed version of the 12-page article.
It is worth noting that during the interviews, Dr. Young defended the WC's version of the shooting. For example:
Well, it's an interesting commentary and there's no question, well there's no question in my mind but the President was shot from behind. . . .
And, of course, the thing that I've said in here about Bill Greer, who was driving the Queen Mary was that [he] had brain tissue and blood spattered over his right posterior shoulder. Which, in my estimation could only have made that bullet come from behind, not from the grassy knoll, not from the side, not from the air or whatever. It had to come from behind and spray forward onto his right shoulder. ("Oral History with CAPT (ret) James Morningstar Young, MC, USN," Interview 3, pp. 54-55)
Dr. Young also criticized the conspiracy claim that JFK's body arrived in a body bag:
Doctor Humes, in his article that he wrote for JAMA back in '92 states clearly when the body was brought into the hospital it was not in a body bag, but it was draped in apparently a sheet or something. He said there was no body bag at all.
No problem then. I have no difficulty with that description whatsoever. ("Oral History with CAPT (ret) James Morningstar Young, MC, USN," Interview 3, p. 44)
I note these facts to show that Dr. Young was not some "conspiracy theorist" who was trying to take advantage of his status as an eyewitness at the autopsy to spin a tale to discredit the lone-gunman scenario.
The fact that Dr. Young was no naively trusting of the WC as to expect Arlen Specter to give him straight answers about the deformed limo bullet, not to mention that he defended the WC's version of the shooting and attacked a well-known conspiracy claim, shows that he is the textbook example of a hostile witness. This makes his account all the more credible and devastating.
-
As I've mentioned, one of the things that makes Dr. Young's account so compelling, aside from the fact that it was confirmed by Chief Mills,
Correction. Young claimed it was corroborated by Mills. There is no record of what Mills actually said.
is that Young devoutly believed in the Warren Commission's (WC's) version of the shooting. Young was so trusting and naive about the WC that he called Arlen Specter to try to get answers about the deformed limo bullet!
And Specter, like Ford, had no idea what he was talking about.
Let us read Dr. Young's complete answer from the interview transcript when he was asked if the limo bullet was a copper-jacketed bullet, instead of the slightly edited answer that appears in Milicent Cranor's article:
Question: So the bullet, again, was a copper-jacketed bullet like a military bullet?
Answer: No, it was a brass jacket. That's what I've described it as, a brass-jacketed bullet. It didn't look like it. I don't know, maybe it's copper, I couldn't tell. But it was that color of brass and it was slightly bent on the end. It was not a straight bullet. In other words, it had hit something and it bent. . . . ("Oral History with CAPT (ret) James Morningstar Young, MC, USN," Interview 3, p. 54, emphasis added, https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Capt_James_Young_Interview.pdf)
A perfect description of CE399.
Notice that Dr. Young said the bullet "didn't look like" a copper-jacketed bullet, so he obviously saw the bullet.
Notice that Dr. Young also said that he "couldn't tell" if "maybe" the bullet had a copper jacket, that it was "that color of brass," and that it was was "slightly bent on the end." These statements are further clear proof that he saw the bullet.
How is that proof. A 72 year old man's recollection of an event 38 years prior is hardly compelling proof.
A note of clarification about the interview transcript: There were actually six interviews. They occurred on December 4, 7, and 17, 2001, and on January 7, 14, and 23, 2002. Interviews 1, 2, and 3 were the 2001 interviews. Interviews 4, 5, and 6 were the 2002 interviews. The interview transcript, produced by the U.S. Navy Medical Department Oral History Program, combines all six interviews into one 114-page transcript, although it identifies each interview by number.
Interview 3 was the interview in which Dr. Young made the above-quoted statements "it didn't look like it"; "maybe it's copper, I couldn't tell"; "it was slightly bent"; "it was not a straight bullet"; and "it had hit something."
Which CE399 had done.
The Office of Medical History's 12-page 2013 article was based on the 2001 interviews. It did not include the above-quoted paragraph, although it did include the statements that a deformed bullet was found in the back of the limo and that Dr. Young called Chief Mills to verify his recollection before sending Specter information on the bullet (“Navy Medicine and President Kennedy’s Autopsy: Recollections from a former White House Physician,” pp. 8, 10-11, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Navy_Medicine_and_President_Kennedy%E2%80%99s_Autopsy-_Recollections_from_a_former_White_House_Physician_(IA_NMAndTheKennedyAssassination).pdf).
Again, the recollection is Young's version of what Mills said. No record of what Mills actually said.
The Office of Medical History's 2013 article is 12 pages long, but the three 2001 interviews occupy 55 pages in the Oral History Program's 114-page transcript. So the Office of Medical History's 12-page 2013 article is a markedly condensed version of what Dr. Young said in his three 2001 interviews, and the 11/21/2013 Navy Medicine article that Corbett blunderingly cited is a highly condensed version of the 12-page article.
Why is citing that source a blunder? I found a source and I quoted it verbatim.
It is worth noting that during the interviews, Dr. Young defended the WC's version of the shooting. For example:
Well, it's an interesting commentary and there's no question, well there's no question in my mind but the President was shot from behind. . . .
And, of course, the thing that I've said in here about Bill Greer, who was driving the Queen Mary was that [he] had brain tissue and blood spattered over his right posterior shoulder. Which, in my estimation could only have made that bullet come from behind, not from the grassy knoll, not from the side, not from the air or whatever. It had to come from behind and spray forward onto his right shoulder. ("Oral History with CAPT (ret) James Morningstar Young, MC, USN," Interview 3, pp. 54-55)
Dr. Young also criticized the conspiracy claim that JFK's body arrived in a body bag:
Doctor Humes, in his article that he wrote for JAMA back in '92 states clearly when the body was brought into the hospital it was not in a body bag, but it was draped in apparently a sheet or something. He said there was no body bag at all.
No problem then. I have no difficulty with that description whatsoever. ("Oral History with CAPT (ret) James Morningstar Young, MC, USN," Interview 3, p. 44)
I note these facts to show that Dr. Young was not some "conspiracy theorist" who was trying to take advantage of his status as an eyewitness at the autopsy to spin a tale to discredit the lone-gunman scenario.
The fact that Dr. Young was no naively trusting of the WC as to expect Arlen Specter to give him straight answers about the deformed limo bullet, not to mention that he defended the WC's version of the shooting and attacked a well-known conspiracy claim, shows that he is the textbook example of a hostile witness. This makes his account all the more credible and devastating.
Dr. Young's version of what happened demonstrates perfectly what I have consistently said about witnesses in general. They tend to get some things right and some things wrong. It's not an all or nothing proposition. There is no record of anybody, other than Young, saying a bullet that was recovered from the limo was delivered to Bethesda during the autopsy. Nothing to corroborate Young's memory of an event that had happened 38 years earlier. Humes, Boswell, and xxxx never mentioned such a bullet. There is no record of Mills saying that. Only Young claiming Mills had said that.
I found this excerpt from Boswell's ARRB testimony:
Q. Do you recall there being any requests being made by you or anyone else to other people who were there regarding shell fragments, bullets, anything else that would have been useful to see during the course of the autopsy?
A. I know there was discussion because there were some security people in the morgue and on the telephone--the telephone was on the wall right at the head of the morgue table where we were working. And I remember them telling us that a bullet had been found, that bone fragments had been found, and I believe that they were being transported to Washington separately. And the bone fragments eventually came into the morgue that night. The bullet may. I'm not sure about that.
Q. Do you remember seeing any bullets during the course of the autopsy?
Page 29
A. Fragments. In the autopsy we found very minute fragments, mostly on the X-rays.
This confirms my suspicion that the medical team at Bethesda had been told that a bullet and bone fragments had been found in the limo and they were being sent to Bethesda. This could well have planted the seed in Young's mind that they were receiving both a bullet and bone fragments. When asked directly if he had seen a bullet, he said he had only seen fragments of bullets.
-
As a follow up to my previous post regarding Boswell's ARRB testimony, I found this interesting passage from xxxx's ARRB testimony:
[16] Q: Would it be fair to say that medical/legal
[17] autopsies are performed in order to determine
[18] evidence that would be legally important?
[19] A: Yes. For example, if you perform an
[20] autopsy and you find a bullet, you turn that bullet
[21] over to the police for examination.
So if a medical examiner is supposed to turn over any bullets they find to the police, what sense would it have made for the Secret Service to turn a bullet over to the medical examiners? Shouldn't that have been turned over to the law enforcement agency investigating the crime which at the time was still the DPD.
I'd still like to hear a rational explanation for why the Secret Service would only turn over the whole bullet they found but not the fragmented bullet they found. Why turn over one and not the other? This leads me to believe the bullet they found that they told the Bethesda team about in the phone call was the fragmented bullet and that it was not in the envelope with the bone fragments that was sent to Bethesda.
-
Well then, it should be easy to find clarification in the official documents for such a major discrepancy.
Missile is a bullet, I'm not aware of any reference of other fragments found in this case called "missiles".
Even if "removed" Humes made no further reference to it, The document was hidden until 1972.
Find an official reference that missile means fragment would clarify it as not just another lame excuse
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.
-
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.
Well then, it should be easy to find clarification in the official documents for such a major discrepancy.
Missile is a bullet, I'm not aware of any reference of other fragments found in this case called "missiles".
Even if "removed" Humes made no further reference to it, The document was hidden until 1972.
Find an official reference that missile means fragment would clarify it as not just another lame excuse
-
Well then, it should be easy to find clarification in the official documents for such a major discrepancy.
Missile is a bullet, I'm not aware of any reference of other fragments found in this case called "missiles".
Even if "removed" Humes made no further reference to it, The document was hidden until 1972.
Find an official reference that missile means fragment would clarify it as not just another lame excuse
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.
-
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
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md69/pages/md69_0001a.gif)
-
Does nothing to clarify the receipt dated 11/22/63
lame with a bit of mumbo-jumbo on the side
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md69/pages/md69_0001a.gif)
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?
-
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.
Thumb1: I gotta go with a bullet was in the room, then it wasn't.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
muttering small talk at the wall.
::) nobody cares
I guess you speak for nobody.
-
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 write 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.
-
More absolute comedy consisting, as usual, of omissions, distortions, and falsehoods.
No, you really did use all those words that equate to MAYBE.
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.
Do you really think I have access to FBI documents?
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.
And once again you pretend to know what Siebert and O'Neill meant by the word missile. You asked me to show you and FBI document that referred to bullet fragments as missiles. Why don't you show me where either of those men said the missiles they referred to were whole bullets. If neither of us can produce the requested documentation, it remains an open question. But once again, you choose to assume what you cannot prove. SOP.
Osborne was interviewed by the HSCA. How did you miss this fact in my reply?
My online source did not show him as an HSCA witness. I'm not saying that is absolute proof. So if you know what Osborne testified to before the HSCA, why don't you tell us what he said. Did he say he and Siebert received whole bullets at the autopsy? I think I already know the answer to that.
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.
I wouldn't trust Lifton if he said water is wet.
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.
I know that they all agreed JFK was xxxx in the back of the head and that fits with the WC finding that Oswald fired the xxxx from the sniper's nest. None of them found any medical evidence of a frontal xxxx from either the GK or through the windshield which are things you have claimed.
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.
Tell us why it matters if they all agreed JFK was xxxx in the back of the head. You seem to have this idiotic belief that if the FPP placed the entry incorrectly, it negates the finding that JFK was xxxx in the back of the head. You fail to appreciate that the entire upper right side of JFK's skull was shattered and the autopsy team had peeled back the scalp during the autopsy. The FPP had to try to reconstruct JFK's 3D skull from 2D pictures and photos. Not something they would have done during an actual medico-legal autopsy. So if the didn't get the entry wound placed exactly right, it doesn't negate the finding that JFK was xxxx in the back of the head. We also have the findings of forensic neuropathologist Dr. Peter Cummings, who identified the entry point based on the radiating fracture lines from that point of entry. That also validates the finding the headshot struck JFK from behind. Now tell use what evidence any qualified forensic medical examiner has identified that indicates a frontal xxxx. Can't do it? Didn't think so.
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?
I knew Bob Artwohl from the Prodigy group we were both members of in the early 1990s. I remember that he started out as a CT but converted to being an ardent LN during the few years we were on that service. I haven't seen anything Bob has written in at least two decades but unless he has done a 180 on the subject, he still believes JFK was shot in the back of the head. Can you quote him ever saying otherwise.
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.
You seem at a loss to explain why the Secret Service would send the fragmented bullet to the FBI but send the whole bullet to the autopsy team. I've posed that question several times during this thread and you have dodged it each and every time. You claim it is a silly question because you can't come up with an answer to it that makes sense. There is no reason whatsoever for the Secret Service to send that bullet to Bethesda.
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?
I am not forced to accept your amateurish opinion about the brain photos. The exact placement of the entry wound is not the important question. What is important to identifying the shooter is to determine from where the xxxx was fired from. If the autopsy team placed the entry wound correctly and the FPP placed it wrong, the xxxx came from behind. If the autopsy team placed the wound wrong and the FPP got it right, the xxxx came from behind. Either way, it fits with the conclusion that Oswald fired the xxxx which is what matters to me. You on the other hand want an excuse to deny that the xxxx came from behind, which means all the medical examiners got it wrong and you got it right. That is less likely than I am going to win the next Powerball drawing.
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.
You still are hung up on the exact placement of the entry wound and not the direction the shot came from, which is what really matters.
-
And once again you pretend to know what Siebert and O'Neill meant by the word missile. You asked me to show you and FBI document that referred to bullet fragments as missiles. Why don't you show me where either of those men said the missiles they referred to were whole bullets. If neither of us can produce the requested documentation, it remains an open question. But once again, you choose to assume what you cannot prove. SOP.
You sound like a woke liberal who can't figure out what the word "woman" means.
In their six-page 11/26/1963 report on the autopsy, Sibert and O'Neill used the term "missile" to refer to bullets four times (pp. 3-4). Moreover, they distinguished between "missile/bullet" and bullet fragments:
The largest section of this missile as portrayed on x-ray appeared to be behind the right frontal sinus. The next largest fragment appeared to be at the rear of the skull. . . . (p. 3)
They identified the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm fragments as just that -- fragments:
. . . one fragment measuring 7 x 2 millimeters, which was removed from the right side of the brain. . . . An additional fragment of metal measuring 1 x 3 millimeters was also removed. . . . (p. 4)
In referring the back-wound bullet, they described it as a "missile":
This opening was probed by Dr. Humes. . . . the trajectory of the missile entering at this point. . . . the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance. (p. 4)
Gee, Sibert and O'Neill didn't seem to have any doubt or confusion about missiles vs. fragments in their report on the autopsy. So they certainly would not have referred to the two small fragments removed from the right orbit as a missile in their receipt to Captain Stover.
The word "missile" is commonly used as a synonym for "bullet" in forensic and investigative sources. For example:
-- In the HSCA FPP's report, the term "missile" is used to describe bullets 408 times, and the term "missile fragment" is used to describe bullet fragments 35 times (7 HSCA).
-- Chapter 3 of the Warren Report uses the term "missile" to refer to bullets 20 times.
-- During the WC hearing on May 6, 1964, the term "missile" was used to refer to bullets 15 times (14 times by Arlen Specter and one time by ballistics expert Dr. Alfred Olivier) (5 H 62-169).
-- During the WC hearings from March 21-25, 1964, the term "missile" was used to refer to bullets 158 times, variously by Specter, Dr. Carrico, Dr. Perry, Dr. Clark, Dr. McClelland, Dr. Baxter, Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Jones, Dr. Akin, Dr. Shaw, Dr. Gregory, Dr. Shires, (6 H 4-143).
-- In the JFK autopsy report, the term "missile" is used to refer to bullets six times.
My online source did not show him as an HSCA witness. I'm not saying that is absolute proof.
That should tell you something about your "online source."
So if you know what Osborne testified to before the HSCA, why don't you tell us what he said.
Oh my goodness. Once again we see that you have no business pretending to be any kind of a serious JFKA researcher. Osborne's HSCA interview is paraphrased and discussed in the FPP's report (7 HSCA 9, 10, 15-16). It has also been quoted and discussed in dozens of JFKA books.
Did he say he and Siebert received whole bullets at the autopsy? I think I already know the answer to that.
Oh, boy. For starters, you are confusing Captain Osborne with Captain Stover. The Sibert and O'Neill receipt was addressed to Captain Stover, not Captain Osborne.
As I've already pointed out to you, Stover said he saw a whole bullet, and he added that he recalled that the bullet was brought to the autopsy in an envelope, just as Dr. Young said it was.
Sibert and O'Neill acknowledged in their 11/22/63 receipt that they received a bullet ("missile") from Stover. As we see from Sibert and O'Neill's report on the autopsy, they knew the difference between a missile and fragments.
I wouldn't trust Lifton if he said water is wet.
LOL! Umm, so do you think Lifton faked all those recorded interviews? That the voices on the recordings are not the voices of the witnesses he interviewed?! Do you think the transcripts of Lifton's interviews published by the ARRB are all fake?!
I know that they all agreed JFK was xxxx in the back of the head and that fits with the WC finding that Oswald fired the xxxx from the sniper's nest. None of them found any medical evidence of a frontal xxxx from either the GK or through the windshield which are things you have claimed.
I've answered this silly dodge at least three times, but you just keep repeating it. You apparently just don't have the frontal-lobe capacity to grasp the obvious fact that a difference of 4 inches in a wound's location on the back of the head makes an enormous difference in the bullet's possible trajectories and potential origin.
And I again point out that one of the FPP members, Dr. Wecht, said there was evidence in the skull x-rays that was consistent with a frontal shot.
Tell us why it matters if they all agreed JFK was xxxx in the back of the head. You seem to have this idiotic belief that if the FPP placed the entry incorrectly, it negates the finding that JFK was xxxx in the back of the head. You fail to appreciate that the entire upper right side of JFK's skull was shattered and the autopsy team had peeled back the scalp during the autopsy.
The FPP had to try to reconstruct JFK's 3D skull from 2D pictures and photos. Not something they would have done during an actual medico-legal autopsy. So if the didn't get the entry wound placed exactly right, it doesn't negate the finding that JFK was shot in the back of the head.
The only thing that is "idiotic" is your brain-dead silliness that it makes no difference if the FPP was wrong about the rear head entry site. How can you not grasp the self-evident fact that a difference of 4 inches in a wound's location on the back of the head drastically changes the bullet's possible trajectories and potential origin?
Similarly, how can you not understand that if the cowlick site is invalid, which it demonstrably is, then that leaves only the EOP site, and that if the EOP site is correct, then the brain photos cannot possibly be authentic?
We also have the findings of forensic neuropathologist Dr. Peter Cummings, who identified the entry point based on the radiating fracture lines from that point of entry. That also validates the finding the headshot struck JFK from behind.
LOL! So now you're hitching your wagon to the cowlick site!
You obviously didn't realize that Cummings simply repeated the FPP's claim about the fracture lines as evidence of the cowlick site. Did it occur to you to ask yourself why Cummings didn't explain the fact that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex directly beneath the impact point of the cowlick site?
Did it occur to you to ask why Cummings didn't explain how in the world Humes, xxxx, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer could have mistaken a wound in the cowlick, i.e., a wound in a location in a different skull bone and above the obvious reference points of the lambda and the lambdoid suture, not to mention the EOP -- how they could have mistaken a wound in that location for a wound that was a whopping 4 inches lower, in the occipital bone, 1 cm above the EOP, and only about 1.5 inches above the hairline?
Sheesh, you must be kidding. A first-year med student would not make such an unbelievable blunder, much less three pathologists, a radiologist, and a chief autopsy photographer.
Now tell use what evidence any qualified forensic medical examiner has identified that indicates a frontal shot. Can't do it? Didn't think so.
This is another one of your disingenuous arguments that I've answered many times, but you just keep repeating it.
Of course, you now that a number of medical experts have identified evidence of a frontal shot in the autopsy materials, but you wave them aside because they are not medical examiners, never mind that they include a forensic anthropologist (Dr. Ubelaker), a neuroscientist (Dr. Riley), a diagnostic radiologist (Dr. Robertson), a neurologist (Dr. Chesser), two radiation oncologists (Dr. Mantik and Dr. Henkelmann, one of whom -- Dr. Mantik -- is also a physicist and licensed in radiology), a physiologist (BSc Kent), and a physicist (Dr. Snyder).
And, of course, you know that a number of experts, including forensic pathologists, have pointed out that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.
You further know that every single medical expert who has commented on the velocity of the ammo that hit JFK's head has said the skull damage incidates the ammo was traveling at a high velocity. These experts include the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission medical panel, the autopsy doctors themselves, the FPP, Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, Dr. DeSalles, Dr. Henkelmann, etc., etc. Ah, but the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle.
I knew Bob Artwohl from the Prodigy group we were both members of in the early 1990s. I remember that he started out as a CT but converted to being an ardent LN during the few years we were on that service. I haven't seen anything Bob has written in at least two decades but unless he has done a 180 on the subject, he still believes JFK was shot in the back of the head. Can you quote him ever saying otherwise.
This is childish. No one is denying that a bullet hit the back of the head, but it makes all the difference in the world where the bullet struck. If you lack the capacity to grasp that a difference of 4 inches in the location on the back of the head makes a huge difference in the bullet's possible trajectories and origin, you have no business posting in this forum.
Why do you suppose the WC had to assume that JFK was leaning nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet hit the back of the head? Why did they have to do that? As you surely must understand, they had to assume such a drastic forward lean because that was the only way they could get the EOP site to line up with a trajectory from the sixth-floor window.
I suspect you actually do understand these things but won't admit it because you know that admitting this would destroy your phony argument that the location of the entry site is not important.
Dr. Artwohl deserves great credit for being willing to admit that when he examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives, he confirmed Dr. Riley's observation that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex at the exact spot of the cowlick site. Dr. Mantik has likewise confirmed this.
Again, why do you suppose Dr. Cummings said nothing about this crucial fact? Huh? Probably because he knows nothing about it because he has done little research on the case and was basing his conclusion on a drive-by examination of the skull x-rays. This should tell you that forensic pathologists are not infallible, hey?
You seem at a loss to explain why the Secret Service would send the fragmented bullet to the FBI but send the whole bullet to the autopsy team. I've posed that question several times during this thread and you have dodged it each and every time. You claim it is a silly question because you can't come up with an answer to it that makes sense. There is no reason whatsoever for the Secret Service to send that bullet to Bethesda.
I've answered this silly question before by pointing out that it's based on your false, baseless assumption that the Secret Service sent the deformed limo bullet to the autopsy or even handled the deformed bullet before Humes received it.
You are still dancing and blundering around the fact that Dr. Young confirmed his recollection about the finding of the bullet with Chief Mills before sending material to Specter, that Chief Mills confirmed to Navy historian Jan Herman that he and Martinell found a bullet in the back of the limo and that Dr. Young called him to verify his recollection, and that Captain Stover said he recalled that the bullet he saw arrived to the autopsy in an envelope, just as Dr. Young said.
No one ever claimed that the Secret Service brought the bullet to the autopsy, much less that the Secret Service found a bullet in the limo. You've just made up this nonsense in order to avoid explaining the evidence for Dr. Young's account.
I am not forced to accept your amateurish opinion about the brain photos.
Let me repeat what I've told you before when you've floated this silly dodge: The FPP majority said 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, since the absence of such damage would be a physical impossibility if a bullet entered 1 cm above the EOP.
So we're not talking about my "amateurish opinion." According to the FPP's argument, if the brain photos are authentic, they absolutely refute the EOP site.
Here, too, I suspect that you actually understand this but just don't want to admit it because then you'd have to explain how a bullet entering at the EOP site could have missed tearing through the right occipital lobe and the cerebellum.
The exact placement of the entry wound is not the important question. What is important to identifying the shooter is to determine from where the shot was fired from. If the autopsy team placed the entry wound correctly and the FPP placed it wrong, the shot came from behind. If the autopsy team placed the wound wrong and the FPP got it right, the shot came from behind. Either way, it fits with the conclusion that Oswald fired the shot which is what matters to me.
I'll tell you what: Go talk with a high-school geometry teacher and ask them to explain why a difference of a 4 inches in a wound's location on the back of a human skull makes an enormous difference in the bullet's potential trajectories and origin.
I have a hard time believing that you don't understand this. This is not rocket science. But, on the off chance that you really don't understand this, go talk with a high-school geometry teacher.
You on the other hand want an excuse to deny that the shot came from behind, which means all the medical examiners got it wrong and you got it right. That is less likely than I am going to win the next Powerball drawing.
LOL! Uh, you're the one who's now saying that the autopsy pathologists who actually saw and handled the rear head entry wound committed the astonishing blunder of placing the wound 1 cm above the EOP in the occipital bone when it was supposedly 4 inches higher, in the parietal bone, above the lambda, 1.2 cm above the lambdoid suture!
Moreover, in claiming that the skull x-rays are unaltered, you're saying that the autopsy pathologists, along with the radiologist, mistook a fragment trail that was near the top of the head and whose highest point was near the rear of the head for a fragment trail that began 4 inches lower and whose highest point was at the very front of the skull!
Speaking of which, you still have not explained why the autopsy pathologists said nothing about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report or in their WC testimony.
You still are hung up on the exact placement of the entry wound and not the direction the shot came from, which is what really matters.
Again, I don't believe you are this clueless. Well, maybe you are, but I suspect you know better than this silly argument.
A shot to the head "from behind" could have come from a number of different shooting positions, which is why it is so vital to establish the location of the rear head entry wound. A shot from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building would have come "from behind." A shot from an upper or lower floor of the County Records Building would have come "from behind." A shot from a window in the western half of the TSBD's sixth floor would have come "from behind." A shot from a lower floor of the TSBD would have come "from behind."
So, obviously, knowing the location of the rear head entry wound is vital for determining from which position behind JFK the bullet could have been fired. It is a frivolous dodge to pretend that all that matters is that the bullet came from behind.
-
Well, it's an interesting commentary and there's no question, well there's no question in my mind but the President was shot from behind. . . .
And, of course, the thing that I've said in here about Bill Greer, who was driving the Queen Mary was that [he] had brain tissue and blood spattered over his right posterior shoulder. Which, in my estimation could only have made that bullet come from behind, not from the grassy knoll, not from the side, not from the air or whatever. It had to come from behind and spray forward onto his right shoulder. ("Oral History with CAPT (ret) James Morningstar Young, MC, USN," Interview 3, pp. 54-55)
Just so no one is confused: SA Sam Kinney was driving the Queen Mary. SA William Greer was driving the President's car. There were no bullets or bullet fragments found in the Queen Mary.
-
Just so no one is confused: SA Sam Kinney was driving the Queen Mary. SA William Greer was driving the President's car. There were no bullets or bullet fragments found in the Queen Mary.
Yes, Dr. Young was mistaken about the nickname of JFK's limo, probably because the nickname "Queen Mary" was the nickname of the limos used by the previous three presidents (Ike, Truman, and FDR). An innocent, meaningless mistake.
You're not suggesting that because Dr. Young used the wrong nickname to refer to JFK's limo that this somehow invalidates his account, are you?
-
Yes, Dr. Young was mistaken about the nickname of JFK's limo, probably because the nickname "Queen Mary" was the nickname of the limos used by the previous three presidents (Ike, Truman, and FDR). An innocent, meaningless mistake.
You're not suggesting that because Dr. Young used the wrong nickname to refer to JFK's limo that this somehow invalidates his account, are you?
Since none of it appears to be based on first-hand knowledge and none is corroborated by other independent evidence, I am not sure what his account is or what could conceivably validate his account.
-
You sound like a woke liberal who can't figure out what the word "woman" means.
We can add this one to the long list of assumptions you have made which are dead wrong.
In their six-page 11/26/1963 report on the autopsy, Sibert and O'Neill used the term "missile" to refer to bullets four times (pp. 3-4). Moreover, they distinguished between "missile/bullet" and bullet fragments:
So now you think Siebert and O'Neill were qualified radiologists.
The largest section of this missile as portrayed on x-ray appeared to be behind the right frontal sinus. The next largest fragment appeared to be at the rear of the skull. . . . (p. 3)
He is using the terms section of a missile and fragments interchangeably.
They identified the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm fragments as just that -- fragments:
Damn, your reading comprehension is bad. He referred to the 7x2mm object as a "section of a missile" and the 3x1mm object as a "fragment". In truth they were both fragments. It's kind of like calling JFK's vehicle a limo in one sentence and a car in another. Both are correct.
. . . one fragment measuring 7 x 2 millimeters, which was removed from the right side of the brain. . . .
Ya, that's the one he called a section of a missile.
An additional fragment of metal measuring 1 x 3 millimeters was also removed. . . . (p. 4)[/font]
Ya that's the smaller of the two objects.
In referring the back-wound bullet, they described it as a "missile":
Yes, they did. Now tell us where they referred to any of the metallic objects found during the autopsy as bullets. [/quote]
This opening was probed by Dr. Humes. . . . the trajectory of the missile entering at this point. . . . the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance. (p. 4) [/quote]
An erroneous assessment of the wound. In fact, it was the probe that only penetrated a short distance. It would be preposterous to believe a bullet would only penetrate a few inches into JFK's back. Even low velocity handgun ammo has far more penetrating power than that. For example, the .38 Special round Ruby fired into the right side of Oswald's ammo ended up bulging out the skin on his left side without breaking the skin, shredding the organs in between leading to Oswald's demise. You pretend to be an expert on all things related to the JFKA and yet you seem baffled by this simple concept.
Gee, Sibert and O'Neill didn't seem to have any doubt or confusion about missiles vs. fragments in their report on the autopsy. So they certainly would not have referred to the two small fragments removed from the right orbit as a missile in their receipt to Captain Stover.
The word "missile" is commonly used as a synonym for "bullet" in forensic and investigative sources. For example:
-- In the HSCA FPP's report, the term "missile" is used to describe bullets 408 times, and the term "missile fragment" is used to describe bullet fragments 35 times (7 HSCA).
-- Chapter 3 of the Warren Report uses the term "missile" to refer to bullets 20 times.
-- During the WC hearing on May 6, 1964, the term "missile" was used to refer to bullets 15 times (14 times by Arlen Specter and one time by ballistics expert Dr. Alfred Olivier) (5 H 62-169).
-- During the WC hearings from March 21-25, 1964, the term "missile" was used to refer to bullets 158 times, variously by Specter, Dr. Carrico, Dr. Perry, Dr. Clark, Dr. McClelland, Dr. Baxter, Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Jones, Dr. Akin, Dr. Shaw, Dr. Gregory, Dr. Shires, (6 H 4-143).
-- In the JFK autopsy report, the term "missile" is used to refer to bullets six times.
At no time during the autopsy does their report indicate a whole bullet was found. Using the quotes you supplied, they mention two fragments were found. Their receipt indicated they received two missiles. For your argument that the term missile was only used in reference to whole bullets, we would have to believe that both two fragments and two whole bullets were found during the autopsy but Siebert and O'Neill only took possession of the whole bullets. Why wouldn't they have taken possession of both fragments and whole bullets. What do you suppose the autopsy team did with the fragments if they were not given to Siebert and O'Neill?
That should tell you something about your "online source."
Oh my goodness. Once again we see that you have no business pretending to be any kind of a serious JFKA researcher. Osborne's HSCA interview is paraphrased and discussed in the FPP's report (7 HSCA 9, 10, 15-16). It has also been quoted and discussed in dozens of JFKA books.
You apparently believe everything you read in these JFKA books. You seem to have no filterl
Oh, boy. For starters, you are confusing Captain Osborne with Captain Stover. The Sibert and O'Neill receipt was addressed to Captain Stover, not Captain Osborne.
It would probably be fascinating to know how you arrived at that conclusion based on what I wrote. It wouldn't make sense, but would still probably be fascinating.
As I've already pointed out to you, Stover said he saw a whole bullet, and he added that he recalled that the bullet was brought to the autopsy in an envelope, just as Dr. Young said it was.
Please cite your source for that quote.
Sibert and O'Neill acknowledged in their 11/22/63 receipt that they received a bullet ("missile") from Stover. As we see from Sibert and O'Neill's report on the autopsy, they knew the difference between a missile and fragments.
The receipt does not say bullet, much as you wish it did. It used the term "missiles" and there were two of them, the same number of fragments found at autopsy.
LOL! Umm, so do you think Lifton faked all those recorded interviews?
Based on all the other BS: he made up, why wouldn't he have lied about the interviews too?
That the voices on the recordings are not the voices of the witnesses he interviewed?! Do you think the transcripts of Lifton's interviews published by the ARRB are all fake?!
Lifton was a proven liar. The stuff he made up is so fantastic that only a fool would believe him. Do you believe JFK's body was snatched and clandestine surgery was performed on it prior to it being delivered to Bethesda?
I've answered this silly dodge at least three times, but you just keep repeating it. You apparently just don't have the frontal-lobe capacity to grasp the obvious fact that a difference of 4 inches in a wound's location on the back of the head makes an enormous difference in the bullet's possible trajectories and potential origin.
You win the Anthony Marsh Award for this comment. Whenever he was faced with a question he didn't want to or couldn't answer, he would fall back on the "I've already answered that" dodge. Then he would follow it up with "Learn to google".
And I again point out that one of the FPP members, Dr. Wecht, said there was evidence in the skull x-rays that was consistent with a frontal shot.
I don't suppose you can provide a quote for that. Wecht based his opinion of a frontal shot on the Z-film which showed JFK falling backward following the headshot which is no indication of which way the bullet was traveling that struck JFK in the head. It is a myth that bullets can throw bodies around like they are ragdolls. A bullet has far too little mass to move an adult human any significant distance. The Z-film did indicate JFK's head moved forward a few inches when the bullet struck. Wecht agreed with the finding that a bullet had struck JFK in the back of the head. That was obvious to anyone trained in forensic pathology. At the mock trial in London he tried to claim that a near simultaneous shot hit JFK in the front of the head and Bugliosi made him look silly. If Wecht was right, that would pretty much shoot the acoustic evidence which didn't indicate a simultaneous
shot from the GK.
The only thing that is "idiotic" is your brain-dead silliness that it makes no difference if the FPP was wrong about the rear head entry site. How can you not grasp the self-evident fact that a difference of 4 inches in a wound's location on the back of the head drastically changes the bullet's possible trajectories and potential origin?
If doesn't make a difference to the important question which is where was the headshot fired from. The angular difference for shots at the two possible entry points would be negligible. Both are compatible with the head shot coming from the sniper's nest.
Similarly, how can you not understand that if the cowlick site is invalid, which it demonstrably is, then that leaves only the EOP site, and that if the EOP site is correct, then the brain photos cannot possibly be authentic?
You are the only one I've seen argue that the brain phots are incompatible with an EOP entry. I don't doubt that you might have located a ophthalmologist somewhere who shares that opinion.
LOL! So now you're hitching your wagon to the cowlick site!
I haven't hitched my wagon to either site. We have two groups of medical examiners who have issued different opinions on precisely where on the head the bullet struck JFK. How am I supposed to determine which of those groups is correct, having only seen a few copies of photos and x-rays and even if I had seen all the photos any x-rays, I wouldn't be able to make an informed judgement about them. Unlike you, I'm smart enough to know what I don't know and I don't try to substitute my opinion for that of people who have seen far more than I have and are far more qualified than I am to make such judgements. You, on the other hand, continue to delude yourself into believing that your opinions of the medical evidence have any validity.
You obviously didn't realize that Cummings simply repeated the FPP's claim about the fracture lines as evidence of the cowlick site. Did it occur to you to ask yourself why Cummings didn't explain the fact that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex directly beneath the impact point of the cowlick site?
Did it occur to you to ask why Cummings didn't explain how in the world Humes, xxxx, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer could have mistaken a wound in the cowlick, i.e., a wound in a location in a different skull bone and above the obvious reference points of the lambda and the lambdoid suture, not to mention the EOP -- how they could have mistaken a wound in that location for a wound that was a whopping 4 inches lower, in the occipital bone, 1 cm above the EOP, and only about 1.5 inches above the hairline?
Of course that didn't occur to me because I have no expertise in forensic medicine. Neither do you but at least I know that. That's why I choose to believe the people who know what they are talking about and you continue to pretend you are one of those people.
Sheesh, you must be kidding. A first-year med student would not make such an unbelievable blunder, much less three pathologists, a radiologist, and a chief autopsy photographer.
Even a first year med student knows far more than you do.
This is another one of your disingenuous arguments that I've answered many times, but you just keep repeating it.
I'm sorry, but you aren't eligible to win a second Anthony Marsh Award.
Of course, you now that a number of medical experts have identified evidence of a frontal shot in the autopsy materials, but you wave them aside because they are not medical examiners, never mind that they include a forensic anthropologist (Dr. Ubelaker), a neuroscientist (Dr. Riley), a diagnostic radiologist (Dr. Robertson), a neurologist (Dr. Chesser), two radiation oncologists (Dr. Mantik and Dr. Henkelmann, one of whom -- Dr. Mantik -- is also a physicist and licensed in radiology), a physiologist (BSc Kent), and a physicist (Dr. Snyder).
Which of these guys had training and experience in the field of forensic pathology? When your car breaks down, do you call a plumber?
And, of course, you know that a number of experts, including forensic pathologists, have pointed out that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.
That's an amazing statement given that two of the fragments found on the floor of the limo were positively matched to Oswald's rifle. How do you suppose that happened?
You further know that every single medical expert who hascommented on the velocity of the ammo that hit JFK's head has said the skull damage incidates the ammo was traveling at a high velocity. These experts include the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission medical panel, the autopsy doctors themselves, the FPP, Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, Dr. DeSalles, Dr. Henkelmann, etc., etc. Ah, but the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle.
Here's where I could act like you and make an issue of all the typos you have made in the above paragraph but I'm not that anal.
As for your comment, define what these sources considered high velocity. Without such a definition of what constitutes high velocity, the comment is meaningless.
This is childish. No one is denying that a bullet hit te back of the head, but it makes all the difference in the world where the bullet struck. If you lack the capacity to grasp that a difference of 4 inches in the location on the back of the head makes a huge difference in the bullet's possible trajectories and origin, you have no business posting in this forum.
Explain how moving the entry point 4 inches would change where the shot was fired from.
Why do you suppose the WC had to assume that JFK was leaning nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet hit the back of the head?
Did they assume that? I must have missed that conclusion. The Z-film does show JFK was leaning forward and to his left when the bullet struck his head, but I never bothered to measure it.
Why did they have to do that?
First tell me where the WCR says that.
As you surely must understand, they had to assume such a drastic forward lean because that was the only way they could get the EOP site to line up with a trajectory from the sixth-floor window.
I'll wait for your cite of the WCR that backs up what you claim it says.
I suspect you actually do understand these things but won't admit it because you know that admitting this would destroy your phony argument that the location of the entry site is not important.
The precise entry point is not necessary to determine where the shot was fired from. It's enough to know that the bullet struck the back of his head, which you have acknowledged it did.
Dr. Artwohl deserves great credit for being willing to admit that when he examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives, he confirmed Dr. Riley's observation that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex at the exact spot of the cowlick site. Dr. Mantik has likewise confirmed this.
Goody.
Again, why do you suppose Dr. Cummings said nothing about this crucial fact? Huh? Probably because he knows nothing about it because he has done little research on the case and was basing his conclusion on a drive-by examination of the skull x-rays. This should tell you that forensic pathologists are not infallible, hey?
Why would I be so pretentious as to speak for Dr. Cummings?
I've answered this silly question before by pointing out that it's based on your false, baseless assumption that the Secret Service sent the deformed limo bullet to the autopsy or even handled the deformed bullet before Humes received it.
I don't recall saying that. I don't recall even thinking that. You must be confused. I have never taken the position that the Secret Service sent any bullet to Bethesda, deformed or otherwise. I have simply asked you a critical question which you seem to have no answer for.
For the record, this was the final sentence of my comment:
"There is no reason whatsoever for the Secret Service to send that bullet to Bethesda."
You are still dancing and blundering around the fact that Dr. Young confirmed his recollection about the finding of the bullet with Chief Mills before sending material to Specter, that Chief Mills confirmed to Navy historian Jan Herman that he and Martinell found a bullet in the back of the limo and that Dr. Young called him to verify his recollection, and that Captain Stover said he recalled that the bullet he saw arrived to the autopsy in an envelope, just as Dr. Young said.
You apparently think that a 38 year old memory is a reliable indicator of what actually happened?
No one ever claimed that the Secret Service brought the bullet to the autopsy, much less that the Secret Service found a bullet in the limo. You've just made up this nonsense in order to avoid explaining the evidence for Dr. Young's account.
Of course they didn't bring a bullet to the autopsy. There would be no reason for them to do that. You are the one who has claimed the bullet(s) found by the Secret Service in the limo were delivered to Bethesda. You seem to have no explanation for why they would have done that.
Let me repeat what I've told you before when you've floated this silly dodge: The FPP majority said 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, since the absence of such damage would be a physical impossibility if a bullet entered 1 cm above the EOP.
I have no reason to explain your amateurish analysis of the medical evidence.
So we're not talking about my "amateurish opinion."
We aren't, but I am.
According to the FPP's argument, if the brain photos are authentic, they absolutely refute the EOP site.
Thank you once again for your amateurish opinion.
Here, too, I suspect that you actually understand this but just don't want to admit it because then you'd have to explain how a bullet entering at the EOP site could have missed tearing through the right occipital lobe and the cerebellum.
Very little of what I've read of your writings the past 35 years has made any sense to me.
I'll tell you what: Go talk with a high-school geometry teacher and ask them to explain why a difference of a 4 inches in a wound's location on the back of a human skull makes an enormous difference in the bullet's potential trajectories and origin.
Either placement of the entry wound is compatible with the shot having been fired from the 6th floor sniper's nest.
I have a hard time believing that you don't understand this. This is not rocket science. But, on the off chance that you really don't understand this, go talk with a high-school geometry teacher.
i don't need to talk to a high school geometry teacher to know that moving the entry wound 4 inches is going to have a negligible effect on the downward angle of a shot from the sniper's nest. Just how much do you think that would change the angle of a shot from 88 yards away?
LOL! Uh, you're the one who's now saying that the autopsy pathologists who actually saw and handled the rear head entry wound committed the astonishing blunder of placing the wound 1 cm above the EOP in the occipital bone when it was supposedly 4 inches higher, in the parietal bone, above the lambda, 1.2 cm above the lambdoid suture!
You continue to pretend I have stated which placement of the entry wound I think was correct. My position on the exact point of entry is I don't know and I don't care. Neither placement of the entry wound negates the fact the shot was fired from the sniper's nest which is where all the forensic evidence indicates it was fired from.
Moreover, in claiming that the skull x-rays are unaltered, you're saying that the autopsy pathologists, along with the radiologist, mistook a fragment trail that was near the top of the head and whose highest point was near the rear of the head for a fragment trail that began 4 inches lower and whose highest point was at the very front of the skull!
You don't get to tell me what I'm saying. I speak for myself.
Speaking of which, you still have not explained why the autopsy pathologists said nothing about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report or in their WC testimony.
Why would I even try to explain that. Do you think I can read their minds?
Again, I don't believe you are this clueless.
Well, maybe you are, but I suspect you know better than this silly argument.
It gives me a great deal of comfort that you think that. I would worry if you ever agreed with me.
A shot to the head "from behind" could have come from a number of different shooting positions, which is why it is so vital to establish the location of the rear head entry wound. A shot from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building would have come "from behind." A shot from an upper or lower floor of the County Records Building would have come "from behind." A shot from a window in the western half of the TSBD's sixth floor would have come "from behind." A shot from a lower floor of the TSBD would have come "from behind."
You seem to be overlooking one important detail. There is no evidence of a shot from any of those locations you mentioned. ALL the physical evidence points to the 6th floor sniper's nest.
So, obviously, knowing the location of the rear head entry wound is vital for determining from which position behind JFK the bullet could have been fired. It is a frivolous dodge to pretend that all that matters is that the bullet came from behind.
The physical evidence alone tells use where the shot originated from. You spend all your efforts inventing excuses not to believe what that physical evidence tells us.
-
(a) = one (singular)
no mention of fragment(s)
22 November 1963
From: Francis X. O’Neill, Jr., Agent FBI
James W. Sibert, Agent, FBI
To: Captain J.H. Stover, Jr., Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Medical School, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
1. We hereby acknowledge receipt of a missile [sic] recoved by Commander James J. Humes, MC, USN on this date.
(signed)
Francis X. O’Neill, Jr.
(signed)
James W. Sibert
-
(a) = one (singular)
no mention of fragment(s)
The receipt says the missile was removed by Humes so it was not a bullet the Secret Service had recovered from the limo.
The premise of this thread was that the Secret Service had sent a bullet to Bethesda along with the bone fragments. The receipt does nothing to support that premise.
-
It could mean; removed, received or recovered
::) It does not say "removed"
-
The receipt says the missile was removed by Humes so it was not a bullet the Secret Service had recovered from the limo.
The premise of this thread was that the Secret Service had sent a bullet to Bethesda along with the bone fragments. The receipt does nothing to support that premise.
Whaaaat?! LOL! Are you actually illiterate? Where in the world do you get the silly idea that the premise of this thread is that the Secret Service sent a bullet to Bethesda? Where? This is just some nonsense that you've made up, and now you're pretending that I've said this!
The premise of this thread, which you surely must already know (unless you're illiterate), is that two Navy chiefs, Mills and Martinell, found a deformed bullet and some skull fragments in JFK's limo at the White House garage, that they gave the bullet and skull fragments to Dr. Young in an envelope, that Dr. Young examined the bullet and the skull fragments, and that Dr. Young then handed the envelope to Dr. Humes.
You fail to appreciate that the entire upper right side of JFK's skull was shattered and the autopsy team had peeled back the scalp during the autopsy.
This dubious, comical dodge deserves further comment. You have floated this argument at least twice before, and I refuted it both times. Yet, here you are repeating it again and saying nothing about the contrary facts that I presented to you. You want readers to believe that it would be understandable if the autopsy doctors egregiously mislocated the entry wound because the skull was so badly damaged and because they peeled back the scalp during the autopsy.
Some points in reply (again):
-- The FPP majority, whom you cite as the final and unquestionable authority only when it suits you, said there was no bone whatsoever missing from the occipital bone. As I've pointed out to you several times in other threads, the FPP's diagrams of the head wound show no skull fragments missing from the occipital bone. Thus, the autopsy doctors would have had no problem whatsoever in seeing, examining, and measuring the entry wound in the occiput.
-- The fact that the autopsy pathologists reflected the scalp ("peeled back the scalp") makes it all the more absurd to claim that they could have confused a wound 1 cm above the EOP in the occipital bone for a wound 4 inches higher above the lambda and the lambdoid suture and to the right of the sagittal suture in the parietal bone. That would be as unbelievable and impossible a mistake as describing a wound in the middle of the wrist as a wound in the middle knuckle.
-- Dr. xxxx, the forensic pathologist at the autopsy, explained that he examined both sides of the rear head entry wound after the scalp was reflected, and that he had photos taken of the interior side of the wound. (BTW, why do you suppose those photos never made it into the official set of autopsy photos?)
Here's what xxxx said at the 1969 Clay Shaw trial when he was challenged by Assistant DA Al Oser with the Clark Panel's claim that the rear head entry wound was actually 10 cm (100 mm) higher than where the autopsy doctors placed it:
I saw that wound of entry in the back of the head at approximately 1 inch or 25 millimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance, and it was definitely not 4 inches or 100 millimeters above it. (Transcript, State of Louisiana vs. Clay Shaw, February 29, 1969, https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm)
-- Dr. Boswell, one of the autopsy doctors and the head of the pathology department at Bethesda, explained to the HSCA and the ARRB that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in one of the late-arriving skull fragments. And, Dr. Ebersole, the autopsy radiologist, disclosed to the HSCA that one of those skull fragments was a large fragment of occipital bone.
-- Dr. Humes, the chief autopsy doctor, was the head of anatomic pathology at Bethesda. He, of all people, would not have confused a wound 1 cm above the EOP in the occipital bone for a wound above the lambda and the lambdoid suture and to the right of the sagittal suture in the parietal bone, especially with the scalp reflected. The EOP, the lambdoid suture, and the sagittal suture are impossible to miss on a human skull.
-- Six witnesses who saw JFK's head wounds up close said the rear head entry wound was near the EOP and/or the hairline (the EOP was about 1 inch above JFK's hairline). They were Roy Kellerman (SS agent who viewed the body in the morgue after the autopsy), Francis O'Neill (one of the two FBI agents at the autopsy), John Stringer (chief autopsy photographer), Floyd Riebe (assistant autopsy photographer), Dr. James Young (who witnessed most of the autopsy), and Richard Lipsey (an Army officer ordered to observe the autopsy).
Stringer's placement of the wound is especially important because he was in charge of photographing the wound. In his ARRB testimony, Stringer adamantly rejected the claim that the wound was at the cowlick site. He practically scoffed at the claim. Similarly, Stringer's assistant, Riebe, agreed that the entry wound was in the "right posterior occipital region."
-- There were four obvious reference points on the skull and one on the head that the autopsy doctors had available to help them locate and describe the entry wound: the EOP, the lambda, the lambdoid suture, the sagittal suture on the skull, and the hairline on the head. The lambdoid suture is plainly visible and is a clear boundary on the skull that separates the occipital bone from the parietal bone. The sagittal suture is equally obvious, and it stops at the lambda, i.e., at the top of the occiput.
Given these obvious reference points, it boggles the mind to try to imagine how three pathologists, one of them a forensic pathologist and one of them an anatomic pathologist, could have examined and measured a wound that was supposedly above the lambda, above the lambdoid suture, and to the right of the sagittal suture in the parietal bone and then could have somehow imagined that the wound was actually 4 inches lower, below the lambda, below the lambdoid suture, below the sagittal suture, and just slightly above the EOP in the occipital bone. No way.
-- If you believe the autopsy photos are authentic, then you must believe that there were no skull fragments missing from the occipital bone and no visible damage to the entire area of the back of the head. Thus, the autopsy doctors would have had no trouble whatsoever in detecting and examining the rear head entry wound.
Of course, literally dozens of witnesses said there was an obvious hole in the back of the head that included a sizable part of the right occipital bone and a sizable part of the rear section of the parietal bone. Some of these witnesses were the two Parkland nurses who cleaned the large head wound, packed it with gauze, and wrapped a sheet around it; the Parkland neurosurgeon, Dr. Kemp Clark, who examined the wound; Clint Hill, who observed the wound up close for several minutes on the way to Parkland and then saw the wound again when he came to the morgue for the express purpose of recording JFK's wounds; the two FBI agents at the autopsy; Floyd Riebe, the assistant autopsy photographer; and the three morticians who reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy.
If the entry wound was slightly above and to the right of the EOP, the autopsy brain photos are undeniably fraudulent. Any bullet entering at the EOP site could not possibly have avoided tearing through the right occipital lobe and at least damaging the cerebellum, as the HSCA FPP correctly and emphatically pointed out. Yet, the brain photos show no damage whatsoever to the right occipital lobe or the cerebellum.
-
Whaaaat?! LOL! Are you actually illiterate? Where in the world do you get the silly idea that the premise of this thread is that the Secret Service sent a bullet to Bethesda? Where? This is just some nonsense that you've made up, and now you're pretending that I've said this!
I got that from you. The premise of this thread which you spelled out in the OP is that Dr. Young received an envelope containing a bullet that had been found on the floor of the limo. If the Secret Service didn't send it to Bethesda, how did it get there? Did it just miracle its way over there?
The premise of this thread, which you surely must already know (unless you're illiterate), is that two Navy chiefs, Mills and Martinell, found a deformed bullet and some skull fragments in JFK's limo at the White House garage, that they gave the bullet and skull fragments to Dr. Young in an envelope, that Dr. Young examined the bullet and the skull fragments, and that Dr. Young then handed the envelope to Dr. Humes.
That's even sillier. The Secret Service had possession of the car and they were searching it for evidence. Do you really think they would let two Navy non-coms have access to the car. It seems you have embellished this story quite a bit. Cite your source that says these two NCOs were the ones who searched the limo and found the bullet and bone fragments. I'm betting right now that if you do actually cite a source, what it says is nowhere close to what you have claimed.
This dubious, comical dodge deserves further comment. You have floated this argument at least twice before, and I refuted it both times.
You haven't refuted jack. You spew BS: and claim it is a refutation.
Yet, here you are repeating it again and saying nothing about the contrary facts that I presented to you.
You don't report facts. You present unconfirmed rumors or your FUBAR interpretations of what other people have said. Your postings are a bad joke that don't amount to anything.
You want readers to believe that it would be understandable if the autopsy doctors egregiously mislocated the entry wound because the skull was so badly damaged and because they peeled back the scalp during the autopsy.
Some points in reply (again):
-- The FPP majority, whom you cite as the final and unquestionable authority only when it suits you, said there was no bone whatsoever missing from the occipital bone. As I've pointed out to you several times in other threads, the FPP's diagrams of the head wound show no skull fragments missing from the occipital bone. Thus, the autopsy doctors would have had no problem whatsoever in seeing, examining, and measuring the entry wound in the occiput.
-- The fact that the autopsy pathologists reflected the scalp ("peeled back the scalp") makes it all the more absurd to claim that they could have confused a wound 1 cm above the EOP in the occipital bone for a wound 4 inches higher above the lambda and the lambdoid suture and to the right of the sagittal suture in the parietal bone. That would be as unbelievable and impossible a mistake as describing a wound in the middle of the wrist as a wound in the middle knuckle.
-- Dr. xxxx, the forensic pathologist at the autopsy, explained that he examined both sides of the rear head entry wound after the scalp was reflected, and that he had photos taken of the interior side of the wound. (BTW, why do you suppose those photos never made it into the official set of autopsy photos?)
Here's what xxxx said at the 1969 Clay Shaw trial when he was challenged by Assistant DA Al Oser with the Clark Panel's claim that the rear head entry wound was actually 10 cm (100 mm) higher than where the autopsy doctors placed it:
I saw that wound of entry in the back of the head at approximately 1 inch or 25 millimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance, and it was definitely not 4 inches or 100 millimeters above it. (Transcript, State of Louisiana vs. Clay Shaw, February 29, 1969, https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm)
-- Dr. Boswell, one of the autopsy doctors and the head of the pathology department at Bethesda, explained to the HSCA and the ARRB that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in one of the late-arriving skull fragments. And, Dr. Ebersole, the autopsy radiologist, disclosed to the HSCA that one of those skull fragments was a large fragment of occipital bone.
-- Dr. Humes, the chief autopsy doctor, was the head of anatomic pathology at Bethesda. He, of all people, would not have confused a wound 1 cm above the EOP in the occipital bone for a wound above the lambda and the lambdoid suture and to the right of the sagittal suture in the parietal bone, especially with the scalp reflected. The EOP, the lambdoid suture, and the sagittal suture are impossible to miss on a human skull.
-- Six witnesses who saw JFK's head wounds up close said the rear head entry wound was near the EOP and/or the hairline (the EOP was about 1 inch above JFK's hairline). They were Roy Kellerman (SS agent who viewed the body in the morgue after the autopsy), Francis O'Neill (one of the two FBI agents at the autopsy), John Stringer (chief autopsy photographer), Floyd Riebe (assistant autopsy photographer), Dr. James Young (who witnessed most of the autopsy), and Richard Lipsey (an Army officer ordered to observe the autopsy).
Stringer's placement of the wound is especially important because he was in charge of photographing the wound. In his ARRB testimony, Stringer adamantly rejected the claim that the wound was at the cowlick site. He practically scoffed at the claim. Similarly, Stringer's assistant, Riebe, agreed that the entry wound was in the "right posterior occipital region."
-- There were four obvious reference points on the skull and one on the head that the autopsy doctors had available to help them locate and describe the entry wound: the EOP, the lambda, the lambdoid suture, the sagittal suture on the skull, and the hairline on the head. The lambdoid suture is plainly visible and is a clear boundary on the skull that separates the occipital bone from the parietal bone. The sagittal suture is equally obvious, and it stops at the lambda, i.e., at the top of the occiput.
Given these obvious reference points, it boggles the mind to try to imagine how three pathologists, one of them a forensic pathologist and one of them an anatomic pathologist, could have examined and measured a wound that was supposedly above the lambda, above the lambdoid suture, and to the right of the sagittal suture in the parietal bone and then could have somehow imagined that the wound was actually 4 inches lower, below the lambda, below the lambdoid suture, below the sagittal suture, and just slightly above the EOP in the occipital bone. No way.
-- If you believe the autopsy photos are authentic, then you must believe that there were no skull fragments missing from the occipital bone and no visible damage to the entire area of the back of the head. Thus, the autopsy doctors would have had no trouble whatsoever in detecting and examining the rear head entry wound.
Of course, literally dozens of witnesses said there was an obvious hole in the back of the head that included a sizable part of the right occipital bone and a sizable part of the rear section of the parietal bone. Some of these witnesses were the two Parkland nurses who cleaned the large head wound, packed it with gauze, and wrapped a sheet around it; the Parkland neurosurgeon, Dr. Kemp Clark, who examined the wound; Clint Hill, who observed the wound up close for several minutes on the way to Parkland and then saw the wound again when he came to the morgue for the express purpose of recording JFK's wounds; the two FBI agents at the autopsy; Floyd Riebe, the assistant autopsy photographer; and the three morticians who reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy.
If the entry wound was slightly above and to the right of the EOP, the autopsy brain photos are undeniably fraudulent. Any bullet entering at the EOP site could not possibly have avoided tearing through the right occipital lobe and at least damaging the cerebellum, as the HSCA FPP correctly and emphatically pointed out. Yet, the brain photos show no damage whatsoever to the right occipital lobe or the cerebellum.
I'm not going to spend another hour doing a point-by-point rebuttal of your BS: like I did last night. That is at least 55 minutes more than your nonsense deserved. It has been acknowledged that the Bethesda team and the FPP placed the entry wound in the back of the head in different locations. It doesn't matter which of them got it right. What matters is they all agreed the entry wound was in the back of the head and that fits the finding that Oswald fired the shot from the sniper's nest, which is what all the forensic evidence indates.
-
I got that from you. The premise of this thread which you spelled out in the OP is that Dr. Young received an envelope containing a bullet that had been found on the floor of the limo. If the Secret Service didn't send it to Bethesda, how did it get there? Did it just miracle its way over there?
That's even sillier. The Secret Service had possession of the car and they were searching it for evidence. Do you really think they would let two Navy non-coms have access to the car. It seems you have embellished this story quite a bit. Cite your source that says these two NCOs were the ones who searched the limo and found the bullet and bone fragments. I'm betting right now that if you do actually cite a source, what it says is nowhere close to what you have claimed.
You haven't refuted jack. You spew BS: and claim it is a refutation.
You don't report facts. You present unconfirmed rumors or your FUBAR interpretations of what other people have said. Your postings are a bad joke that don't amount to anything.
I'm not going to spend another hour doing a point-by-point rebuttal of your BS: like I did last night. That is at least 55 minutes more than your nonsense deserved. It has been acknowledged that the Bethesda team and the FPP placed the entry wound in the back of the head in different locations. It doesn't matter which of them got it right. What matters is they all agreed the entry wound was in the back of the head and that fits the finding that Oswald fired the shot from the sniper's nest, which is what all the forensic evidence indates.
Of course, it matters. ???
-
Of course, it matters. ???
Tell us why it matters. Tell us why either placement of the entry wound refutes the finding that Oswald fired the shot into the back of JFK's head.
-
It could mean; removed, received or recovered
::) It does not say "removed"
You're right it doesn't. It has a misspelled word and all we can do is take an educated guess as to what word they meant to type. I did just discover that on the first page of this thread, you chose to correct "recoved" to "removed" so apparently you thought that was most likely what they meant. Removed or recovered would pretty much mean the same thing in this context. Of the three possibilities you listed, "received" seems to be the farthest removed from "recoved" spelling wise. We would have to believe they typed "o" where they meant to type "ei". Received would have a much different connotation than removed for recovered.
-
Since none of it appears to be based on first-hand knowledge and none is corroborated by other independent evidence, I am not sure what his account is or what could conceivably validate his account.
HUH? Just HUH? Dr. Young said he saw the bullet. He even gave a detailed description of it. That is "first-hand knowledge" by any definition. Chief Mills confirmed to Navy historian Jan Herman that he and Martinell found a bullet in the rear of the limo and that Dr. Young later called him to verify his account. Confirmation from one of the two guys who found the bullet is "first-hand knowledge" by any definition.
When Captain Osborne's HSCA interviewer challenged his account with the argument that the only bullet in evidence was found at Parkland Hospital and sent to Washington, Osborne insisted that he had held the bullet in his hands. By any definition, Captain Osborne's account was based on "first-hand knowledge."
Osborne said the bullet was "copper clad" and "fully intact," adding that it had no blood on it when he handled it. The HSCA interview report admitted that Osborne specified that the missile was not a fragment:
Osborne emphasized that the slug was a fully intact missile and not a fragment. (Outside Contact Report, HSCA, 6/20/1978, p. 3, ARRB MD 66 document)
When Osborne was interviewed shortly after the HSCA volumes were published, it became clear that the HSCA FPP report's claim that Osborne had expressed uncertainty about his account "upon further inquiry" was false. In fact, as mentioned, when the HSCA interviewer, Mark Flanagan, challenged Osborne about his account, Osborne did not back down one bit:
I told them [HSCA investigators] that this was the way I remembered it, and they said, “Well, it must be wrong, because the Secret Service testified that the bullet was found in the hospital at Parkland, and brought back to Washington.”
And so I said, “Well, if that’s true, then they brought it back to the morgue because I had that bullet in my hand, and looked at it." (David Mantik, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis," 2024, p. 351)
The "major discrepancy" exists only in your [Michael Capasse's] own head and nowhere else. "Missile" has a range of meanings, and the fragments exchanged for the receipt falls within that.
Oh, hogwash. I challenge you, just as I've challenged the clueless John Corbett, to find me one FBI document -- or any other official investigative document -- that uses the term "missile" to describe two or more very small fragments that constitute less than 2% of the mass of a bullet. Let's see it.
As I discussed in a previous reply, in their six-page 11/26/1963 report on the autopsy, Sibert and O'Neill themselves used the term "missile" to refer to bullets four times (pp. 3-4). Moreover, they distinguished between "missile/bullet" and bullet fragments:
The largest section of this missile as portrayed on x-ray appeared to be behind the right frontal sinus. The next largest fragment appeared to be at the rear of the skull. . . . (p. 3)
They identified the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm as fragments, not as a "missile":
. . . one fragment measuring 7 x 2 millimeters, which was removed from the right side of the brain. . . . An additional fragment of metal measuring 1 x 3 millimeters was also removed. . . . (p. 4)
In referring to the back-wound bullet, they described it as a "missile":
This opening was probed by Dr. Humes. . . . the trajectory of the missile entering at this point. . . . the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance. (p. 4)
Not once did Sibert and O'Neill used the term "missile" to refer to bullet fragments. They certainly would not have done so to describe two very small fragments that had a combined weight of only 180 grains, a tiny fraction of the mass of a bullet.
As I also discussed in a previous reply, the word "missile" is commonly used as a synonym for "bullet" in forensic and investigative sources. For example:
-- In the HSCA FPP's report, the term "missile" is used to describe bullets 408 times, and the term "missile fragment" is used to describe bullet fragments 35 times (7 HSCA).
Notice that the FPP distinguished between missiles and missile fragments. Gee, why do you suppose they did that? Maybe because they understood that missiles and missile fragments are two different things?! Ya think?!
-- Chapter 3 of the Warren Report uses the term "missile" to refer to bullets 20 times, and never once to describe bullet fragments.
-- During the WC hearing on May 6, 1964, the term "missile" was used to refer to bullets 15 times (14 times by Arlen Specter and one time by ballistics expert Dr. Alfred Olivier) (5 H 62-169).
Not once was the word "missile" used to describe fragments.
-- During the WC hearings from March 21-25, 1964, the term "missile" was used to refer to bullets 158 times, variously by Specter, Dr. Carrico, Dr. Perry, Dr. Clark, Dr. McClelland, Dr. Baxter, Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Jones, Dr. Akin, Dr. Shaw, Dr. Gregory, Dr. Shires, (6 H 4-143).
Not once did they use the term "missile" as a synonym for bullet fragments.
-- In the JFK autopsy report, the term "missile" is used to refer to bullets six times.
Here, too, not once was the word "missile" used to describe bullet fragments.
Sheesh, this is just so pathetic. You guys can't even admit that no competent, rational person would (willingly) use the term "missile" to refer to two small fragments whose combined weight was only 180 grains, a tiny fraction of the mass of a bullet.
But this is the kind of abject nonsense you must float because your theory of the shooting collapses if you admit that a bullet was found in the limo and/or was seen at the autopsy.
It is also pathetic that you guys can't admit that Dr. Young was a highly credible source and that his account is solid and compelling by any objective measurement. If you guys had an anti-conspiracy account from an equally credible source and the account were corroborated by two credible first-hand witnesses, you'd be jumping for joy and would justifiably criticize anyone who refused to accept the account.
-
Still waiting for someone to provide any other example of a (one) missile = multiple fragments.
-
Still waiting for someone to provide any other example of a (one) missile = multiple fragments.
The fact they misspelled a key word in the receipt indicates they didn't spend a lot of time composing this. Just fulfilling a technicality.
-
The fact they misspelled a key word in the receipt indicates they didn't spend a lot of time composing this. Just fulfilling a technicality.
Thumb1: True. Just nothing to indicate it was 2 fragments.
You made that part up.
-
Thumb1: True. Just nothing to indicate it was 2 fragments.
You made that part up.
Except for the two fragments that were recovered. The following is from a pro-conspiracy website:
During the autopsy inspection of the area of the brain, two fragments of metal were removed by Dr. HUMES, namely, one fragment measuring 7 x 2 millimeters, which was removed from the right side of the brain. An additional fragment of metal measuring 1 x 3 millimeters was also removed from this area, both of which were placed in a glass jar containing a black metal top which were thereafter marked for identification and following the signing of a proper receipt were transported by Bureau agents to the FBI laboratory.
https://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-documents/sibert-and-oneill-report#:~:text=The%20Chief%20Pathologist%20advised%20approximately%2040%20particles%20of,had%20fragmentized%20while%20passing%20through%20the%20skull%20region.
-
Except for the two fragments that were recovered. The following is from a pro-conspiracy website:
During the autopsy inspection of the area of the brain, two fragments of metal were removed by Dr. HUMES, namely, one fragment measuring 7 x 2 millimeters, which was removed from the right side of the brain. An additional fragment of metal measuring 1 x 3 millimeters was also removed from this area, both of which were placed in a glass jar containing a black metal top which were thereafter marked for identification and following the signing of a proper receipt were transported by Bureau agents to the FBI laboratory.
https://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-documents/sibert-and-oneill-report#:~:text=The%20Chief%20Pathologist%20advised%20approximately%2040%20particles%20of,had%20fragmentized%20while%20passing%20through%20the%20skull%20region.
::) Too bad it doesn't have ANY of that in the receipt.
In fact, NO words "remove" "autopsy" or even "body"
-
HUH? Just HUH? Dr. Young said he saw the bullet. He even gave a detailed description of it. That is "first-hand knowledge" by any definition.
Any record of Young saying that before 2001?
Chief Mills confirmed to Navy historian Jan Herman that he and Martinell found a bullet in the rear of the limo and that Dr. Young later called him to verify his account. Confirmation from one of the two guys who found the bullet is "first-hand knowledge" by any definition.
I'd like to see the documentation for this claim. The Secret Service conducted the search of the limo for physical evidence. Do you really think they would have let two Navy non-coms to just show up and search the limo. The story makes no sense, but CTs never seem to care if the myths they choose to believe make any sense.
-
In this reply, I will present evidence that supports two key points:
One, it may just be that the missile receipt has nothing to do with the bullet seen by Dr. Young, Captain Stover, and Captain Osborne. The missile-receipt incident may have been solely about the suppression of bullet fragments recovered from the skull.
Two, it may also well be that the bullet that Dr. Young saw was not the same bullet that Captain Osborne saw, since Osborne said the bullet he saw and handled fell out of the sheets that were wrapped around JFK's body. However, there is a good chance that Captain Stover saw the same bullet that Dr. Young saw, since Stover said he recalled the bullet was brought to the autopsy in an envelope, just as Dr. Young stated -- that is too specific a correlation to be a coincidence.
Let us begin by stating some essential facts about, and problems with, the cover story that emerged to explain the Sibert and O'Neill receipt for a missile:
-- When the receipt first surfaced, internal FBI documents said that Sibert and O'Neill were referring to the two fragments that Humes removed from the skull. Sibert and O'Neill were likely pressured to say this, and they were never willing to retract the story, although they did contradict key parts of it (see below).
-- 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.
Now, it may just be that the missile receipt has nothing to do with the bullet seen by Dr. Young, Captain Stover, and Captain Osborne. The missile-receipt incident may have been solely about the suppression of bullet fragments recovered from the skull. Assuming they were telling the whole truth, when Sibert and O'Neill saw the evidence bottle, it likely contained more than two fragments, as their accounts and Boyers' account clearly indicate. This would mean that some of the fragments were later removed from the bottle before the bottle's contents were formally entered into evidence.
Perhaps the evidence bottle initially contained enough fragments to persuade Sibert and O'Neill to sign the receipt, although Sibert's statements, assuming they are true, clearly suggest he was uneasy about signing the receipt. Yet, Sibert's statements, again assuming they are true, pointedly suggest that the fragments in the bottle, though more than two in number, did not come close to constituting the mass of a bullet.
As also mentioned, it may also well be that the bullet that Dr. Young saw was not the same bullet that Captain Osborne saw, since Osborne said the bullet he saw and handled fell out of the sheets that were wrapped around JFK's body, indicating the bullet was found very early in the autopsy (whereas the deformed bullet that Chiefs Mills and Martinell found in the limo and that Dr. Young saw was given to Humes much later that night). However, there is a good chance that Captain Stover saw the same bullet that Dr. Young saw, since Stover said he recalled the bullet was brought to the autopsy in an envelope, just as Dr. Young stated -- again, that is too specific a correlation to be a coincidence.
Osborne's account receives some support from autopsy x-ray technician Jerrol Custer's ARRB testimony. Custer said he saw a "king-size fragment" or "bullet" fall from the back when he lifted the body to take x-rays of the torso (Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer, ARRB, 10/28/1997, pp. 53, 90). Custer's memory proved accurate on point after point in his ARRB testimony -- not on every single point, but on nearly all key points. And Custer was no robotic mouthpiece for the conspiracy position. For example, based on his assumption that the autopsy x-rays and photos were pristine, Custer even repudiated his original description of the large head wound as being in the right occipital-parietal part of the skull; however, he did agree with Dr. Boswell's important observation that about half of the right lambdoid suture was destroyed, which is further proof that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent, since a blast that took out half of the right lambdoid suture would have done significant damage to the right occipital lobe (that lobe is completely undamaged in the brain photos).
Finally, I have a theory about former Secret Service agent Paul Landis's account that he found a bullet in the rear of the limo while the limo was parked outside Parkland Hospital. Landis said he took the bullet from the car and put it on JFK's stretcher in the emergency room. It seems hard to believe that a Secret Service agent would handle key evidence so casually and unilaterally, instead of handing it over to a supervisor so it could be logged as evidence to maintain the bullet's chain of evidence. What if Landis really did see a bullet in the rear of the limo, but instead of taking it he left it in place, where it was later found by Mills and Martinell? Just a thought.
I think Landis may have actually been trying to come clean about seeing a bullet in the rear of the limo but that he may have also been trying to help the single-bullet theory by fabricating the story about putting it on a stretcher in order to provide an explanation for how CE 399 ended up on a stretcher in the hospital. Gerald Posner actually cites Landis's account as evidence of the SBT.
-
In this reply, I will present evidence that supports two key points:
One, it may just be that the missile receipt has nothing to do with the bullet seen by Dr. Young, Captain Stover, and Captain Osborne. The missile-receipt incident may have been solely about the suppression of bullet fragments recovered from the skull.
Two, it may also well be that the bullet that Dr. Young saw was not the same bullet that Captain Osborne saw, since Osborne said the bullet he saw and handled fell out of the sheets that were wrapped around JFK's body. However, there is a good chance that Captain Stover saw the same bullet that Dr. Young saw, since Stover said he recalled the bullet was brought to the autopsy in an envelope, just as Dr. Young stated -- that is too specific a correlation to be a coincidence.
After announcing he was going to present evidence to support two key points, MTG starts out with a couple of maybes.
Let us begin by stating some essential facts about, and problems with, the cover story that emerged to explain the Sibert and O'Neill receipt for a missile:
-- When the receipt first surfaced, internal FBI documents said that Sibert and O'Neill were referring to the two fragments that Humes removed from the skull. Sibert and O'Neill were likely pressured to say this, and they were never willing to retract the story, although they did contradict key parts of it (see below).
So now we progress from a couple maybes to a "likely". Of course the "likely" MTG has dreamed up is nothing more than an unsupported assumption on his part.
-- 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.
So?
-- 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)!
So far, all MTG has shown evidence of is a government employee who sloppily typed up a receipt that was less than specific about its contents and indicated it had been "recoved". Now it's my turn to assume. The guy was annoyed he had to do some paperwork that seemed like a pain in the Bahookie to him and just threw it together. Speaking as a former government employee who hated doing paperwork, I can relate. I have presented as much evidence for my assumption as MTG has for his.
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.
There's nothing suspicious about government employees who are annoyed by having to do paperwork. I find it funny that some people want to attach sinister motives to it.
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.
Apparently the HSCA investigators weren't as anal as you.
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.
Back to weaving silly assumptions.
-- 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.
What they are contradicting is your earlier silly argument that a missile could only mean a whole bullet.
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)[/font]
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.
Your arguments keep getting sillier. I didn't know that was possible.
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 can imagine all sorts of twisted conspiracy plots without any evidence to support them but you can't imagine a couple FBI agents not bothering to make an issue about the terminology some Navy corpsman used in typing up a receipt. Amazing.
Now, it may just be that the missile receipt has nothing to do with the bullet seen by Dr. Young, Captain Stover, and Captain Osborne. The missile-receipt incident may have been solely about the suppression of bullet fragments recovered from the skull. Assuming they were telling the whole truth, when Sibert and O'Neill saw the evidence bottle, it likely contained more than two fragments, as their accounts and Boyers' account clearly indicate. This would mean that some of the fragments were later removed from the bottle before the bottle's contents were formally entered into evidence.
It's funny that you even consider this an incident.
Perhaps the evidence bottle initially contained enough fragments to persuade Sibert and O'Neill to sign the receipt, although Sibert's statements, assuming they are true, clearly suggest he was uneasy about signing the receipt. Yet, Sibert's statements, again assuming they are true, pointedly suggest that the fragments in the bottle, though more than two in number, did not come close to constituting the mass of a bullet.
So?
As also mentioned, it may also well be that the bullet that Dr. Young saw was not the same bullet that Captain Osborne saw, since Osborne said the bullet he saw and handled fell out of the sheets that were wrapped around JFK's body, indicating the bullet was found very early in the autopsy (whereas the deformed bullet that Chiefs Mills and Martinell found in the limo and that Dr. Young saw was given to Humes much later that night). However, there is a good chance that Captain Stover saw the same bullet that Dr. Young saw, since Stover said he recalled the bullet was brought to the autopsy in an envelope, just as Dr. Young stated -- again, that is too specific a correlation to be a coincidence.
Your assumption that Mills and Martinell were the ones that searched the limo is truly mind boggling.
Osborne's account receives some support from autopsy x-ray technician Jerrol Custer's ARRB testimony. Custer said he saw a "king-size fragment" or "bullet" fall from the back when he lifted the body to take x-rays of the torso (Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer, ARRB, 10/28/1997, pp. 53, 90). Custer's memory proved accurate on point after point in his ARRB testimony -- not on every single point, but on nearly all key points.
Key points being the ones MTG chooses to believe.
And Custer was no robotic mouthpiece for the conspiracy position. For example, based on his assumption that the autopsy x-rays and photos were pristine, Custer even repudiated his original description of the large head wound as being in the right occipital-parietal part of the skull; however, he did agree with Dr. Boswell's important observation that about half of the right lambdoid suture was destroyed, which is further proof that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent, since a blast that took out half of the right lambdoid suture would have done significant damage to the right occipital lobe (that lobe is completely undamaged in the brain photos).
I never cease to be amazed at how loosely you throw around the term "proof". To you, proof is something you choose to believe but have no evidence of.
Finally, I have a theory about former Secret Service agent Paul Landis's account that he found a bullet in the rear of the limo while the limo was parked outside Parkland Hospital. Landis said he took the bullet from the car and put it on JFK's stretcher in the emergency room. It seems hard to believe that a Secret Service agent would handle key evidence so casually and unilaterally, instead of handing it over to a supervisor so it could be logged as evidence to maintain the bullet's chain of evidence. What if Landis really did see a bullet in the rear of the limo, but instead of taking it he left it in place, where it was later found by Mills and Martinell? Just a thought.
Thanks from a grateful nation.
I think Landis may have actually been trying to come clean about seeing a bullet in the rear of the limo but that he may have also been trying to help the single-bullet theory by fabricating the story about putting it on a stretcher in order to provide an explanation for how CE 399 ended up on a stretcher in the hospital. Gerald Posner actually cites Landis's account as evidence of the SBT.
You started with maybes and ended with maybes. That makes for a very compelling argument.
-
After announcing he was going to present evidence to support two key points, MTG starts out with a couple of maybes.
So now we progress from a couple maybes to a "likely". Of course the "likely" MTG has dreamed up is nothing more than an unsupported assumption on his part.
So?
So far, all MTG has shown evidence of is a government employee who sloppily typed up a receipt that was less than specific about its contents and indicated it had been "recoved". Now it's my turn to assume. The guy was annoyed he had to do some paperwork that seemed like a pain in the Bahookie to him and just threw it together. Speaking as a former government employee who hated doing paperwork, I can relate. I have presented as much evidence for my assumption as MTG has for his.
There's nothing suspicious about government employees who are annoyed by having to do paperwork. I find it funny that some people want to attach sinister motives to it.
Apparently the HSCA investigators weren't as anal as you.
Back to weaving silly assumptions.
What they are contradicting is your earlier silly argument that a missile could only mean a whole bullet.
Your arguments keep getting sillier. I didn't know that was possible.
You can imagine all sorts of twisted conspiracy plots without any evidence to support them but you can't imagine a couple FBI agents not bothering to make an issue about the terminology some Navy corpsman used in typing up a receipt. Amazing.
It's funny that you even consider this an incident.
So?
Your assumption that Mills and Martinell were the ones that searched the limo is truly mind boggling.
Key points being the ones MTG chooses to believe.
I never cease to be amazed at how loosely you throw around the term "proof". To you, proof is something you choose to believe but have no evidence of.
Thanks from a grateful nation.
You started with maybes and ended with maybes. That makes for a very compelling argument.
What's the phony-baloney we're up to now? - a sloppy piece of paperwork you don't care about anymore?
:D funny to watch the lame excuses - pile up - even evolve.
-
I don't buy Boyers' "just because" story. I find it revealing that he made no effort to explain why he would have used the word "missile" to describe three or four bullet fragments instead of simply describing them as fragments and stating how many there were.
It is crucial to remember two relevant facts about bullet fragments at the autopsy: (1) Dennis David, a Navy admin technician at Bethesda, reported that he typed a memo that described four bullet fragments removed from the body. (2) Mortician Tom Robinson, one of the two witnesses who saw Humes's illicit pre-autopsy surgery, said he saw Humes remove "about" 10 fragments from the skull and place them in a vial.
Boyers' three-or-four-fragments story may have been partly designed to cover for the suppression of Dennis David's memo about four fragments. I am certain that Humes discarded at least half of the bullet fragments that Robinson saw him remove from the skull.
Keep in mind that the Harper fragment was made to disappear, so no one should pretend to be shocked by the idea that other evidence was suppressed. Just try to fathom how a large piece of JFK's skull could have been innocently "misplaced" or "lost." Luckily, we have two photos that were taken of the Harper fragment before it was made to disappear. We know the fragment was handed over to the FBI. The FBI then turned the fragment over to Admiral Burkley, JFK's personal physician. And then the fragment vanished and was never entered into evidence.
BTW, the only three pathologists who actually handled the fragment (three pathologists in Dallas) insisted it was occipital bone. One of those pathologists was Dr. A. B. Cairns, the chief of pathology at Methodist Hospital in Dallas. In his HSCA interview, Dr. Cairns explained that the Harper fragment was occipital bone:
Dr. Cairns said the piece of skull fragment came from an area approximately 2.5 to 3 inches above the spine area. He said it had the markings of a piece of skull fragment from the lower occipital area, specifically: suture and inner markings where blood vessels run around the base of the skull. (Memorandum, Andy Purdy, HSCA, 8/17/1977, p. 2, ARRB document MD 19)
Dr. David Mantik has confirmed that the Harper fragment was occipital bone. ("Dr. Randy Robertson and Dr. Mantik Discuss the Harper Fragment" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk1GWih6G2s); "The Robertson Hypothesis: A Joyless Review" (https://www.themantikview.org/pdf/Robertson.pdf)).
The fact that Harper fragment came from the occiput proves the autopsy photos and x-rays have been altered, and that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.
Anyway, I suspect that the receipt that Boyers' typed was in fact for a missile, not for two small fragments, and that it was either for the Mills-Martinell-Young bullet or for the Osborne bullet. However, I think it is also possible that the Boyers-typed receipt was for at least four fragments, that all but two of the fragments were later removed from the evidence bottle, and that the whole bullet or bullets that four witnesses saw at the autopsy was/were simply never entered into evidence.
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?
-
The illogic of MTG's conclusions is laughable. What he suspects and what he finds strange isn't evidence of anything except his own overly active imagination. But what would you expect from someone whose foundation of his beliefs is Oliver Stone's fictional movie about the JFKA?
-
The illogic of MTG's conclusions is laughable. What he suspects and what he finds strange isn't evidence of anything except his own overly active imagination. But what would you expect from someone whose foundation of his beliefs is Oliver Stone's fictional movie about the JFKA?
Really?
;D ...because your latest reply to him is like that of a 4th grader that didn't read the assignment
-
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 01:10:23 PM
HUH? Just HUH? Dr. Young said he saw the bullet. He even gave a detailed description of it. That is "first-hand knowledge" by any definition.
Any record of Young saying that before 2001?
LOL! What a total clown show. Looks like you still have not bothered to read the transcript of Dr. Young's third 2001 interview or any of the article links I provide in the OP.
FYI, Dr. Young hand-wrote his 21-page "What Price A Rose?" recollection on 11/23/63, the day after the autopsy (see page 46 in the third-interview transcript). He sometimes referred to this document as his "notes." You'd know this if you had bothered to read the transcript or the articles linked in the OP.
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 01:10:23 PM
Chief Mills confirmed to Navy historian Jan Herman that he and Martinell found a bullet in the rear of the limo and that Dr. Young later called him to verify his account. Confirmation from one of the two guys who found the bullet is "first-hand knowledge" by any definition.
I'd like to see the documentation for this claim.
Whaaat?! LOL! Really?! You would?! Are you sure?! Well, okay, go read the links that I provide in the OP. Or, go watch the segment on Dr. Young's account in episode 3 of the 2021 documentary JFK: Destiny Betrayed.
This is just hilarious!
The Secret Service conducted the search of the limo for physical evidence. Do you really think they would have let two Navy non-coms to just show up and search the limo. The story makes no sense, but CTs never seem to care if the myths they choose to believe make any sense.
Oh, wow! So Chief Mills and Dr. Young just made up their accounts about Dr. Young sending Chief Mills and Chief Martinell to search the limo for skull fragments and finding the limo bullet?! And Chief Mills lied through his teeth to Navy historian Jan Herman when he confirmed the finding of the limo bullet and confirmed later receiving a call from Dr. Young?! And Dr. Young was just putting on an elaborate act of pretending to be trying to find out what happened to a non-existent limo bullet when he wrote to President Ford and spoke with Arlen Specter?! That's your argument?!
The two Navy senior NCOs were sent by Dr. Young, who was the assistant to Admiral Burkley, JFK's personal physician, so, uh, yeah, of course the Secret Service let them search the limo.
-
LOL! What a total clown show. Looks like you still have not bothered to read the transcript of Dr. Young's third 2001 interview or any of the article links I provide in the OP.
FYI, Dr. Young hand-wrote his 21-page "What Price A Rose?" recollection on 11/23/63, the day after the autopsy (see page 46 in the third-interview transcript). He sometimes referred to this document as his "notes." You'd know this if you had bothered to read the transcript or the articles linked in the OP.
I did read it which is why I know he made no mention of seeing a bullet during the autopsy in his"What Price A Rose?" article . There is no record of Young mentioning anything about seeing a bullet at the autopsy prior to 2001. The fact that you don't seem to know that makes me wonder if you bothered to read "What Price A Rose" or did you just assume it mentioned such a bullet?'
Whaaat?! LOL! Really?! You would?! Are you sure?! Well, okay, go read the links that I provide in the OP. Or, go watch the segment on Dr. Young's account in episode 3 of the 2021 documentary JFK: Destiny Betrayed.
Is this your "confirmation" by Mills?
"Mills told historian Jan Herman that he remembered the event but when pressed for details Mills stated that he didn’t want to talk about it even after the historians notified him that they represented the U. S. Navy Bureau of Medical and Surgery Office of Medical History."
Nothing specific from Mills as to what he was confirming. Only that he remembered the event. You simply assumed he remembered it the way Young did.
This is just hilarious!
Yes it is. I'm sure lots of readers were laughing at you when they read it.
Oh, wow! So Chief Mills and Dr. Young just made up their accounts about Dr. Young sending Chief Mills and Chief Martinell to search the limo for skull fragments and finding the limo bullet?! And Chief Mills lied through his teeth to Navy historian Jan Herman when he confirmed the finding of the limo bullet and confirmed later receiving a call from Dr. Young?! And Dr. Young was just putting on an elaborate act of pretending to be trying to find out what happened to a non-existent limo bullet when he wrote to President Ford and spoke with Arlen Specter?! That's your argument?!
There is no record of what Mills told Herman. Only a vague comment that he remembered the event which wasn't even a quote. Mills refused to talk about the event which you took as an invitation to fill in the blanks to your liking. SOP for CTs.
The two Navy senior NCOs were sent by Dr. Young, who was the assistant to Admiral Burkley, JFK's personal physician, so, uh, yeah, of course the Secret Service let them search the limo.
You are assuming the Secret Service let the NCOs search the limo. Your assumption doesn't even make sense. The Secret Service had already searched the limo for evidence and had found the fragmented bullet from the headshot and several bone fragments. It wouldn't have been hard for them to figure out the bone fragments would be relevant to the prosectors. They knew JFK's body was being autopsied at Bethesda so naturally they would want those sent to Bethesda. While we don't know exactly what communications there were, it sounds like the Secret Service informed Young, or possibly someone else at Bethesda, that they had found some bone fragments in the limo. It sounds like they probably mentioned that a bullet had been found as well. Young sent the NCOs to the White House garage to pick up the bone fragments and Young may have just assumed they would also send the fragmented bullet they had mentioned. But the Secret Service sent the fragmented bullet to the FBI and sent Bethesda the bone fragments.
I fully acknowledge that I too have had to fill in a few blanks but I have done so in a way that makes sense. It makes no sense the the Secret Service after doing a thorough search of the limo and finding both bone and bullet fragments would have left a whole bullet laying on the limo floor and then allowed the NCOs to search the limo themselves.
There is no record of Mills or anyone else saying the NCOs had searched the limo themselves. According to your quote, "They picked up the bullet off of the floor in the back of the car.". Because you clipped this quote out of context, we are left to guess who "They" were that Young was referring to but the only explanation that makes sense is that "They" were the Secret Service agents who had found the bone and bullet fragments and contacted Young about them. You chose to assume that Young was referring to Mills and Martinell when he said "They" which makes no sense.
-
Let's back up and review some key facts to peel through the evasive smoke, misleading omissions, and lame arguments being made by WC apologists in this thread:
-- Dr. Young hand-wrote his 21-page essay "What Price a Rose?" on 11/23/63, the day after the shooting. He sometimes called the essay an "epistle" or his "notes."
-- He brought a copy of "What Price a Rose?" with him to his 2001 Navy Office of Medical History oral history interviews and read from it.
-- During the third 2001 interview, he read a portion from "What Price a Rose?" that mentioned the finding of the deformed bullet:
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. These were found on the floor of the blood-spattered convertible. The convertible was splattered with considerable brain tissue. ("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 in a recollection that Dr. Young wrote the day after the autopsy, he mentioned the finding of the bullet in the limo.
And, mind you, we're talking about a senior Navy officer, a Navy captain, the equivalent of a full-bird colonel in the other military Services, who served as the chief aide to Admiral Burkley, the personal physician of President Kennedy.
-- When Dr. Young realized that the limo bullet had not been discussed by the Warren Commission (WC), he became concerned enough that he took the time to write to former President Gerald Ford, a former WC member, in late December 2000. You can find a photocopy of his letter to Ford here:
https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/ (Milicent Cranor article)
-- In his letter to President Ford, Dr. Young mentioned the finding of the deformed bullet in the limo. I quote from the letter:
Two of the corpsman left and returned sometime later with three varying sized pieces of President Kennedy's skull bones. In addition, they brought back in an envelope a spent misshapen bullet which they had found on the back floor of the "Queen Mary" [the nickname he thought was given to JFK's limo] where they had found the pieces of skull bones.
I have never seen anything written about that spent bullet in the Warren Report or elsewhere. Do you recall any testimony or comments which would clarify my concerns?
About one week later, President Ford replied to Dr. Young's letter and advised him that he knew of no testimony about the deformed bullet. You can find a photocopy of Ford's letter in Milicent Cranor's article.
-- In the 2001 third interview transcript, Dr. Young explained why Chief Mills and Chief Martinell were sent to search the limo:
Doctor Burkley and I had requested them [Chiefs Mills and Martinell], at the request of Doctor Humes, to go down to the White House after three or four hours at the autopsy room. 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. ("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)
The nickname "Queen Mary" had been given to several presidential motorcade vehicles used from the 1930s through the 1960s. They were used in motorcades for FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower, and also for JFK. The follow-up vehicle in the Dallas motorcade was nicknamed "Queen Mary." For some reason, Dr. Young thought this was the nickname of JFK's limo.
-- A few pages later in the 2001 interview transcript, Dr. Young provided more information about the limo bullet and made it clear that he had seen the bullet:
Question: So the bullet, again, was a copper-jacketed bullet like a military bullet?
Answer: No, it was a brass jacket. That's what I've described it as, a brass-jacketed bullet. It didn't look like it. I don't know, maybe it's copper, I couldn't tell. But it was that color of brass and it was slightly bent on the end. It was not a straight bullet. In other words, it had hit something and it bent. . . . ("Oral History with CAPT (ret) James Morningstar Young, MC, USN," Interview 3, p. 54, emphasis added, 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, clearly, Dr. Young saw the deformed bullet.
-- Just after Dr. Young engaged with Arlen Specter about the bullet, he called Chief John Mills to verify his recollection. Dr. Mantik has made some cogent comments on this point:
Dr. Young also . . . recalled that he and Dr. Burkley were present during essentially the entire autopsy. Like most witnesses, Young recalled JFK’s right occipital defect, but he also added that it included the “middle cerebral areas” and that no skull covered either of these sites. (This agrees precisely with my reconstruction.)
More pertinent to the present discussion, however, he recalled that hospital corpsmen William Martinell and Thomas Mills brought an envelope into the morgue that contained three bone fragments and one “brass slug". . . . The latter had been found on the floor “in the back of the car.”
Young was so concerned about his memory’s accuracy of this bullet that he telephoned Mills in Johnson City, Texas: "He [Mills] confirmed exactly what I had put down in my notes, that there was a bent brass slug that they had brought out that they had picked up off the floor of the Queen Mary [he meant the X-100]." (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, 2024, p. 331)
WC apologists would have us believe that Dr. Young was just putting on a gigantic, elaborate act of pretending to be trying to learn what happened to a bullet that he never actually saw, taking this alleged elaborate ruse to such an extreme as to write to President Ford, call Specter's office, and talk with Specter on the phone!
An equally flimsy and ridiculous alternative explanation would be to argue that Dr. Young was hallucinating when he thought he saw a bullet and when he thought he called Chief Mills to verify his recollection, and that Chief Mills experienced an equally remarkable hallucination when he thought he recalled finding the bullet, giving it to Dr. Young, and later receiving a call from Dr. Young!
-- Dr. Mantik was quoting from the 2013 12-page U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery article that discussed Dr. Young's 2001 interviews. Let's read all of what the article quoted Dr. Young saying about the limo bullet and also about his 11/23/63 essay "What Price a Rose?":
Okay, well I'll continue on because I gave this copy [of his essay "What Price a Rose?"], of course this is all written in longhand, it's about 21 pages long on, you know, one of those tablet paper things, the lines and so forth. And I've got the blue lines on it and all, just as it was. I took it over to Kinko's and had them duplicate it and I have given a copy of this to each of my eight children, so now it's kind of history. . . .
But the most significant part of this is that after reading it, after having given it to our children, I reread it again before I gave it to them. And I came across this issue of the bullet that we had asked the two corpsmen to go down to the White House and pick up what was in the back of the car.
They picked up the bullet off of the floor in the back of the car. Well, I decided that this is something, you know, the third bullet has never been decided about ever, apparently. So what I did was I decided there was only person still alive from the original Warren Commission. I went through the entire Warren Commission book. I've got the whole report of the Warren Commission as a matter of fact. I went through the whole thing and there was nothing in it.
Now, at that particular time nobody said anything about this. And I know what we did. We brought that in, I mean Chief Martinell and Chief Mills went to the White House, went to the Queen Mary, got the stuff off of the floor in the back seat, brought it back out to us and we gave that to Commander Humes at the time.
[These statements, among others, refute John Corbett's juvenile argument that by "they" Young was referring to Secret Service agents.]
I don't know what happened to it, so I decided that what I would do is I would write to President Ford, which I did. I wrote to President Ford and asked him . . . I asked him about, you know, did he know anything about this particular bullet that was given to the autopsy surgeons and he wrote me back a very nice letter, said, “No, he didn't know anything about it, had not heard anything about it ever.” Well, at that point then I began to look around for other issues and I found that Senator Arlen Specter had been an Assistant Counsel to the Warren Commission.
So I made a telephone call to Senator Specter's office, got one of his individuals, told that individual about what I had and what I was concerned about, and I wanted to talk with Senator Specter. Well, he did call me back and we spent, oh God, half an hour on a Friday night about ten thirty at night, he called me back and we talked about it. And he said well send me the material, he said, and I'll see what we can do. So I have sent him a copy of “What Price a Rose?” and asked him to look into what happened to that bullet.
Now just to reassure myself, Chief Martinell unfortunately has died. Chief Mills had become a Lieutenant Commander in a Medical Service Corps and retired from the Navy.
However, I found him living in Johnson City, Texas, where he had been working for the Johnson family on the ranch and whatnot. But he had retired in Johnson City. I picked up the phone and I called him. He confirmed exactly what I had put down in my notes, that there was a bent brass slug that they had brought out that they had picked up off the floor of the Queen Mary. ("Navy Medicine and President Kennedy’s Autopsy: Recollections from a former White House Physician," U.S. Navy. Bureau of Medicine and Surgery Office of Medical History, 2013, p. 8, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ANavy_Medicine_and_President_Kennedy%E2%80%99s_Autopsy-_Recollections_from_a_former_White_House_Physician_(IA_NMAndTheKennedyAssassination).pdf&page=8; alternate link: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/rqe0dyk14mueg51ygpt6r/NM-and-the-Kennedy-Assassination.pdf?rlkey=lr37xkhv1y2sni7hqurx3f2yi&e=1&dl=0)
-- When historian Jan Herman from the Navy's Office of Medical History called Chief Mills about Dr. Young's account, Mills acknowledged the finding of the bullet and that Dr. Young had later called him to verify his account, but he was reluctant to say anything further. Herman confirmed this to Dr. Randy Robertson, a diagnostic radiologist who has been studying the JFK medical evidence for many years (https://aarclibrary.org/2017/09/08/white-house-physician-autopsy-eyewitness-questions-president-ford-about-missing-bullet/).
-- Finally, it is worth noting again that Dr. Young had no intention of providing pro-conspiracy evidence. He was an ardent believer in the WC's version of the shooting, as anyone can confirm by reading the transcript of his 2001 interviews. He assumed that the limo bullet was one of the bullets that Oswald allegedly fired.
Really, this thread is a prime example of the discrediting refusal of WC apologists to acknowledge solid, corroborated evidence that refutes the lone-gunman theory.
-
Now where's your documentation that prior to his 2001 interview, Young had told anybody or written that he had seen a bullet at the autopsy that had been found in the limo and delivered to Bethesda
Whaaat?! LOL! Really?! You would?! Are you sure?! Well, okay, go read the links that I provide in the OP. Or, go watch the segment on Dr. Young's account in episode 3 of the 2021 documentary JFK: Destiny Betrayed.
Are you trying to run a bluff? I did read your links. All four of them. That's why I know none of them document Young having said he saw a bullet at Bethesda prior to his 2001 interview. This is just another of your embellishments that you are well know for. You take a grain of truth and then add your own contributions to the narrative, all of which are BS:
The earliest date of any of the articles you posted links to is 09/08/2017. Your own BS: article is dated 2022. You've been pressed several times to document your claim that Young had said he saw a bullet at Bethesda prior to his 2001 interview and you have whiffed every time. You have been unable to document your core claim.
This is just hilarious!
Oh, wow! So Chief Mills and Dr. Young just made up their accounts about Dr. Young sending Chief Mills and Chief Martinell to search the limo for skull fragments and finding the limo bullet?! And Chief Mills lied through his teeth to Navy historian Jan Herman when he confirmed the finding of the limo bullet and confirmed later receiving a call from Dr. Young?! And Dr. Young was just putting on an elaborate act of pretending to be trying to find out what happened to a non-existent limo bullet when he wrote to President Ford and spoke with Arlen Specter?! That's your argument?!
I don't doubt that Young sent Mills and Martinell to the White House garage to retrieve the bone fragments the Secret Service had found. I also don't doubt that he had been told a bullet had been found on the floor of the limo. That was the fragmented bullet which was turned over to the FBI. I don't doubt that Young genuinely believed the Secret Service was sending both the bone fragments and the fragmented bullet they had found and that was the basis for his false memory of a bullet being delivered to Bethesda. Nobody else is on record as having seen such a bullet. Young is the only source for this phantom bullet and he didn't even tell this to anybody prior to prior to his 2001 interview. I'm sure Young genuinely believed a bullet had been delivered to Bethesda which explains his confusion in contacting President Ford many years later and of course Ford knew nothing about the imagined bullet.
The two Navy senior NCOs were sent by Dr. Young, who was the assistant to Admiral Burkley, JFK's personal physician, so, uh, yeah, of course the Secret Service let them search the limo.
That is ridiculous. Why would the Secret Service have searched the limo for evidence, found bone and bullet fragments, then allowed two Navy non-coms access to the limo. If you can't see how ridiculous that story is, you ought to find a new hobby. This one obviously doesn't suit you. It requires the ability to think rationally and logically.
-
Well, well, in doing further research just this morning, I stumbled across confirmation that Chiefs Mills and Martinell inspected JFK's limo at the White House garage!
Secret Service agent Charles Taylor was with the limo at the White House garage from the time it arrived at around 9:00 PM on 11/22 until 4:30 PM the next day. He submitted a detailed affidavit to the Church Committee in 1976 about the examination of the limo. He confirmed that Mills and Martinell inspected the limo:
At 10:10 p.m. . . . representatives from Dr. Burkley's office at the White House, William Martinell and Thomas Mills, inspected SS-100-X. (Affidavit: Charles E. Taylor, Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Operations, 3/12/1976, p. 2)
As most here know, SS-100-X was the official designation for JFK's limo.
So here we have ironclad confirmation of a key part of Dr. Young's account. Chiefs Mills and Martinell did in fact inspect JFK's limo, just as Dr. Young reported.
-
Well, well, in doing further research just this morning, I stumbled across confirmation that Chiefs Mills and Martinell inspected JFK's limo at the White House garage!
Secret Service agent Charles Taylor was with the limo at the White House garage from the time it arrived at around 9:00 PM on 11/22 until 4:30 PM the next day. He submitted a detailed affidavit to the Church Committee in 1976 about the examination of the limo. He confirmed that Mills and Martinell inspected the limo:
At 10:10 p.m. . . . representatives from Dr. Burkley's office at the White House, William Martinell and Thomas Mills, inspected SS-100-X. (Affidavit: Charles E. Taylor, Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Operations, 3/12/1976, p. 2)
Why do you always clip your sources out of context? Why didn't you post the entire affidavit or a link to it? Inspected the limo is not the same as searched the limo. Because you left out a chunk of the affidavit, we are left to guess at the context.
As most here know, SS-100-X was the official designation for JFK's limo.
So here we have ironclad confirmation of a key part of Dr. Young's account. Chiefs Mills and Martinell did in fact inspect JFK's limo, just as Dr. Young reported.
You might or might not have confirmation the two NCOs searched the limo but since you only posted a portion of the affidavit, we are left to guess at that. What you don't have is any confirmation they found a bullet and took it with them to Bethesda. Why would the Secret Service have kept a fragmented bullet and let the NCOs take a whole bullet with them to Bethesda. Are we supposed to believe that the Secret Service searched the limo and missed a bullet that was later found by the NCOs? Do you ever think things through?
-
Why do you always clip your sources out of context? Why didn't you post the entire affidavit or a link to it? Inspected the limo is not the same as searched the limo. Because you left out a chunk of the affidavit, we are left to guess at the context.
You might or might not have confirmation the two NCOs searched the limo but since you only posted a portion of the affidavit, we are left to guess at that. What you don't have is any confirmation they found a bullet and took it with them to Bethesda. Why would the Secret Service have kept a fragmented bullet and let the NCOs take a whole bullet with them to Bethesda. Are we supposed to believe that the Secret Service searched the limo and missed a bullet that was later found by the NCOs? Do you ever think things through?
Do you ever stop posting such transparently dishonest, ridiculous dodges?
Quoting the most relevant portion of a four-page source is not quoting "out of context." I doubt that you even know what that term actually means. What "context" could change the obvious meaning of Agent Taylor's statement that "representatives from Dr. Burkley's office at the White House, William Martinell and Thomas Mills, inspected SS-100-X"? Huh? What? Tell us. Do you think Taylor wrote elsewhere in his report that he was only kidding when he said Mills and Martinell inspected the limo?!
It is just juvenile ignorance and silliness to imply that my quote from Taylor's affidavit is somehow suspect because I "left out a chunk of the affidavit." Every time anyone quotes a paragraph from a book, they are "leaving out a chunk of the book."
Oh, and "inspected" is "not the same" as "searched"?! Really?! Sheesh, just how silly and foolish can you get? I mean, really, this is the kind idiotic dodging you'd expect from a teenager who couldn't bring himself to acknowledge something he didn't want to admit.
FYI, the terms "inspected," "examined," and "searched" are used interchangeably in zillions of investigative documents when referring to things such as cars, rooms, areas, drawers, compartments, etc. Indeed, Taylor said that Secret Service agents Paterni and Boring also "inspected" the limo, and he said this in the same paragraph and sentence as the one I quoted! The ellipses I inserted replaced this statement. Let's read:
At 10:10 p.m., Deputy Chief Paterni, ASAIC Boring, and representatives from Dr. Burkley's office at the White House, William Martinell and Thomas Mills, inspected SS-100-X.
You can confirm this yourself by reading page 2 of Taylor's report, which you can find here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/16573650/TaylorAff
As you probably don't know, Paterni and Boring were the ones who found the two bullet fragments in the front of the limo. They found the fragments when they "inspected" the limo! Paterni was the one who handed the fragments over to FBI agent Orrin Bartlett, who in turn took them to the FBI lab and gave them to the FBI's Robert Frazier (3 H 435).
Paterni and Boring never claimed to find skull fragments and a misshapen bullet in the limo, because they didn't. Mills and Martinell found them. Paterni turned over the items that he found, i.e., the two bullet fragments, to the FBI, while Mills and Martinell took the items that they found, i.e., the skull fragments and the deformed bullet, to the autopsy, as they were instructed to do.
Why would the Secret Service have kept a fragmented bullet and let the NCOs take a whole bullet with them to Bethesda.
LOL! Is this a serious question? Really? "Why," you ask? Umm, because the two Navy NCOs were the ones who found the bullet and the skull fragments, because they were under orders to bring to the autopsy what they found in the limo, and because they were acting on orders given by a Navy O-6 who was the chief aide to the White House doctor, the chief aide to the personal physician of the President of the United States! Gee, ya think?!
BTW, what happened to your nonsensical argument that the Secret Service never would have let Mills and Martinell search the limo? Huh?
Finally, 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.
-
As you probably don't know, Paterni and Boring were the ones who found the two bullet fragments in the front of the limo. They found the fragments when they "inspected" the limo! Paterni was the one who handed the fragments over to FBI agent Orrin Bartlett, who in turn took them to the FBI lab and gave them to the FBI's Robert Frazier (3 H 435).
Boring did not find one the two bullet fragments in the front of the limo. Paterni found one. Thomas Mills found the other.
https://www.maryferrell.org/xdoc/11653#relPageId=5
-
Boring did not find one the two bullet fragments in the front of the limo. Paterni found one. Thomas Mills found the other.
https://www.maryferrell.org/xdoc/11653#relPageId=5
That disagrees with other sources on the finding of the two fragments, but I think it's most likely accurate, and it is further confirmation that Mills and Martinell searched the limo.
It doesn't really change anything. The autopsy doctors were frantically trying to find a whole bullet, but they had no need for anymore bullet fragments. So it makes complete sense that Paterni took the two fragments and gave them to the FBI and that Mills and Martinell took the two skull fragments and the bullet to the autopsy and gave them to Dr. Young.
It's worth repeating that Dr. Young mentioned the finding of the bullet in his 11/23/63 "What Price a Rose?" handwritten essay, in his December 2000 letter to President Ford, and in his third 2001 oral history interview.
-
Do you ever stop posting such transparently dishonest, ridiculous dodges?
Quoting the most relevant portion of a four-page source is not quoting "out of context." I doubt that you even know what that term actually means. What "context" could change the obvious meaning of Agent Taylor's statement that "representatives from Dr. Burkley's office at the White House, William Martinell and Thomas Mills, inspected SS-100-X"? Huh? What? Tell us. Do you think Taylor wrote elsewhere in his report that he was only kidding when he said Mills and Martinell inspected the limo?!
It is just juvenile ignorance and silliness to imply that my quote from Taylor's statement is somehow suspect because I "left out a chunk of the affidavit." Every time anyone quotes a paragraph from a book, they are "leaving out a chunk of the book."
Oh, and "inspected" is "not the same" as "searched"?! Really?! Sheesh, just how silly and foolish can you get? I mean, really, this is the kind idiotic dodging you'd expect from a teenager who couldn't bring himself to acknowledge something he didn't want to admit.
FYI, the terms "inspected," "examined," and "searched" are used interchangeably in zillions of investigative documents when referring to things such cars, rooms, areas, drawers, compartments, etc. Indeed, Taylor said that Secret Service agents Paterni and Boring also "inspected" the limo, and he said this in the same paragraph and sentence as the one I quoted! The ellipses I inserted replaced this statement. Let's read:
At 10:10 p.m., Deputy Chief Paterni, ASAIC Boring, and representatives from Dr. Burkley's office at the White House, William Martinell and Thomas Mills, inspected SS-100-X.
You can confirm this yourself by reading page 2 of Taylor's report, which you can find here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/16573650/TaylorAff
As you probably don't know, Paterni and Boring were the ones who found the two bullet fragments in the front of the limo. They found the fragments when they "inspected" the limo! Paterni was the one who handed the fragments over to FBI agent Orrin Bartlett, who in turn took them to the FBI lab and gave them to the FBI's Robert Frazier (3 H 435).
Paterni and Boring never claimed to find skull fragments and a misshapen bullet in the limo, because they didn't. Mills and Martinell found them. Paterni turned over the items that he found, i.e., the two bullet fragments, to the FBI, while Mills and Martinell took the items that they found, i.e., the skull fragments and the deformed bullet, to the autopsy, as they were instructed to do.
You have provided no documentation that supports your remarkable claim that Mills and Martinell found the skull fragments and deformed bullet. In fact, it makes no sense. If all the Secret Service agents found was the fragmented bullet, why would they bother calling Bethesda about that since they turned those fragments to the FBI. Are we supposed to believe they call Dr. Young at Bethesda as said, "We searched the limo but all we could find was a fragmented bullet on the floor. Why don't you send a couple guys over to find out if we missed anything.". Of course that is a silly take. The only reason for the Secret Service to contact the autopsy team at Bethesda would be if they were the ones who had already found the bone fragments. Your claim that Mills and Martinell found both the bone fragments and a whole bullet are your inventions.
LOL! Is this a serious question? Really? "Why," you ask? Umm, because the two Navy NCOs were the ones who found the bullet and the skull fragments, because they were under orders to bring to the autopsy what they found in the limo, and because they were acting on orders given by a Navy O-6 who was the chief aide to the White House doctor, the chief aide to the personal physician of the President of the United States! Gee, ya think?!
A perfect example of circular reasoning. Your claim that the NCOs found the bullet and bone fragments is supported by your claim that they were the ones who searched the limo for evidence and that claim is supported by your claim that they were the ones that found the bullet and fragments.
BTW, what happened to your nonsensical argument that the Secret Service never would have let Mills and Martinell search the limo? Huh?
Search and inspect are not synonyms. The latter could be done with just a casual look at the limo. The former implies a more thorough look through limo. It should be noted that Taylor's affidavit was made in 1976. He said it is based on personal observations AND discussions with the other agents. We don't know how much he personally observed and how much had been told to him. His affidavit says this happened on November 22, 1973 which is obviously a typo but let's not quibble.
Finally, 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? [/quote]
Now who's quibbling.
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.
Tell us why that matters.
The bottom line is that the document you provided are the recollections of Taylor made in 1976. We don't know how much of it is based on his personal observations and how much is made from what he had been told by others since he stated both as sources. He wasn't involved in the search for and recovery of evidence. His job was to provide security. He tells us only that the NCOs inspected the limo, not that they did a thorough search of it for evidence. That had already been done by other Secret Service agents. The only reason for them to have called Bethesda in the first place is that the bone fragments had already been found. At no time does Taylor tell us that Mills and Martinell were the ones who found the bone fragments and a bullet. There is no record of Mills or Martinell ever saying they searched the limo and found the bone fragments and a bullet. These are all assumptions you have made based on Young's assumption that the NCOs had returned with a bullet in addition to the bone fragments. Nobody at Bethesda, other than Young, ever stated a bullet had been delivered to the autopsy team at Bethesda.
This is what you constantly do. You take a morsel of truth and then weave fantastic, sinister tales based on the flimsiest of evidence to support your silly beliefs that there was a massive cover-up regarding the assassination of JFK. You've been doing this for 35 years and it hasn't amounted to a hill of beans and you know it. You've never proven JFK died as a result of a conspiracy and you never will. 35 years of futility hasn't discouraged you at all. You will continue your great snipe hunt until your dying days and none of it will ever matter.
-
Boring did not find one the two bullet fragments in the front of the limo. Paterni found one. Thomas Mills found the other.
https://www.maryferrell.org/xdoc/11653#relPageId=5
I had already posted my previous reply before reading this post. Although I find it surprising that the Secret Service would allow a Navy corpsman to assist in the search of the limo, apparently that had been done. However, the document only states that Mills had found a fragment, not a whole bullet. It further states that Mills turned that fragment over to Special Agent Orrin Bartlett. He did not keep it.
While I'm sure MTG will trumpet this as further support for his claim that Mills returned to Bethesda with a whole bullet, it actually refutes it. For starters the document makes no mention of a whole bullet having been recovered by Mills or anybody else. Since Mills turned the bullet fragment over to Bartlett, why would he have kept a whole bullet he found and not told any of the Secret Service or FBI agents about it?
In short, there is no evidence a whole bullet was recovered during a search of the limo at the White House garage and therefore no bullet that the LNs need to explain which is the premise of this thread.
-
That disagrees with other sources on the finding of the two fragments, but I think it's most likely accurate, and it is further confirmation that Mills and Martinell searched the limo.
It doesn't really change anything. The autopsy doctors were frantically trying to find a whole bullet, but they had no need for anymore bullet fragments. So it makes complete sense that Paterni took the two fragments and gave them to the FBI and that Mills and Martinell took the two skull fragments and the bullet to the autopsy and gave them to Dr. Young.
It's worth repeating that Dr. Young mentioned the finding of the bullet in his 11/23/63 "What Price a Rose?" handwritten essay, in his December 2000 letter to President Ford, and in his third 2001 oral history interview.
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.
-
That disagrees with other sources on the finding of the two fragments, but I think it's most likely accurate, and it is further confirmation that Mills and Martinell searched the limo.
It doesn't really change anything. The autopsy doctors were frantically trying to find a whole bullet, but they had no need for anymore bullet fragments. So it makes complete sense that Paterni took the two fragments and gave them to the FBI and that Mills and Martinell took the two skull fragments and the bullet to the autopsy and gave them to Dr. Young.
Really? It makes sense to you that Mills turned the fragment he found over to the FBI but kept a whole bullet and took it back with him to Bethesda. Why wouldn't he have turned that bullet over to the FBI as well?
It's worth repeating that Dr. Young mentioned the finding of the bullet in his 11/23/63 "What Price a Rose?" handwritten essay, in his December 2000 letter to President Ford, and in his third 2001 oral history interview.
You have never documented that Young wrote in his 11/23/63 essay that a whole bullet had been returned to Bethesda. The link to the full text of that essay makes no mention of such a bullet.
-
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.
I can understand Young confusing the Queen Mary with JFK's limo. There were times during JFK's presidency when the Queen Mary was used instead of the Lincoln that was his primary limo. His recollections about a bullet having been recovered from either limo aren't credible at all.
BTW, thank you for posting the document regarding Mills finding the bullet fragment in JFK's limo, even though it showed one of my beliefs was wrong. I'm always glad to learn something I had not known before.
One other note. There were actually two Queen Mary limos that had been used interchangeably during Ike's administration and it is not ever certain which of the two had been in the motorcade in Dallas.
-
I can understand Young confusing the Queen Mary with JFK's limo. There were times during JFK's presidency when the Queen Mary was used instead of the Lincoln that was his primary limo. His recollections about a bullet having been recovered from either limo aren't credible at all.
BTW, thank you for posting the document regarding Mills finding the bullet fragment in JFK's limo, even though it showed one of my beliefs was wrong. I'm always glad to learn something I had not known before.
You're welcome. The wannabe Oswald legal defense team will object to those two fragments from being admitted into court as evidence.
-
You're welcome. The wannabe Oswald legal defense team will object to those two fragments from being admitted into court as evidence.
That is one of the reasons I found it strange that the Secret Service agents would allow a Navy NCO to assist in recovering evidence. If the fragment was found by someone other than a law enforcement officer, that could have tainted the discovery since they didn't have complete control of the limo during the search. Those are the kind of technicalities that arouse out of rulings by the Warren Court later in the decade so it's understandable why the Secret Service would not have been too uptight about having a Navy man assist in the search at the time.
I can picture Mills and Martinell showing up to collect the bone fragments that had already been found and the Secret Service was still going over the limo with a fine tooth comb. Maybe they just said, "Do you guys need any help looking for stuff" and the Secret Service saying, "Sure, why not".
-
Well then, it should be easy to find clarification in the official documents for such a major discrepancy.
Missile is a bullet, I'm not aware of any reference of other fragments found in this case called "missiles".
Even if "removed" Humes made no further reference to it, The document was hidden until 1972.
Find an official reference that missile means fragment would clarify it as not just another lame excuse
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.
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.
-
So the SS agents that searched the limo 1st for some reason missed finding a whole intact bullet. Then 2 Navy Vets were sent to search the limo and Lo and Behold there’s some sort of bullet ( ball nosed or conical? What caliber?) in plain sight which was “recoved” and labeled as “missile”.
It’s that damn Mandela effect, I’m telling ya. It’s altering time in the quantum physics world due to the CERN particle accelerator experiment that discovered the “God” particle. ???
-
You're welcome. The wannabe Oswald legal defense team will object to those two fragments from being admitted into court as evidence.
When I first read this, I thought you were being facetious but the more I thought about this, I wonder if that could have been a real problem. By allowing the Navy corpsman to assist in the search of the limo, it could be argued that the Secret Service had failed to secure the crime scene, and the limo was a crime scene. That could make any evidence collected from the limo inadmissible. Since the fragmented bullet was from the kill shot to the head, without those fragments being admitted, it could be problematic proving Oswald had caused the death of JFK. Henry Wade could have still prosecuted Oswald for Tippit's murder and that too was a capital crime, but it might not have been possible to convict Oswald for JFK's murder.
This might seem a bit farfetched but keep in mind this was before the Warren Court greatly expanding the exclusionary rule which allowed defense attorneys to get incriminating evidence dismissed on very technical grounds. I can't remember the exact case but I seem to remember a case where the police department had seized a car and taken it to a private garage to be searched for evidence. It turned out the city's contract with the private garage had expired so technically the car was no longer in possession of the police department and therefore all the evidence taken from the car was ruled inadmissible.
If there are any lawyers among our readers, I wonder if they could weigh in on this issue.
-
When I first read this, I thought you were being facetious but the more I thought about this, I wonder if that could have been a real problem. By allowing the Navy corpsman to assist in the search of the limo, it could be argued that the Secret Service had failed to secure the crime scene, and the limo was a crime scene. That could make any evidence collected from the limo inadmissible. Since the fragmented bullet was from the kill shot to the head, without those fragments being admitted, it could be problematic proving Oswald had caused the death of JFK. Henry Wade could have still prosecuted Oswald for Tippit's murder and that too was a capital crime, but it might not have been possible to convict Oswald for JFK's murder.
This might seem a bit farfetched but keep in mind this was before the Warren Court greatly expanding the exclusionary rule which allowed defense attorneys to get incriminating evidence dismissed on very technical grounds. I can't remember the exact case but I seem to remember a case where the police department had seized a car and taken it to a private garage to be searched for evidence. It turned out the city's contract with the private garage had expired so technically the car was no longer in possession of the police department and therefore all the evidence taken from the car was ruled inadmissible.
If there are any lawyers among our readers, I wonder if they could weigh in on this issue.
There is no way that any of the evidence recovered from the limo would be ruled inadmissible. The limo was in the White House garage. It was secure. Read up on Case law.
-
When I first read this, I thought you were being facetious but the more I thought about this, I wonder if that could have been a real problem. By allowing the Navy corpsman to assist in the search of the limo, it could be argued that the Secret Service had failed to secure the crime scene, and the limo was a crime scene. That could make any evidence collected from the limo inadmissible. Since the fragmented bullet was from the kill shot to the head, without those fragments being admitted, it could be problematic proving Oswald had caused the death of JFK. Henry Wade could have still prosecuted Oswald for Tippit's murder and that too was a capital crime, but it might not have been possible to convict Oswald for JFK's murder.
This might seem a bit farfetched but keep in mind this was before the Warren Court greatly expanding the exclusionary rule which allowed defense attorneys to get incriminating evidence dismissed on very technical grounds. I can't remember the exact case but I seem to remember a case where the police department had seized a car and taken it to a private garage to be searched for evidence. It turned out the city's contract with the private garage had expired so technically the car was no longer in possession of the police department and therefore all the evidence taken from the car was ruled inadmissible.
If there are any lawyers among our readers, I wonder if they could weigh in on this issue.
I know well the problem of inaccuracy with Ai, but Grok has a good record from my experience. Not perfect mind you. But the following is worth considering
https://x.com/i/grok/share/f4b0c295a9a446d880d81dd59cb3e15e
-
I know well the problem of inaccuracy with Ai, but Grok has a good record from my experience. Not perfect mind you. But the following is worth considering
https://x.com/i/grok/share/f4b0c295a9a446d880d81dd59cb3e15e
I use the AI app that came with my laptop which is CoPilot. I think that's the Microsoft AI app. I have a smartphone but i hate the thing and rarely use any apps with it. I was happy with my flip phone until Spectrum fiber optic became available in my area and I save money by bundling TV, internet, and mobile. If it weren't for that, I'd probably go back to my flip phone. The smartphone does nothing to make my life easier. CoPilot is useful but I wouldn't bet on the accuracy of its answers.
-
I use the AI app that came with my laptop which is CoPilot. I think that's the Microsoft AI app. I have a smartphone but i hate the thing and rarely use any apps with it. I was happy with my flip phone until Spectrum fiber optic became available in my area and I save money by bundling TV, internet, and mobile. If it weren't for that, I'd probably go back to my flip phone. The smartphone does nothing to make my life easier. CoPilot is useful but I wouldn't bet on the accuracy of its answers.
Grok is my go-to for Ai. I do like my smartphone but the vast majority of my internet time is spent on my laptops. I don't bundle anything. My internet and mobile are from the same provider but they don't offer a bundle for the two. I haven't had subscription TV for 21 years now. My TV got turned on a month ago after being off for 3 years. I have movies on thumb drives that the grandkids watch. They were watching YouTube on it before we shut it down 3 years ago. I also have Amazon Prime but I 've only watched a half dozen movies from it in the last 4 years and that is on my laptops. I watch a lot of documentaries and such on YouTube. The smartphone does make my life easier. It's convenient.
-
Grok is my go-to for Ai. I do like my smartphone but the vast majority of my internet time is spent on my laptops. I don't bundle anything. My internet and mobile are from the same provider but they don't offer a bundle for the two. I haven't had subscription TV for 21 years now. My TV got turned on a month ago after being off for 3 years. I have movies on thumb drives that the grandkids watch. They were watching YouTube on it before we shut it down 3 years ago. I also have Amazon Prime but I 've only watched a half dozen movies from it in the last 4 years and that is on my laptops. I watch a lot of documentaries and such on YouTube. The smartphone does make my life easier. It's convenient.
My Spectrum service includes a lot of the popular streaming services at no extra charge although they come with ads. If you want to go ad free you have to pay extra for them. I haven't crunched the numbers to determine if it would be cheaper to drop Spectrum as my TV provider and just subscribe to a streaming service for all my TV. I don't mind the ads because there aren't as many as there are with network and cable channels. I'm comfortable having everything in one big package and the price seems reasonable to me so why change.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
You ignored all these points and falsely cited me as if I had contradicted Michael Capasse's arguments.
-
And did you forget that you were the one who noted that CD 1258 says that Mills and Martinell searched JFK's limo?
CD 1258 does not say that Martinell searched JFK's limo.
-
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.
Yes, it's quibbling because fragments discharged from JFK's head spread out and some went outside the limo. One fragment struck the windshield and another hit the chrome frame. The fact that two of the fragments could be positively matched to Oswald's Carcano establish that the fragmented bullet found on the floor of the limo originated as a whole 6.5 X 52mm Carcano bullet.
Do you really, actually, honestly need me to explain to you why it matters? Are you really that immature and unserious?
Since your argument makes no sense, yes I do need you to explain it to me.
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.
As I said, your argument makes no sense. It isn't necessary to find all the fragments to conclude that the fragments that were found came from a 6.5 X 52mm Carcano bullet. The ballistic matching establishes that. The fact that the fragments found in the limo were less than the mass of a whole Carcano bullet establishes that some of the fragments were dispersed outside the limo and never recovered.
As I observed earlier, you really aren't very good at thinking logically which is why you come up with so many silly ideas. This hobby really doesn't suit you.
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!
I have already acknowledged thanks to the document provided by Tim Nickerson that I was wrong in doubting Mills had helped with the search of the limo. It still seems strange to me that the Secret Service would have allowed that to happen but apparently they did. That same document also established that Mills only found a fragment, not a whole bullet, and the fragments were given to the FBI, not sent to Bethesda. So the question is this. Are you willing to admit you were wrong about a whole bullet being sent to Bethesda with the bone fragments?
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.
Yup. FRAGMENTS. Not a whole bullet which shoots down the whole premise of this thread that you started. Your claim was that LNs can't explain a bullet and as the document in question establishes, there was no bullet that needed explaining. Only fragments which were turned over to the FBI. Now who has been undone by the document Tim Nickerson provided to us?
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.
This thread is a prime example of how really, really bad you are at analyzing evidence. You began with the assumption that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK which you have admitted you came to after watching Oliver Stone's BS: movie. That was 35 years ago. Ever since then you have tried to make every piece of evidence conform to the conclusions you drew from watching that movie. I see no chance you are going to unburden yourself from that silly movie which is why you will never know the simple truth of the JFKA. It was a murder carried out by a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald.
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.
Dr. Young spoke about the misconception he came to that Mills had found a whole bullet when he searched the limo when the same document that establishes he searched the limo also indicates he only found a fragment, one of several found and turned over to the FBI.
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.
The "What Price a Rose" essay contains no reference to a bullet being delivered to Bethesda the night of the autopsy. His notes might have contained that but if they do, they only reflect a misconception he had about what was delivered to Bethesda. No one else is on record as having seen a whole bullet having been found in the limo or having been delivered to Bethesda.
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.
And what came of that?
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.
No he didn't. You made that up. He only told Herman he remembered the event but gave no details. He is not on record as having confirmed that a whole bullet was found in the limo and delivered to Bethesda. But since you look at all the evidence through the lens of a conspiracy, you choose to embellish what Mills actually had to say to fit your chosen narrative.
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.
Young remains the only person who claims a whole bullet was delivered to Bethesda. Mills did not verify Young's account. He only said he remembered "the event".
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.
As is your practice, you give us your spin on what Stover said rather than quoting him.
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.
We don't admit it because the body of evidence refutes what Young believed. You can't bring yourself to believe Young was simply wrong because you have no real evidence of a conspiracy which forces you to believe myths.
-
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
-
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.
-
MTG is trying to conjure up a bullet where none existed and then expects the LNs to explain his imaginary bullet.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The only thing worse than witness testimony is 40 year old witness testimony. Griffith goes on endlessly with this type of crap.
Well said.
-
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.
-
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.
So you say but can't back up. The published version of that essay contains no such reference to a whole bullet received at Bethesda. No bullets or fragments were received at Bethesda. Several fragments were removed from JFK's skull and given to Sibert and O'Neill.
That wasn't even 40 hours after the fact, much less 40 years. It is revealing that you guys keep ignoring this crucial fact.
Unfortunately for you, there is no documentation which proves your claim.
Furthermore he 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.
You've claimed but never documented that Young's notes contained a reference to a bullet being sent to Bethesda. Even if his notes did contain that, they would only reflect Young's confusion about what was in the envelope containing the recovered bone fragments. It would make no sense for the bullet fragments to have been handed over to the FBI but for some strange reason, they would send a whole bullet to Bethesda. There is no documentation which shows a whole bullet was recovered from the limo, only bullet and bone fragments.
And, of course, never mind that Chief Mills corroborated Dr. Young's account, right?
Wrong. He corroborated none of this. He refused to go into any detail about that night. You know that but keep lying about it.
Nice try. Loeffler was referring to two separate items: (1) the stretcher bullet, which O. P. Wright assumed had come from Connally's body, and (2) the fragments that were removed from Connally's wrist.
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:
Nobody cares about the problems you have imagined.
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?
Nobody cares about what you have found strange.
- 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."
There seems to be a discrepancy as to how many bullet fragments were recovered at autopsy. It isn't relevant to the discussion of whether a whole bullet was delivered to Bethesda. The only "evidence" of that are the recollections of an old man who was probably confused from the outset. Nobody else has said a whole bullet was found in the limo or delivered to Bethesda. You continue to try to conjure up evidence based solely on the 38 year old recollections of a confused old man.
-- 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.
Why do you keep redirecting the conversation to the number of bullet fragments that were found during the autopsy. The issue which you raised in the OP is whether or not a whole bullet was found in the limo at the White House garage and then delivered to Bethesda.
You expect the LNs to explain something you have never established as fact. The evidence indicates only that bullet fragments were found in the limo and they were given to the FBI.
-- 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?"
Apparently the HSCA members weren't as anal as you.
-- 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).
Once again you redirect the conversation to the bullet fragments and away from your bogus claim that a whole bullet was recovered during the search of the limo.
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.
You sound desperate as you flail away aimlessly.
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.[/font]
The fact that you want to focus on how many missiles Sibert and O'Neill received is an indication you know how weak your case is for a whole bullet having been recovered from the limo and sent to Bethesda.
You guys just refuse to process and deal with contrary facts that refute your lame explanations.
Nothing you claim is fact. Just your wild speculations.
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.
There is no evidence that supports Young's belief that a whole bullet was delivered to Bethesda. You have made a vague, undocumented claim about Stover confirming a bullet was brought to the autopsy without any cite where Stover said he saw such a bullet or how he would have known about it. In lieu of such evidence, we can dismiss this as more of your BS:
-
You've claimed but never documented that Young's notes contained a reference to a bullet being sent to Bethesda. Even if his notes did contain that, they would only reflect Young's confusion about what was in the envelope containing the recovered bone fragments. It would make no sense for the bullet fragments to have been handed over to the FBI but for some strange reason, they would send a whole bullet to Bethesda. There is no documentation which shows a whole bullet was recovered from the limo, only bullet and bone fragments.
It's similar to the Bobby M. Nolan story. He believed that the envelope that he received from Nurse Audrey Bell contained a bullet. When asked about it in his later years , he always referred to it as "the bullet". But he never actually saw what was in the envelope. Bob Harris made a big deal of of it. He interviewed Nolan himself. He was adamant that Nolan received a bullet from someone. When I showed him the transfer receipt filled out by Audrey Bell and signed by her and Nolan, he went berserk. The copy of the transfer receipt had been found in the National Archives in the late 1990s by researcher Gary Murr. When I informed Harris of that, he went on the ED forum and attacked Murr; questioning his CT bona fides.
-
It's similar to the Bobby M. Nolan story. He believed that the envelope that he received from Nurse Audrey Bell contained a bullet. When asked about it in his later years , he always referred to it as "the bullet". But he never actually saw what was in the envelope. Bob Harris made a big deal of of it. He interviewed Nolan himself. He was adamant that Nolan received a bullet from someone. When I showed him the transfer receipt filled out by Audrey Bell and signed by her and Nolan, he went berserk. The copy of the transfer receipt had been found in the National Archives in the late 1990s by researcher Gary Murr. When I informed Harris of that, he went on the ED forum and attacked Murr; questioning his CT bona fides.
Oh, but it was even better than that. He'd decided that the evidence envelope that contained the bullet was a used one that a "newbie nurse" (his own original invention) fished out of the trash to reuse. He never could get his head around the fact that Nolan and Audrey Bell verified that the writing on the envelope was theirs.
-
Oh, but it was even better than that. He'd decided that the evidence envelope that contained the bullet was a used one that a "newbie nurse" (his own original invention) fished out of the trash to reuse. He never could get his head around the fact that Nolan and Audrey Bell verified that the writing on the envelope was theirs.
The envelope being fished out of the trash one I never heard from him.
-
I just went back and read the OP and I had missed that MTG claimed that the bullet in question was from a missed shot. A bullet striking inside the limo without striking anyone first would have cause some serious damage to the limo. No such damage was ever found other than the cracked windshield and the dented frame, both of which would have been caused by fragments from the headshot. A missed shot that struck inside the limo would have first hit either a seat, the floor, or the dashboard, none of which showed any damage. If MTG expects us to explain his imaginary bullet, maybe he should first explain what his imaginary bullet struck inside of the limo.
It has long been a practice of a CTs to suggest extra bullets yet they never take the obvious next step of telling us what it was those bullet hit and where they ended up. MTG has suggested lots of additional bullets to the three Oswald fired but can't explain why only two bullets were ever recovered, both of which were positively matched to Oswald's rifle which was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. All these other bullets he claims were fired must have been magic bullets because they all seem to have vanished into thin air.
-
It's similar to the Bobby M. Nolan story. He believed that the envelope that he received from Nurse Audrey Bell contained a bullet. When asked about it in his later years , he always referred to it as "the bullet". But he never actually saw what was in the envelope. Bob Harris made a big deal of of it. He interviewed Nolan himself. He was adamant that Nolan received a bullet from someone. When I showed him the transfer receipt filled out by Audrey Bell and signed by her and Nolan, he went berserk. The copy of the transfer receipt had been found in the National Archives in the late 1990s by researcher Gary Murr. When I informed Harris of that, he went on the ED forum and attacked Murr; questioning his CT bona fides.
Behold the pro-WC mind at work. It is indeed a thing to behold. As I've said, this thread is a prime example of the sad fact that WC apologists here are simply incapable of dealing with evidence in a credible, factual, logical manner.
Dr. Young's account bears no resemblance to the Nolan story. For starters, Dr. Young made it as clear as language can make something that he saw the bullet, whereas Nolan never saw the contents of the envelope he received from Nurse Bell. Nolan merely assumed the envelope contained a bullet, but he never saw the bullet. Dr. Young was not so careless; rather, as you would expect any competent senior military officer to do, he verified the contents of the envelope given to him by Chiefs Mills and Martinell before handing it over to Dr. Humes.
You guys keep dancing around, or just lying about, the fact that Navy historian Jan Herman confirmed to Dr. Randy Robertson that he called Chief Mills to verify Dr. Young's account and that Chief Mills confirmed (1) that a bullet was found in the limo and (2) that Dr. Young later called him to verify his recollection. I quote from Dr. Robertson's article:
In the interviews Dr. Young said that he had initially contacted White House Corpsman Chief Petty Officer Mills by telephone and Mills confirmed his recollection. Navy historians called Mills in an effort to verify Dr. Young’s claims. Mills told historian Jan Herman that he remembered the event but when pressed for details Mills stated that he didn’t want to talk about it even after the historians notified him that they represented the U. S. Navy Bureau of Medical and Surgery Office of Medical History. Significantly, Mills did not repudiate Dr. Young’s claim, something that might well have been expected if Young had fabricated the episode and falsely implicated Mills in the process. (https://aarclibrary.org/2017/09/08/white-house-physician-autopsy-eyewitness-questions-president-ford-about-missing-bullet/)
Dr. Robertson discusses this in his interview in the third episode of the documentary JFK: Destiny Betrayed:
Narrator: As part of a Naval oral history project, Jan Herman, who had interviewed Dr. Young on this subject, got in touch with Thomas Mills, one of the two men who had gone to the limo to retrieve the skull fragments.
Robertson: Jan Herman called up Mills, says, "Hey, do you remember Dr. Young calling you, asking you about this bent bullet?" He said, "Yeah, I remember him calling me." Yeah, he remembered it. He [Herman] says, "Can you shed any light on it?" And he [Mills] says, "I would rather not talk about that." (27:08 to 27:37)
This was clear, albeit tacit, confirmation that a bullet was found in the limo and given to Dr. Young. As Dr. Robertson notes, given that Mills was reluctant to comment further on the matter, if Dr. Young was wrong about the finding of the bullet, Mills surely would have said so immediately, rather than be implicated in a spurious story about a bullet being found in JFK's limo.
Milicent Cranor makes some cogent points about the claim that Dr. Young did not see a bullet but only saw CE 569 (one of the two bullet fragments found in the front of the limo):
The basic facts need repeating:
Young never even saw that little fragment. He stayed in the autopsy room and never went down to the garage where the limousine was, and where the front seat fragments were found. Petty officers were sent.
The front seat fragments were turned over to the FBI and whisked away. (Commission Exhibits 567 and 569)
The front seat fragments were NOT brought back to the autopsy table.
So how could James Young have confused a spent bullet (or any form of a bullet) with CE 569, which is the hollow base of a bullet -- with no tip, bent or otherwise? (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/bending-the-story-on-a-bent-bullet)
Indeed. Even in his 11/23/63 "What Price a Rose?" essay, Dr. Young described the bullet as a "brass slug" that was "half a centimeter in diameter" and "distorted." And keep in mind that Dr. Young read from the essay during his 2001 interviews with Navy historians Jan Herman and Andre Sobocinski. V. K. Remer's three-page 2013 article "What Price A Rose? A Navy Physician Remembers Nov. 22, 1963," which was edited by Sobocinski, confirmed that Dr. Young read from his 11/23/63 essay when he was interviewed. The 2013 U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery article "Navy Medicine and President Kennedy’s Autopsy: Recollections from a former White House Physician" also confirms that Dr. Young read from the essay when he was interviewed.
And, needless to say, the interview transcripts likewise confirm that Dr. Young read from the essay during his interviews.
-
Behold the pro-WC mind at work. It is indeed a thing to behold. As I've said, this thread is a prime example of the sad fact that WC apologists here are simply incapable of dealing with evidence in a credible, factual, logical manner.
Maybe someday you will present credible and factual evidence. However, after reading your nonsense on and off for the past 35 years, I find that to be unlikely.
Dr. Young's account bears no resemblance to the Nolan story. For starters, Dr. Young made it as clear as language can make something that he saw the bullet, whereas Nolan never saw the contents of the envelope he received from Nurse Bell. Nolan merely assumed the envelope contained a bullet, but he never saw the bullet. Dr. Young was not so careless; rather, as you would expect any competent senior military officer to do, he verified the contents of the envelope given to him by Chiefs Mills and Martinell before handing it over to Dr. Humes.
You don't know that. You simply assumed. Just like Young assumed the envelope contained a bullet. A bullet that nobody else saw.
You guys keep dancing around, or just lying about, the fact that Navy historian Jan Herman confirmed to Dr. Randy Robertson that he called Chief Mills to verify Dr. Young's account and that Chief Mills confirmed (1) that a bullet was found in the limo and (2) that Dr. Young later called him to verify his recollection. I quote from Dr. Robertson's article:
In the interviews Dr. Young said that he had initially contacted White House Corpsman Chief Petty Officer Mills by telephone and Mills confirmed his recollection. Navy historians called Mills in an effort to verify Dr. Young’s claims. Mills told historian Jan Herman that he remembered the event but when pressed for details Mills stated that he didn’t want to talk about it even after the historians notified him that they represented the U. S. Navy Bureau of Medical and Surgery Office of Medical History. Significantly, Mills did not repudiate Dr. Young’s claim, something that might well have been expected if Young had fabricated the episode and falsely implicated Mills in the process. (https://aarclibrary.org/2017/09/08/white-house-physician-autopsy-eyewitness-questions-president-ford-about-missing-bullet/)
Your own quote shows that Mills DID NOT confirm the existence of a bullet. He only said he remembered the event. He gave no details about the event. He didn't confirm Young's claim of a bullet being delivered to Bethesda. Do you even bother to read the sources you quote?
Dr. Robertson discusses this in his interview in the third episode of the documentary JFK: Destiny Betrayed:
Narrator: As part of a Naval oral history project, Jan Herman, who had interviewed Dr. Young on this subject, got in touch with Thomas Mills, one of the two men who had gone to the limo to retrieve the skull fragments.
Robertson: Jan Herman called up Mills, says, "Hey, do you remember Dr. Young calling you, asking you about this bent bullet?" He said, "Yeah, I remember him calling me." Yeah, he remembered it. He [Herman] says, "Can you shed any light on it?" And he [Mills] says, "I would rather not talk about that." (27:08 to 27:37)
Exactly. Mills DID NOT confirm Young's recollection of a bullet. How you could read that and claim it is a confirmation of Young's story is mind boggling.
This was clear, albeit tacit, confirmation that a bullet was found in the limo and given to Dr. Young. As Dr. Robertson notes, given that Mills was reluctant to comment further on the matter, if Dr. Young was wrong about the finding of the bullet, Mills surely would have said so immediately, rather than be implicated in a spurious story about a bullet being found in JFK's limo.
It wasn't confirmation at all. You do what CTs always do. They take every opportunity to fill in the blanks to fit their narrative.
Milicent Cranor makes some cogent points about the claim that Dr. Young did not see a bullet but only saw CE 569 (one of the two bullet fragments found in the front of the limo):
The basic facts need repeating:
Young never even saw that little fragment. He stayed in the autopsy room and never went down to the garage where the limousine was, and where the front seat fragments were found. Petty officers were sent.
The front seat fragments were turned over to the FBI and whisked away. (Commission Exhibits 567 and 569)
The front seat fragments were NOT brought back to the autopsy table.
Neither was a bullet. Just bone fragments. You've never answered the question on why a whole bullet would have been delivered to Bethesda when all the bullet fragments were given to the FBI.
So how could James Young have confused a spent bullet (or any form of a bullet) with CE 569, which is the hollow base of a bullet -- with no tip, bent or otherwise? (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/bending-the-story-on-a-bent-bullet)[/font]
Indeed. Even in his 11/23/63 "What Price a Rose?" essay, Dr. Young described the bullet as a "brass slug" that was "half a centimeter in diameter" and "distorted." And keep in mind that Dr. Young read from the essay during his 2001 interviews with Navy historians Jan Herman and Andre Sobocinski. V. K. Remer's three-page 2013 article "What Price A Rose? A Navy Physician Remembers Nov. 22, 1963," which was edited by Sobocinski, confirmed that Dr. Young read from his 11/23/63 essay when he was interviewed. The interview transcripts also confirm that Dr. Young read from the essay during his interviews.
Nobody corroborates Young that the envelope contained a slug. He is the only one who made such a claim.
-
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 12:45:57 PM
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.
So you say but can't back up.
Huh?! Objective people who read this thread are going to conclude that either you can't read or that you are knowingly making a false claim here.
The published version of that essay contains no such reference to a whole bullet received at Bethesda.
Once again, objective people who read this thread are going to conclude that either you can't read or that you are knowingly making a false claim here.
No bullets or fragments were received at Bethesda.
Then you are saying that Dr. Young was either lying or hallucinating, starting less than 24 hours after the autopsy, and that he was so dishonest or delusional that when he came across the reference to the bullet in his 11/23/63 essay years later, when he was making copies of the essay for his children, that he then repeated the lie/delusion in a letter to President Gerald Ford, that he repeated the lie/delusion again when he spoke with Arlen Specter, and that he repeated the lie/delusion yet again when he gave his Navy oral history interviews!
Let me guess: that scenario "makes sense" to you, right?!
Several fragments were removed from JFK's skull and given to Sibert and O'Neill.
Even here you can't be honest or accurate. The cover story that you are peddling demands that only two very small fragments were found, not "several," and that Sibert and O'Neill signed a receipt that described them as a "missile" even though they constituted less than 2% of the mass of a bullet. That's the story you're stuck with if you can't admit that the receipt was for a missile and not two very small fragments.
Ah, but you know that Boyers and Sibert said there were more than two fragments in the evidence bottle, that Dennis David typed a memo for four bullet fragments removed from the skull, and that mortician Tom Robinson saw Humes remove about 10 fragments from the skull.
You also know that O'Neill said he saw Humes remove a bullet fragment from the back of the head and that it was one of the two fragments in the evidence bottle, a bombshell that you know decimates the cover story you're peddling and proves Humes was lying about the fragments he removed.
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 12:45:57 PM
That wasn't even 40 hours after the fact, much less 40 years. It is revealing that you guys keep ignoring this crucial fact.
Unfortunately for you, there is no documentation which proves your claim.
Once again, objective people who read this thread are going to conclude that either you can't read or that you are knowingly making a false claim here.
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 12:45:57 PM
Furthermore he 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.
You've claimed but never documented that Young's notes contained a reference to a bullet being sent to Bethesda.
Once again, objective people who read this thread are going to conclude that either you can't read or that you are knowingly making a false claim here.
Even if his notes did contain that, they would only reflect Young's confusion about what was in the envelope containing the recovered bone fragments.
The only "confusion" is in your silly, deceitful argument. Dr. Young never exhibited the slightest degree of "confusion" about the bullet. From his 11/23/63 essay, to his December 2000 letter to Ford, to his summer 2001 conversation with Specter, to his December 2001 Navy oral history interviews, he repeatedly made it clear that he saw the bullet, noting that it was brass in color, half a centimeter in diameter, and deformed. When he was asked in his third 2001 interview if the bullet was a copper-jacketed bullet, he said he didn't think so because it didn't "look like" that.
It would make no sense for the bullet fragments to have been handed over to the FBI but for some strange reason, they would send a whole bullet to Bethesda. There is no documentation which shows a whole bullet was recovered from the limo, only bullet and bone fragments.
What truly makes no sense is that you would pretend to have any clue about what makes sense. Earlier in this thread, you said that for Dr. Young's account to make sense, we'd have to believe that JFK's limo was driven to Bethesda. You said it made no sense that SS agents would turn over a whole bullet to Mills and Martinell, when no one has ever claimed any such thing. You said it made no sense that SS agents would keep the "fragmented bullet," when there was no "fragmented bullet" found in the limo and when no one has ever even claimed there was. You said it made no sense that Dr. Young would have verified the envelope's contents before handing it over to Dr. Humes in the autopsy of a U.S. president in the crime of the century. Over and over you said it made no sense that SS agents would let Mill and Martinell search the limo.
So you have no credibility to be telling anyone what makes sense and what does not.
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 12:45:57 PM
And, of course, never mind that Chief Mills corroborated Dr. Young's account, right?
Wrong. He corroborated none of this. He refused to go into any detail about that night. You know that but keep lying about it.
Once again, objective people who read this thread are going to conclude that either you can't read or that you are knowingly making a false claim here.
Just to remind everyone, one of the reasons that Navy historian Jan Herman called Chief Mills was that Dr. Young had said that he phoned Chief Mills to verify his recollection about the finding of the bullet and bringing of the bullet to him at the autopsy, and that Chief Mills confirmed his recollection.
The fact that Mills did not repudiate Dr. Young's account and confirmed that Dr. Young called him to verify his recollection is powerful evidence in support of the account. If Mills had not found a bullet and had not brought it to Dr. Young at the autopsy, he certainly would have immediately made this clear to Herman, especially since he was reluctant to discuss the matter further. The conversation would have gone something like this if Dr. Young had been wrong about the finding and delivery of the bullet:
Herman: Dr. Young says he called you to verify his recollection that you and Martinell found a bullet in the limo and that you brought the bullet in an envelope to him at the autopsy. Is this true?
Mills: He called me, but he totally got his facts mixed up. We didn't find any bullet and did not bring any bullet to him at the autopsy. So, no, I did not verify his recollection.
I think it would be worthwhile to review some of your other gaffes in this read, just to show readers that you have no business even posting in this forum:
-- You said Dr. Young wrote the 2013 V.K. Remer article for himself. Young died in 2008, and the article's byline identified Remer as the author and Andre Sobocinski as the editor.
-- You declared with great excitement that V.K. Remer's 3-page 2013 article on Dr. Young's account did not mention the finding of a bullet in the limo. You didn't realize that Remer's 2013 article was a highly condensed version of the U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery's earlier 12-page 2013 article, which does mention the finding of the bullet.
-- You said Captain Osborne was never interviewed by the HSCA, when in fact his HSCA interview is a matter of record and has been discussed in literally dozens of books on the JFK assassination -- proving, once again, that you have no business posting in this forum under the pretension that you know anything about the JFK case.
-- You said it doesn't matter if the autopsy doctors or the HSCA FPP got the rear head entry wound's location wrong by 4 inches because either way the shot aligns with the sixth-floor window! Did you just not get to take a basic geometry course in high school?
-- You claimed that you can accept the EOP entry site without rejecting the autopsy brain photos, even though the HSCA FPP correctly pointed out that the brain photos categorically disprove the EOP site. Of course, we both know that the all-important caveat here is that this is assuming the brain photos are authentic.
We both also know that even pro-WC Dr. Robert Artwohl was honest enough to confirm that the autopsy photos at the National Archives show undamaged cerebral cortex in the very spot of the alternative rear head entry wound site, i.e., the cowlick site, just as neuroanatomist Dr. Joseph Riley noted, and just as Dr. David Mantik has confirmed at the National Archives.
I suspect you just don't the character to admit it, but your only two choices are a rear head entry site that proves the brain photos are fraudulent or a site that is refuted by the autopsy photos of the head (as well as by the fact that the phantom site was conjured up in the first place in an attempt to explain what appeared to be a 6.5 mm bullet fragment on the AP x-ray, a "fragment" that was not mentioned in the autopsy report and that turned out to be a ghosted image that was superimposed over the image of a smaller and much thinner genuine fragment visible on the lateral x-rays).
-- You said we can't know what Sibert and O'Neill meant by the term "missile" on the receipt, when (1) they did not draft the receipt, and (2) in every other document and statement they always distinguished between a missile/bullet and missile/bullet fragments. This is not to mention the fact that Sibert clearly expressed misgivings about having signed the receipt in his HSCA interview, and that O'Neill dropped the bombshell in his HSCA statement that one of the fragments in the evidence bottle was a fragment from the back of the head.
-- You claimed that I have denied there was a shot to the back of the head, when I have spent literally dozens of replies in numerous threads arguing for the veracity of the autopsy report's description of the rear head entry wound.
-- You said that I think Sibert and O'Neill were "qualified radiologists," a truly bizarre claim whose origin I cannot fathom, since I have never once even remotely implied that they tried to read x-rays at the autopsy (they merely reported what they heard the autopsy doctors say).
-- You asked me if Captain Osborne said "he and Sibert received whole bullets at the autopsy," apparently forgetting that Osborne insisted he saw and handled a bullet at the autopsy, and that Captain Stover said he recalled that a bullet arrived at the autopsy in an envelope.
-
Huh?! Objective people who read this thread are going to conclude that either you can't read or that you are knowingly making a false claim here.
Once again, objective people who read this thread are going to conclude that either you can't read or that you are knowingly making a false claim here.
I based that statement on the following:
https://archive.org/stream/WhatPriceARoseANavyPhysicianRemembersNov.221963NavyMedicine/What%20Price%20A%20Rose_%20A%20Navy%20Physician%20Remembers%20Nov.%2022%2C%201963%C2%A0_%C2%A0Navy%20Medicine_djvu.txt
It states from the top that it is the full text of "What Price a Rose" and it contains no reference to a bullet or I slug. This morning, I found another version of "What Price a Rose" which does contain a reference to a slug. It appears that despite the article saying it was the full text of Dr. Young's essay, it appears to be a slightly abridged version so I had been misled. When I discovered the more complete version, I deleted the statement I had already typed which said the essay contained no reference to the slug.
What hasn't changed is the fact that there is no corroboration for Dr. Young's statement that the envelope with the bone fragments also contained a bullet. Contrary to what you have stated repeatedly, Chief Mills did not corroborate Young's claims. He only stated that he had a conversation about "the event" but gave no other details. That is not a corroboration of Young's account.
You have also made the claim that someone named Stover corroborates Young but despite having been asked, you have yet to provide a citation that backs up your claim. You have only given us your spin on what Stover saw.
Then you are saying that Dr. Young was either lying or hallucinating, starting less than 24 hours after the autopsy, and that he was so dishonest or delusional that when he came across the reference to the bullet in his 11/23/63 essay years later, when he was making copies of the essay for his children, that he then repeated the lie/delusion in a letter to President Gerald Ford, that he repeated the lie/delusion again when he spoke with Arlen Specter, and that he repeated the lie/delusion yet again when he gave his Navy oral history interviews!
I neither said Dr. Young was lying or hallucinating. Those are your words. I indicated Dr. Young apparently had a misconception about what was in the envelope. He might have just assumed that based on the report he got from the Secret Service from the White House garage. They informed him they had found some bone fragments and might have also told him about the bullet fragments found. Young might have just assumed they were referring to a whole bullet and not a fragment. There is no record of a whole bullet having been found in the limo. Not from the Secret Service and not from Mills. The reason for doubting Young's account is that it would make no sense for them to have sent a whole bullet to Bethesda. The record shows that the bullet fragments found in the limo were turned over to the FBI. What sense would it make for them to turn the fragments over to the FBI but send a whole bullet to Bethesda. I have yet to see you address this conundrum.
Let me guess: that scenario "makes sense" to you, right?!
Again. I did not use the word lie.. I used the word confused.
Even here you can't be honest or accurate. The cover story that you are peddling demands that only two very small fragments were found, not "several," and that Sibert and O'Neill signed a receipt that described them as a "missile" even though they constituted less than 2% of the mass of a bullet. That's the story you're stuck with if you can't admit that the receipt was for a missile and not two very small fragments.
Now you try your trick of trying to redirect the conversation. The issue of whether a whole bullet was sent to Bethesda from the White House garage has nothing to do with what Sibert and O'Neill RECEIVED from the autopsy team at Bethesda.
Ah, but you know that Boyers and Sibert said there were more than two fragments in the evidence bottle, that Dennis David typed a memo for four bullet fragments removed from the skull, and that mortician Tom Robinson saw Humes remove about 10 fragments from the skull. '
The question of how many fragments Sibert and O'Neill received at Bethesda has nothing to do with your claim that Bethesda had received a whole bullet from the White House garage. The premise of the thread as stated in your OP is that a whole bullet being found in the limo is inconsistent with the finding that a lone gunman did the shooting. Your sole basis for claiming such a bullet was found is Dr. Young and nobody corroborates his story and the story makes no sense. Are you ever going to even attempt to explain why the Secret Service would have sent a whole bullet they found in the limo to Bethesda when they had turned all the fragments that were found, including the one found by Mills, over to the FBI?
You also know that O'Neill said he saw Humes remove a bullet fragment from the back of the head and that it was one of the two fragments in the evidence bottle, a bombshell that you know decimates the cover story you're peddling and proves Humes was lying about the fragments he removed.
Try to focus. The issue is whether whole bullet was found in the limo and sent to Bethesda.
Once again, objective people who read this thread are going to conclude that either you can't read or that you are knowingly making a false claim here.
Once again, objective people who read this thread are going to conclude that either you can't read or that you are knowingly making a false claim here.
Objective people will see you are trying to bluster your way through the discussion by trying to redirect the conversation to the fragments that were turned over to the FBI and away from Young's claim that a whole bullet was delivered to Bethesda.
The only "confusion" is in your silly, deceitful argument. Dr. Young never exhibited the slightest degree of "confusion" about the bullet. From his 11/23/63 essay, to his December 2000 letter to Ford, to his summer 2001 conversation with Specter, to his December 2001 Navy oral history interviews, he repeatedly made it clear that he saw the bullet, noting that it was brass in color, half a centimeter in diameter, and deformed. When he was asked in his third 2001 interview if the bullet was a copper-jacketed bullet, he said he didn't think so because it didn't "look like" that.
Yes, Young did exhibit confusion when he claimed to have seen a bullet that nobody else knows anything about. Not the Secret Service agents who searched the limo. Not Mills nor Martinell. Not Admiral Burkey. Not Humes, Boswell, nor xxxx. Not Gerald Ford nor Arlen Specter. Nobody by Young.
What truly makes no sense is that you would pretend to have any clue about what makes sense. Earlier in this thread, you said that for Dr. Young's account to make sense, we'd have to believe that JFK's limo was driven to Bethesda. You said it made no sense that SS agents would turn over a whole bullet to Mills and Martinell, when no one has ever claimed any such thing. You said it made no sense that SS agents would keep the "fragmented bullet," when there was no "fragmented bullet" found in the limo and when no one has ever even claimed there was. You said it made no sense that Dr. Young would have verified the envelope's contents before handing it over to Dr. Humes in the autopsy of a U.S. president in the crime of the century. Over and over you said it made no sense that SS agents would let Mill and Martinell search the limo.
I got that impression from what you wrote in the OP. You only said that Mills and Martinell had found a bullet in the limo. You failed to mention that they had been sent to the White House garage to search the limo. Silly me for thinking you had told us the whole story.
So you have no credibility to be telling anyone what makes sense and what does not.
You apparently have no sensible explanation for why the Secret Service would give the bullet fragments to the FBI but send a whole bullet to Bethesda. Does that make sense to you?
Once again, objective people who read this thread are going to conclude that either you can't read or that you are knowingly making a false claim here.
Just to remind everyone, one of the reasons that Navy historian Jan Herman called Chief Mills was that Dr. Young had said that he phoned Chief Mills to verify his recollection about the finding of the bullet and bringing of the bullet to him at the autopsy, and that Chief Mills confirmed his recollection.
Again you are telling a flat out lie. Mills only told Herman that he had a conversation with Young. He refused to tell Herman what was discussed. There is no record of Mills confirming Young's claim that a bullet was found in the limo and sent to Bethesda. If you had any evidence of that, you would have posted it by now.
The fact that Mills did not repudiate Dr. Young's account and confirmed that Dr. Young called him to verify his recollection is powerful evidence in support of the account.
Oh, because Mills did not repudiate what his former commanding officer had claimed, you took that as confirmation. One more example of the illogical way your mind works. Any unknowns are treated as evidence that supports the narrative you are pushing.
If Mills had not found a bullet and had not brought it to Dr. Young at the autopsy, he certainly would have immediately made this clear to Herman, especially since he was reluctant to discuss the matter further. The conversation would have gone something like this if Dr. Young had been wrong about the finding and delivery of the bullet:
Herman: Dr. Young says he called you to verify his recollection that you and Martinell found a bullet in the limo and that you brought the bullet in an envelope to him at the autopsy. Is this true?
Mills: He called me, but he totally got his facts mixed up. We didn't find any bullet and did not bring any bullet to him at the autopsy. So, no, I did not verify his recollection.
BS: BS: BS: BS: BS: BS:
That was worthy of six BS emotes. You have no idea what Mills would have said or why. I don't suppose you ever considered that maybe Mills didn't want to talk about it to Herman because he didn't want to embarrass his former CO. I could just as easily posted an imaginary conversation between the two based on that premise and it would carry the same weight as your imaginary conversation which is none at all. All we know is that Mills refused to go into detail with Herman without giving a reason.
I think it would be worthwhile to review some of your other gaffes in this read, just to show readers that you have no business even posting in this forum:
-- You said Dr. Young wrote the 2013 V.K. Remer article for himself. Young died in 2008, and the article's byline identified Remer as the author and Andre Sobocinski as the editor.
-- You declared with great excitement that V.K. Remer's 3-page 2013 article on Dr. Young's account did not mention the finding of a bullet in the limo. You didn't realize that Remer's 2013 article was a highly condensed version of the U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery's earlier 12-page 2013 article, which does mention the finding of the bullet.
So you acknowledge what I wrote at the beginning of this post that there was an abridged version of Young's essay which didn't mention a bullet. That is not a gaffe by me. Am I supposed to know that a longer version of that essay was available, especially since the version I referenced stated it was a FULL TEXT.
-- You said Captain Osborne was never interviewed by the HSCA, when in fact his HSCA interview is a matter of record and has been discussed in literally dozens of books on the JFK assassination -- proving, once again, that you have no business posting in this forum under the pretension that you know anything about the JFK case.
Again, I made that on the basis of an internet source that listed witnesses who testified before the WC, the HSCA, and the ARRB as well as those who gave affidavits. I was unaware that the list is incomplete and in the future I will take that into account.
-- You said it doesn't matter if the autopsy doctors or the HSCA FPP got the rear head entry wound's location wrong by 4 inches because either way the shot aligns with the sixth-floor window! Did you just not get to take a basic geometry course in high school?
The effect of the geometry would be negligible given that a 4 inch difference at a range of 88 yards would have little change on the angle of the trajectory and either entry point is possible with Oswald as the shooter. There is ample other evidence that establishes Oswald was the shooter who fired that shot. Most notably, the fragmented bullet found in the limo which had two fragments which were positively matched to Oswald's rifle which was found on the 6ht floor.
-- You claimed that you can accept the EOP entry site without rejecting the autopsy brain photos, even though the HSCA FPP correctly pointed out that the brain photos categorically disprove the EOP site. Of course, we both know that the all-important caveat here is that this is assuming the brain photos are authentic.
I can accept that because unlike you, I haven't deluded myself into believing I am an expert in forensic medicine and am in no position to conclude which group correctly placed the entry wound. What matters to me is where that bullet was fired from and both groups agreed JFK was shot in the back of the head which is consistent with the finding that Oswald fired the shot.
We both also know that even pro-WC Dr. Robert Artwohl was honest enough to confirm that the autopsy photos at the National Archives show undamaged cerebral cortex in the very spot of the alternative rear head entry wound site, i.e., the cowlick site, just as neuroanatomist Dr. Joseph Riley noted, and just as Dr. David Mantik has confirmed at the National Archives.
All this crap you are bringing up is just another example of you trying to redirect the conversation away from your original premise that an extra bullet was found in the limo, a claim you made on the weakest of evidence.
I suspect you just don't the character to admit it, but your only two choices are a rear head entry site that proves the brain photos are fraudulent or a site that is refuted by the autopsy photos of the head (as well as by the fact that the phantom site was conjured up in the first place in an attempt to explain what appeared to be a 6.5 mm bullet fragment on the AP x-ray, a "fragment" that was not mentioned in the autopsy report and that turned out to be a ghosted image that was superimposed over the image of a smaller and much thinner genuine fragment visible on the lateral x-rays).
I know you don't have the character to admit you are wrong even though you are almost all the time with your FUBAR analysis of the evidence. I also know that if I had left out an important word like you did in the first sentence of the above paragraph, you would have made a big deal about it.
-- You said we can't know what Sibert and O'Neill meant by the term "missile" on the receipt, when (1) they did not draft the receipt, and (2) in every other document and statement they always distinguished between a missile/bullet and missile/bullet fragments. This is not to mention the fact that Sibert clearly expressed misgivings about having signed the receipt in his HSCA interview, and that O'Neill dropped the bombshell in his HSCA statement that one of the fragments in the evidence bottle was a fragment from the back of the head.
Didn't they sign the receipt?
-- You claimed that I have denied there was a shot to the back of the head, when I have spent literally dozens of replies in numerous threads arguing for the veracity of the autopsy report's description of the rear head entry wound.
-- You said that I think Sibert and O'Neill were "qualified radiologists," a truly bizarre claim whose origin I cannot fathom, since I have never once even remotely implied that they tried to read x-rays at the autopsy (they merely reported what they heard the autopsy doctors say).
I intended that as a question. I was asking you if that's what you thought. I neglected to finish the sentence with a "?" which does change the meaning. My bad.
-- You asked me if Captain Osborne said "he and Sibert received whole bullets at the autopsy," apparently forgetting that Osborne insisted he saw and handled a bullet at the autopsy, and that Captain Stover said he recalled that a bullet arrived at the autopsy in an envelope.
You keep claiming this but never provide a quote or a source for this claim.
-
My, my, my, what have we here?
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/McKnight%20Working%20Folders/Part%203/HSCA%20-%20Captain%20John%20H%20Stover%20Interview/HSCA%20-%20Captain%20John%20H%20Stover%20Interview%2001.pdf
MTG has repeatedly said throughout this thread that Captain John Stover corroborated Dr. James Young's claim that a whole bullet was delivered to Bethesda during JFK's autopsy. Despite my requests for MTG to cite a source for his claim, he failed to do so. I decided to look for the documentation myself and the above link is what I found. It is an HSCA Outside Contact Report which summarizes the interview with Captain Stover. I point to item 5 in the report which states the following:
"Stover cannot recall ever seeing an intact missile in the autopsy room."
My question to MTG is whether this was a gaffe on your part or did you just outright lie about Stover's statement.
-
(https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/bending-the-story-on-a-bent-bullet)[/font]
Indeed. Even in his 11/23/63 "What Price a Rose?" essay, Dr. Young described the bullet as a "brass slug" that was "half a centimeter in diameter" and "distorted."
Where can we read that full essay?
-
My, my, my, what have we here?
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/McKnight%20Working%20Folders/Part%203/HSCA%20-%20Captain%20John%20H%20Stover%20Interview/HSCA%20-%20Captain%20John%20H%20Stover%20Interview%2001.pdf
MTG has repeatedly said throughout this thread that Captain John Stover corroborated Dr. James Young's claim that a whole bullet was delivered to Bethesda during JFK's autopsy. Despite my requests for MTG to cite a source for his claim, he failed to do so. I decided to look for the documentation myself and the above link is what I found. It is an HSCA Outside Contact Report which summarizes the interview with Captain Stover. I point to item 5 in the report which states the following:
"Stover cannot recall ever seeing an intact missile in the autopsy room."
My question to MTG is whether this was a gaffe on your part or did you just outright lie about Stover's statement.
It was probably a gaffe. They are so common from him. Although, he may not comprehend that it was a gaffe. He would do well to not overextend himself. He says a great deal but so much of what he says is false, convoluted, or phantasmal.
-
Where can we read that full essay?
https://ia800502.us.archive.org/30/items/james-young-jfk-interviews/Captain%20James%20Young%27s%20December%202001%20interviews%20with%20BUMED.pdf
This is the website I found this morning that contains the reference to the "brass slug".
The pages are not numbered but if you slide down about 2/3 of the way, the last paragraph on the relevant page contains the passage where Young states there was a brass slug in the envelope.
There is more on this page than just his "What Price a Rose" essay and you have to figure out what Young was telling the interviewer and what he was reading from what he had written. I'm not entirely sure if he was reading from the essay or from the notes he took that day. Perhaps I was correct originally when I said the essay doesn't contain the reference to the brass slug and that reference is from his notes. See if you can figure it out. In any event, Young does seem to say he saw a brass slug that had come out of the envelope, an assertion only he seems to have made.
-
It was probably a gaffe. They are so common from him. Although, he may not comprehend that it was a gaffe. He would do well to not overextend himself. He says a great deal but so much of what he says is false, convoluted, or phantasmal.
Gaffes and lies are both commonplace. The statements he makes are false but it's hard to say for sure whether he know they are false and is lying or whether his beliefs have just diverged from reality.
-
https://ia800502.us.archive.org/30/items/james-young-jfk-interviews/Captain%20James%20Young%27s%20December%202001%20interviews%20with%20BUMED.pdf
This is the website I found this morning that contains the reference to the "brass slug".
The pages are not numbered but if you slide down about 2/3 of the way, the last paragraph on the relevant page contains the passage where Young states there was a brass slug in the envelope.
There is more on this page than just his "What Price a Rose" essay and you have to figure out what Young was telling the interviewer and what he was reading from what he had written. I'm not entirely sure if he was reading from the essay or from the notes he took that day. Perhaps I was correct originally when I said the essay doesn't contain the reference to the brass slug and that reference is from his notes. See if you can figure it out. In any event, Young does seem to say he saw a brass slug that had come out of the envelope, an assertion only he seems to have made.
That's not the essay though.
-
Gaffes and lies are both commonplace. The statements he makes are false but it's hard to say for sure whether he know they are false and is lying or whether his beliefs have just diverged from reality.
I doubt that he knowingly tells untruths. He does get confused a lot though. That's why I try not to engage with him often. It's frustrating trying to get him to understand that he's wrong when he's wrong. And he's wrong a lot.
-
That's not the essay though.
You are probably right. MTG had said Young had made the claim about the "brass slug" in his "What Price a Rose" essay. The version of the essay I found online contained no such reference. When he insisted it was I did a google search for "James Young What Price a Rose" and this web page was one that came up. I did a find-on-page looking for the quote MTG had claimed had been made. When I found the reference to the "brass slug", I decided MTG had been right about the quote and assumed it was from "What Price a Rose". Going back, it now appears to me that during the interview, Young had been reading from the notes he took and not his essay. It appears MTG and I both made the same mistake in believing it came from the essay. It's a little confusing because the article does say at some point Young was reading from his essay. Whether he was reading from the essay or his notes, it does appear Young did make the claim in his 2001 interview. The question then becomes was his observation a correct one. The lack of corroboration from any other source seems to indicate that Young was confused. It also makes no sense that the Secret Service would have sent the bullet to Bethesda when all the fragments they found were turned over to the FBI. I can understand why the bone fragments would be important to the prosectors, but what reason would there be to send them the ballistic evidence.
On another issue, the HSCA Outside Contact Report in which Captain John Stover denied he saw a whole bullet at Bethesda also indicates Stover did not remember the prosectors examining the adrenal glands. Since Young brought up the subject of JFK's adrenal glands in his interview, I'm wondering if at least some of the questions the HSCA asked Stover were based on comments Young had made. I know the interview was many years after the HSCA did their work but it's very possible they had talked to Young before they talked to Stover and was looking to Stover to confirm or deny some of Young's claims.
-
It's time for another recap in response to the feeble, inane, square-peg-in-round-hole excuses being offered by WC apologists for their refusal to accept Dr. Young's account.
-- First and foremost, we need to understand that if WC apologists are correct, we must believe the following:
* That Dr. Young lied when he said that he phoned Chief Mills to verify his recollection, and that Chief Mills verified his recollection:
Now just to reassure myself, Chief Martinell unfortunately has died. Chief Mills had become a Lieutenant Commander in a Medical Service Corps and retired from the Navy.
However, I found him living in Johnson City, Texas, where he had been working for the Johnson family on the ranch and whatnot. But he had retired in Johnson City. I picked up the phone and I called him. He confirmed exactly what I had put down in my notes, that there was a bent brass slug that they had brought out that they had picked up off the floor. . . ."
As we should all know by now, when Dr. Young mentioned "what I had put down in my notes," he was referring to his 11/23/63 essay "What Price a Rose?"
* That Dr. Young did not really read from his 11/23/63 essay during his 2001 Navy oral history interviews, even though both of the 2013 Navy articles on Dr. Young's interviews state that he did, and even though the transcript of the third interview says he did.
* That Dr. Young lied when he said that Chiefs Mills and Martinell brought the limo bullet to him at the autopsy.
* That Dr. Young lied when he said the bullet was brass in color, half a centimeter in diameter, deformed/misshapen, and "slightly bent on the end."
Needless to say, there was no bullet fragment at the autopsy that Dr. Young could have mistaken for a deformed brass-colored bullet that was "slightly bent on the end."
* That Dr. Young was only pretending to have seen the bullet when he described its color, diameter, and deformation, and when he said it did not "look like" a copper-jacketed military bullet.
He could not have honestly said these things if he had not seen the bullet.
* That Dr. Young was carrying out some kind of enormous fraud or grand delusion when he described the bullet in a letter to President Gerald Ford, in his conversation with Arlen Specter, and in his third 2001 oral history interview.
-- I agree that there may well have been phone contact between the White House garage and the Bethesda morgue. If so, this makes Dr. Young's account all the more plausible, since we have abundant testimony from autopsy witnesses that the autopsy doctors were anxiously looking for the back-wound bullet and were distraught that they could not find it. If Humes had found out that a bullet had been found in the limo, he would have wanted it brought to the autopsy right away so he could compare it with the back wound.
When Dr. Young handed the skull fragments and bullet over to Humes, Humes either realized the bullet was problematic for the single-assassin scenario (which he was already being fed) or he was ordered to discard the bullet for this reason.
-- I notice that WC apologists are citing selected portions of Sibert and O'Neill's ARRB testimony regarding the missile receipt. Humm, well, now this is curious because WC apologists routinely reject pro-conspiracy ARRB testimony with the argument that "oh, they were talking about things that happened 34-35 years earlier," as if no one can remember things that happened 35 years ago. This is literally Fred Litwin's main argument against most of the historic ARRB disclosures, such as autopsy photographer James Stringer's bombshell ARRB testimony about the autopsy photos.
Even in this thread, WC apologists have attacked Dr. Young's account because it was supposedly given "38 years after the fact," ignoring the fact that most people can remember important events that happened 30-plus years ago, and ignoring the fact that Dr. Young's 11/23/63 account was written less than 24 hours after the fact.
Heck, my dad is 90 years old, and he can remember all kinds of things that happened 40-50 years ago with remarkable accuracy.
-- I again point out that Sibert and O'Neill did not mention the missile receipt in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy. This is a very strange omission. They mentioned the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm bullet fragments but said nothing about signing for those fragments. That was a major piece of information to leave out. This could logically be viewed as an indication that they were troubled about having signed the "missile" receipt. Sibert made it clear in his HSCA interview that he had serious misgivings about having signed the receipt.
-- WC apologists are still peddling the Loeffler memo as their one alleged example of the term "bullet/missile" being used to describe bullet fragments. This is really a stretch, not to mention the hundreds of examples that I documented of the terms "bullet" and "missile" being distinguished from the terms "fragments," "bullet fragments," and "missile fragments" in the Warren Report, in the WC hearings, in Sibert and O'Neill's 11/26/63 report, in Sibert and O'Neill's HSCA testimony, and in the HSCA FPP's report. The Loeffler memo was part of the documentation relating to the chain of evidence for the alleged stretcher bullet, CE 399. At this very time, the FBI was trying to find out about the bullet that had been reportedly found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. Keep in mind that this memo was written on 11/22/63.
Loeffler begins the one-page memo by noting that O.P. Wright was contacted regarding "the present location of the bullet that was taken from the body of Governor Connally." Now, come on, folks. This is clearly, undeniably a reference to the stretcher bullet. This becomes even more obvious with Loeffler's next sentence: "Mr. Wright said he had given instructions to his supervising nurse to preserve the bullet."
Then, Loeffler mentions that Wright advised that some fragments were found in Connally's wrist and were turned over to Texas highway patrolman Nolan. Loeffler next says that Wright assumed that Nolan would take the bullet to the state lab in Austin.
So, we can either believe that Loeffler somehow thought the stretcher bullet was really just the wrist fragments, even though he had just referred to "the bullet" twice, or we can make the more logical assumption that Loeffler simply reverted to referring to the stretcher bullet when he said Nolan would take the bullet to the state lab. The focus of the memo was the location of the stretcher bullet, not the wrist fragments.
If Loeffler thought "the bullet" was the wrist fragments, why did he use the term "bullet" at all in the memo? Why didn't he simply explain that "we thought that a bullet had been removed from Connally's body, but it turns out that only some fragments were removed from his wrist"?
-- WC apologists are so caught up in the cover story for the missile receipt that they don't seem to stop and think about how implausible it is.
I mean, think about it. You're an FBI agent at the autopsy of the president of the United States in the crime of the century. You understand the importance of ballistic evidence and ensuring a proper chain of possession for it. You have a Navy hospital corpsman hand you a receipt that says you're signing for a "missile," but you look at the evidence bottle and see there's no bullet in it, not even close. You see that the bottle only contains two small fragments that make up only a tiny fraction of the mass of a bullet. Are you going to sign such a severely inaccurate receipt? Wouldn't you insist that the corpsman retype the receipt so that it accurately described the contents of the evidence bottle? Of course you would -- unless, that is, you were ordered or pressured to sign the receipt.
-- Everyone now admits that Dr. Young was telling the truth when he said he sent Mills and Martinell to the White House garage to search JFK's limo, but we're supposed to believe that he lied through his teeth or experienced a remarkable hallucination when he wrote on 11/23/63, less than 24 hours after the autopsy, that Mills and Martinell brought back some skull fragments and a misshapen bullet from the limo.
-- In his 11/23/63 essay, Dr. Young not only described the bullet but he also described the three skull fragments:
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. These were found on the floor of the blood-spattered convertible.
-- By even the most critical, narrow analysis of Jan Herman's statements to Dr. Robertson about his phone call with Chief Mills, at the very least Chief Mills confirmed that Dr. Young later called him to verify his recollection. This alone confirms a key part of Dr. Young's account and shows that Dr. Young wanted to ensure that his recollection was correct.
Moreover, the fact that Mills did not deny the finding of the bullet is clear tacit confirmation that a bullet was found. As Dr. Robertson notes, if no bullet had been found in the limo, Mills surely would have immediately made this clear to Herman. If Mills had done this, it would be strong evidence that Young was wrong about receiving the limo bullet -- but Mills gave no indication whatsoever that Dr. Young was mistaken on this issue.
-- At every point, Dr. Young behaved exactly like we would expect him to behave if he had actually received the limo bullet from Mills and Martinell at the autopsy. At every turn, his actions indicate sincerity and truthfulness. He had no motive or reason to lie, and there was no fragment at the autopsy that he could have mistaken for a bullet.
-- Finally, I haven't brought this up yet, but there are many doubtful claims, discrepancies, and suspicious omissions in the official story (or stories) about the skull fragments, what they looked like, and when and how they arrived at the autopsy. And then we have the fact that two autopsy witnesses, including one of the morticians, saw Humes sawing JFK's skull before the official autopsy began, and the mortician insisted that the damage to the top of the head seen in the autopsy photos was done by the autopsy doctors and was not present when the body first arrived.
-
It's time for another recap in response to the feeble, inane, square-peg-in-round-hole excuses being offered by WC apologists for their refusal to accept Dr. Young's account.
-- First and foremost, we need to understand that if WC apologists are correct, we must believe the following:
* That Dr. Young lied when he said that he phoned Chief Mills to verify his recollection, and that Chief Mills verified his recollection:
Now just to reassure myself, Chief Martinell unfortunately has died. Chief Mills had become a Lieutenant Commander in a Medical Service Corps and retired from the Navy.
However, I found him living in Johnson City, Texas, where he had been working for the Johnson family on the ranch and whatnot. But he had retired in Johnson City. I picked up the phone and I called him. He confirmed exactly what I had put down in my notes, that there was a bent brass slug that they had brought out that they had picked up off the floor. . . ."
As we should all know by now, when Dr. Young mentioned "what I had put down in my notes," he was referring to his 11/23/63 essay "What Price a Rose?"
* That Dr. Young did not really read from his 11/23/63 essay during his 2001 Navy oral history interviews, even though both of the 2013 Navy articles on Dr. Young's interviews state that he did, and even though the transcript of the third interview says he did.
* That Dr. Young lied when he said that Chiefs Mills and Martinell brought the limo bullet to him at the autopsy.
* That Dr. Young lied when he said the bullet was brass in color, half a centimeter in diameter, deformed/misshapen, and "slightly bent on the end."
Needless to say, there was no bullet fragment at the autopsy that Dr. Young could have mistaken for a deformed brass-colored bullet that was "slightly bent on the end."
* That Dr. Young was only pretending to have seen the bullet when he described its color, diameter, and deformation, and when he said it did not "look like" a copper-jacketed military bullet.
He could not have honestly said these things if he had not seen the bullet.
Needless to say, the existence of a whole bullet having been delivered to the autopsy team at Bethesda rests entirely on the accuracy of things Young said. There is no record of Mills saying a whole bullet was delivered to Bethesda. Contrary to what MTG earlier claimed in earlier posts in this thread, Captain John Stover DENIED he had seen a whole bullet at autopsy. Gerald Ford and Arlen Specter were unaware of any evidence of such a bullet. Neither Humes, Boswell, nor xxxx is on record as having seen this bullet. If Young erroneously claimed that he saw such a bullet, it doesn't mean he lied. It could mean he was mistaken. Young might have been under the mistaken impression that a bullet had been delivered to Bethesda with the bone fragments. It's easy to see how he would have been expecting both a bullet and bone fragments to be delivered to Bethesda based on what he was told before he sent Mills and Martinell to the White House garage. He might well have written that mistaken impression in his notes and over the years formed a false memory of having seen such a bullet. False memories are a real and recognized phenomenon. I believe that Young honestly believed a bullet had been delivered to Bethesda and I believe he was dead wrong about that. The lack of corroboration from others who would have known about it seems to indicate that to be the case.
* That Dr. Young was carrying out some kind of enormous fraud or grand delusion when he described the bullet in a letter to President Gerald Ford, in his conversation with Arlen Specter, and in his third 2001 oral history interview.
I haven't seen anyone accuse Young of perpetrating a fraud. Everyone who doubts his story has given him the benefit of the doubt and simply said he was mistaken. Why does MTG keep putting the most hyperbolic spin on things other people have written?
-- I agree that there may well have been phone contact between the White House garage and the Bethesda morgue. If so, this makes Dr. Young's account all the more plausible, since we have abundant testimony from autopsy witnesses that the autopsy doctors were anxiously looking for the back-wound bullet and were distraught that they could not find it. If Humes had found out that a bullet had been found in the limo, he would have wanted it brought to the autopsy right away so he could compare it with the back wound.
Of course there had been contact between the White House garage and Bethesda. Why else would Young have sent Mills and Martinell to the garage. I haven't seen evidence that anybody except Young was EXPECTING a bullet to be delivered to Bethesda. If MTG has such evidence, could he please post that. I can believe Young told Mills and Martinell that they were being sent to the garage to pick up bone fragments AND a bullet, but there is no evidence they picked up anything other than the bone fragments.
When Dr. Young handed the skull fragments and bullet over to Humes, Humes either realized the bullet was problematic for the single-assassin scenario (which he was already being fed) or he was ordered to discard the bullet for this reason.
So MTG thinks Humes was already scheming to misrepresent the autopsy findings to support the lone gunman scenario. What evidence does he have that Humes was even aware there was a lone gunman scenario. The investigation was in the early stages when the autopsy began in the early evening. Oswald had not even been formally charge with the murder of JFK. Who would have told Humes, Boswell, and xxxx that they had to support the lone gunman narrative and what is MTG's evidence that was done. Once again, MTG seems to have assumed something for which he has provided zero evidence.
-- I notice that WC apologists are citing selected portions of Sibert and O'Neill's ARRB testimony regarding the missile receipt. Humm, well, now this is curious because WC apologists routinely reject pro-conspiracy ARRB testimony with the argument that "oh, they were talking about things that happened 34-35 years earlier," as if no one can remember things that happened 35 years ago. This is literally Fred Litwin's main argument against most of the historic ARRB disclosures, such as autopsy photographer James Stringer's bombshell ARRB testimony about the autopsy photos.
Maybe someday MTG will explain what the items Sibert and O'Neill received at Bethesda has anything to do with Young's claim that a whole bullet was delivered to Bethesda. Those are two unrelated issues.
Even in this thread, WC apologists have attacked Dr. Young's account because it was supposedly given "38 years after the fact," ignoring the fact that most people can remember important events that happened 30-plus years ago, and ignoring the fact that Dr. Young's 11/23/63 account was written less than 24 hours after the fact.
Heck, my dad is 90 years old, and he can remember all kinds of things that happened 40-50 years ago with remarkable accuracy.
I'm glad MTG's dad seems to be in such good shape mentally. Age is only one factor in people's ability to remember things. I'm 74 and I can remember details from sporting events from the 1960s but I keep forgetting where I put down the TV remote.
-- I again point out that Sibert and O'Neill did not mention the missile receipt in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy. This is a very strange omission. They mentioned the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm bullet fragments but said nothing about signing for those fragments. That was a major piece of information to leave out. This could logically be viewed as an indication that they were troubled about having signed the "missile" receipt. Sibert made it clear in his HSCA interview that he had serious misgivings about having signed the receipt.
-- WC apologists are still peddling the Loeffler memo as their one alleged example of the term "bullet/missile" being used to describe bullet fragments. This is really a stretch, not to mention the hundreds of examples that I documented of the terms "bullet" and "missile" being distinguished from the terms "fragments," "bullet fragments," and "missile fragments" in the Warren Report, in the WC hearings, in Sibert and O'Neill's 11/26/63 report, in Sibert and O'Neill's HSCA testimony, and in the HSCA FPP's report. The Loeffler memo was part of the documentation relating to the chain of evidence for the alleged stretcher bullet, CE 399. At this very time, the FBI was trying to find out about the bullet that had been reportedly found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. Keep in mind that this memo was written on 11/22/63.
Loeffler begins the one-page memo by noting that O.P. Wright was contacted regarding "the present location of the bullet that was taken from the body of Governor Connally." Now, come on, folks. This is clearly, undeniably a reference to the stretcher bullet. This becomes even more obvious with Loeffler's next sentence: "Mr. Wright said he had given instructions to his supervising nurse to preserve the bullet."
Then, Loeffler mentions that Wright advised that some fragments were found in Connally's wrist and were turned over to Texas highway patrolman Nolan. Loeffler next says that Wright assumed that Nolan would take the bullet to the state lab in Austin.
So, we can either believe that Loeffler somehow thought the stretcher bullet was really just the wrist fragments, even though he had just referred to "the bullet" twice, or we can make the more logical assumption that Loeffler simply reverted to referring to the stretcher bullet when he said Nolan would take the bullet to the state lab. The focus of the memo was the location of the stretcher bullet, not the wrist fragments.
If Loeffler thought "the bullet" was the wrist fragments, why did he use the term "bullet" at all in the memo? Why didn't he simply explain that "we thought that a bullet had been removed from Connally's body, but it turns out that only some fragments were removed from his wrist"?
-- WC apologists are so caught up in the cover story for the missile receipt that they don't seem to stop and think about how implausible it is.
I mean, think about it. You're an FBI agent at the autopsy of the president of the United States in the crime of the century. You understand the importance of ballistic evidence and ensuring a proper chain of possession for it. You have a Navy hospital corpsman hand you a receipt that says you're signing for a "missile," but you look at the evidence bottle and see there's no bullet in it, not even close. You see that the bottle only contains two small fragments that make up only a tiny fraction of the mass of a bullet. Are you going to sign such a severely inaccurate receipt? Wouldn't you insist that the corpsman retype the receipt so that it accurately described the contents of the evidence bottle? Of course you would -- unless, that is, you were ordered or pressured to sign the receipt.
MTG continues to be oblivious to the fact that what Sibert and O'Neill received from the autopsy team at Bethesda has zero to do with establishing whether or not Dr. Young's recollection of a bullet being delivered to Bethesda is an accurate one. It's a mystery as to why he even brought this up when he is the one who started this thread and it was all about Young's claim of a bullet being delivered to the autopsy team at Bethesda, NOT what the autopsy team found and gave to Sibert and O'Neill.
-- Everyone now admits that Dr. Young was telling the truth when he said he sent Mills and Martinell to the White House garage to search JFK's limo,
I don't recall anyone ever disputing that.
but we're supposed to believe that he lied through his teeth or experienced a remarkable hallucination when he wrote on 11/23/63, less than 24 hours after the autopsy, that Mills and Martinell brought back some skull fragments and a misshapen bullet from the limo.
It was neither a lie nor a hallucination but a misunderstanding which falls somewhere between those two extremes.
-- In his 11/23/63 essay, Dr. Young not only described the bullet but he also described the three skull fragments:
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. These were found on the floor of the blood-spattered convertible.
There is corroboration for the bone fragments. There is no corroboration for the brass slug.
-- By even the most critical, narrow analysis of Jan Herman's statements to Dr. Robertson about his phone call with Chief Mills, at the very least Chief Mills confirmed that Dr. Young later called him to verify his recollection. This alone confirms a key part of Dr. Young's account and shows that Dr. Young wanted to ensure that his recollection was correct.
Tim Nickerson and I have discussed whether MTG's blatant misstatements of facts are deliberate lies or simply gaffes. It seems clear to me this one is a deliberate lie because he has been corrected on it numerous times and he continues to repeat this falsehood. Mills absolutely did not confirm Young's story. When contacted by Herman about it, he refused to comment. That is not confirmation.
Moreover, the fact that Mills did not deny the finding of the bullet is clear tacit confirmation that a bullet was found. As Dr. Robertson notes, if no bullet had been found in the limo, Mills surely would have immediately made this clear to Herman. If Mills had done this, it would be strong evidence that Young was wrong about receiving the limo bullet -- but Mills gave no indication whatsoever that Dr. Young was mistaken on this issue.
There is no such thing as tacit confirmation. Either Mills explicitly confirmed Young's story or he did not. Based on what Herman reported about his conversation with Mills, he did not.
-- At every point, Dr. Young behaved exactly like we would expect him to behave if he had actually received the limo bullet from Mills and Martinell at the autopsy. At every turn, his actions indicate sincerity and truthfulness. He had no motive or reason to lie, and there was no fragment at the autopsy that he could have mistaken for a bullet.
Wrong again. Young acted like a man who BELIEVED a bullet had been delivered to Bethesda. There is no evidence, other than what Young has said, that such a bullet was ever delivered to Bethesda. There are very good reasons to doubt what Young said. First of all there are many people who would have known about such a bullet who have no recollection of such a bullet. Second, it makes no sense that the Secret Service detail that collected the evidence from the limo would send bullet fragments to the FBI but send a whole bullet to Bethesda.
-- Finally, I haven't brought this up yet, but there are many doubtful claims, discrepancies, and suspicious omissions in the official story (or stories) about the skull fragments, what they looked like, and when and how they arrived at the autopsy. And then we have the fact that two autopsy witnesses, including one of the morticians, saw Humes sawing JFK's skull before the official autopsy began, and the mortician insisted that the damage to the top of the head seen in the autopsy photos was done by the autopsy doctors and was not present when the body first arrived.
First of all, none of this has a thing to do with whether or not Young saw an actual bullet that had been delivered to Bethesda. Second, the only people who find any of this suspicious are the ones who have bought into the myths surrounding the JFK assassination. Not only has MTG bought into these myths hook, line, and sinker, he has swallowed the pole.
-
It's time for another recap in response to the feeble, inane, square-peg-in-round-hole excuses being offered by WC apologists for their refusal to accept Dr. Young's account.
-- First and foremost, we need to understand that if WC apologists are correct, we must believe the following:
* That Dr. Young lied when he said that he phoned Chief Mills to verify his recollection, and that Chief Mills verified his recollection:
Now just to reassure myself, Chief Martinell unfortunately has died. Chief Mills had become a Lieutenant Commander in a Medical Service Corps and retired from the Navy.
However, I found him living in Johnson City, Texas, where he had been working for the Johnson family on the ranch and whatnot. But he had retired in Johnson City. I picked up the phone and I called him. He confirmed exactly what I had put down in my notes, that there was a bent brass slug that they had brought out that they had picked up off the floor. . . ."
As we should all know by now, when Dr. Young mentioned "what I had put down in my notes," he was referring to his 11/23/63 essay "What Price a Rose?"
* That Dr. Young did not really read from his 11/23/63 essay during his 2001 Navy oral history interviews, even though both of the 2013 Navy articles on Dr. Young's interviews state that he did, and even though the transcript of the third interview says he did.
* That Dr. Young lied when he said that Chiefs Mills and Martinell brought the limo bullet to him at the autopsy.
* That Dr. Young lied when he said the bullet was brass in color, half a centimeter in diameter, deformed/misshapen, and "slightly bent on the end."
Needless to say, there was no bullet fragment at the autopsy that Dr. Young could have mistaken for a deformed brass-colored bullet that was "slightly bent on the end."
* That Dr. Young was only pretending to have seen the bullet when he described its color, diameter, and deformation, and when he said it did not "look like" a copper-jacketed military bullet.
He could not have honestly said these things if he had not seen the bullet.
* That Dr. Young was carrying out some kind of enormous fraud or grand delusion when he described the bullet in a letter to President Gerald Ford, in his conversation with Arlen Specter, and in his third 2001 oral history interview.
-- I agree that there may well have been phone contact between the White House garage and the Bethesda morgue. If so, this makes Dr. Young's account all the more plausible, since we have abundant testimony from autopsy witnesses that the autopsy doctors were anxiously looking for the back-wound bullet and were distraught that they could not find it. If Humes had found out that a bullet had been found in the limo, he would have wanted it brought to the autopsy right away so he could compare it with the back wound.
When Dr. Young handed the skull fragments and bullet over to Humes, Humes either realized the bullet was problematic for the single-assassin scenario (which he was already being fed) or he was ordered to discard the bullet for this reason.
-- I notice that WC apologists are citing selected portions of Sibert and O'Neill's ARRB testimony regarding the missile receipt. Humm, well, now this is curious because WC apologists routinely reject pro-conspiracy ARRB testimony with the argument that "oh, they were talking about things that happened 34-35 years earlier," as if no one can remember things that happened 35 years ago. This is literally Fred Litwin's main argument against most of the historic ARRB disclosures, such as autopsy photographer James Stringer's bombshell ARRB testimony about the autopsy photos.
Even in this thread, WC apologists have attacked Dr. Young's account because it was supposedly given "38 years after the fact," ignoring the fact that most people can remember important events that happened 30-plus years ago, and ignoring the fact that Dr. Young's 11/23/63 account was written less than 24 hours after the fact.
Heck, my dad is 90 years old, and he can remember all kinds of things that happened 40-50 years ago with remarkable accuracy.
-- I again point out that Sibert and O'Neill did not mention the missile receipt in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy. This is a very strange omission. They mentioned the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm bullet fragments but said nothing about signing for those fragments. That was a major piece of information to leave out. This could logically be viewed as an indication that they were troubled about having signed the "missile" receipt. Sibert made it clear in his HSCA interview that he had serious misgivings about having signed the receipt.
-- WC apologists are still peddling the Loeffler memo as their one alleged example of the term "bullet/missile" being used to describe bullet fragments. This is really a stretch, not to mention the hundreds of examples that I documented of the terms "bullet" and "missile" being distinguished from the terms "fragments," "bullet fragments," and "missile fragments" in the Warren Report, in the WC hearings, in Sibert and O'Neill's 11/26/63 report, in Sibert and O'Neill's HSCA testimony, and in the HSCA FPP's report. The Loeffler memo was part of the documentation relating to the chain of evidence for the alleged stretcher bullet, CE 399. At this very time, the FBI was trying to find out about the bullet that had been reportedly found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. Keep in mind that this memo was written on 11/22/63.
Loeffler begins the one-page memo by noting that O.P. Wright was contacted regarding "the present location of the bullet that was taken from the body of Governor Connally." Now, come on, folks. This is clearly, undeniably a reference to the stretcher bullet. This becomes even more obvious with Loeffler's next sentence: "Mr. Wright said he had given instructions to his supervising nurse to preserve the bullet."
Then, Loeffler mentions that Wright advised that some fragments were found in Connally's wrist and were turned over to Texas highway patrolman Nolan. Loeffler next says that Wright assumed that Nolan would take the bullet to the state lab in Austin.
So, we can either believe that Loeffler somehow thought the stretcher bullet was really just the wrist fragments, even though he had just referred to "the bullet" twice, or we can make the more logical assumption that Loeffler simply reverted to referring to the stretcher bullet when he said Nolan would take the bullet to the state lab. The focus of the memo was the location of the stretcher bullet, not the wrist fragments.
If Loeffler thought "the bullet" was the wrist fragments, why did he use the term "bullet" at all in the memo? Why didn't he simply explain that "we thought that a bullet had been removed from Connally's body, but it turns out that only some fragments were removed from his wrist"?
-- WC apologists are so caught up in the cover story for the missile receipt that they don't seem to stop and think about how implausible it is.
I mean, think about it. You're an FBI agent at the autopsy of the president of the United States in the crime of the century. You understand the importance of ballistic evidence and ensuring a proper chain of possession for it. You have a Navy hospital corpsman hand you a receipt that says you're signing for a "missile," but you look at the evidence bottle and see there's no bullet in it, not even close. You see that the bottle only contains two small fragments that make up only a tiny fraction of the mass of a bullet. Are you going to sign such a severely inaccurate receipt? Wouldn't you insist that the corpsman retype the receipt so that it accurately described the contents of the evidence bottle? Of course you would -- unless, that is, you were ordered or pressured to sign the receipt.
-- Everyone now admits that Dr. Young was telling the truth when he said he sent Mills and Martinell to the White House garage to search JFK's limo, but we're supposed to believe that he lied through his teeth or experienced a remarkable hallucination when he wrote on 11/23/63, less than 24 hours after the autopsy, that Mills and Martinell brought back some skull fragments and a misshapen bullet from the limo.
-- In his 11/23/63 essay, Dr. Young not only described the bullet but he also described the three skull fragments:
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. These were found on the floor of the blood-spattered convertible.
-- By even the most critical, narrow analysis of Jan Herman's statements to Dr. Robertson about his phone call with Chief Mills, at the very least Chief Mills confirmed that Dr. Young later called him to verify his recollection. This alone confirms a key part of Dr. Young's account and shows that Dr. Young wanted to ensure that his recollection was correct.
Moreover, the fact that Mills did not deny the finding of the bullet is clear tacit confirmation that a bullet was found. As Dr. Robertson notes, if no bullet had been found in the limo, Mills surely would have immediately made this clear to Herman. If Mills had done this, it would be strong evidence that Young was wrong about receiving the limo bullet -- but Mills gave no indication whatsoever that Dr. Young was mistaken on this issue.
-- At every point, Dr. Young behaved exactly like we would expect him to behave if he had actually received the limo bullet from Mills and Martinell at the autopsy. At every turn, his actions indicate sincerity and truthfulness. He had no motive or reason to lie, and there was no fragment at the autopsy that he could have mistaken for a bullet.
-- Finally, I haven't brought this up yet, but there are many doubtful claims, discrepancies, and suspicious omissions in the official story (or stories) about the skull fragments, what they looked like, and when and how they arrived at the autopsy. And then we have the fact that two autopsy witnesses, including one of the morticians, saw Humes sawing JFK's skull before the official autopsy began, and the mortician insisted that the damage to the top of the head seen in the autopsy photos was done by the autopsy doctors and was not present when the body first arrived.
I'm giving Dr Young the benefit of doubt and assume that he was not a liar. He was wrong though. In 2001, he was recalling things from nearly 40 years in the past. His ancient recollections were faulty. Mills did not find a bullet in the limo. Mills found CE-567. Young elevated that fragment to a bullet.
-
The Loeffler memo was part of the documentation relating to the chain of evidence for the alleged stretcher bullet, CE 399. At this very time, the FBI was trying to find out about the bullet that had been reportedly found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. Keep in mind that this memo was written on 11/22/63.
Loeffler begins the one-page memo by noting that O.P. Wright was contacted regarding "the present location of the bullet that was taken from the body of Governor Connally." Now, come on, folks. This is clearly, undeniably a reference to the stretcher bullet. This becomes even more obvious with Loeffler's next sentence: "Mr. Wright said he had given instructions to his supervising nurse to preserve the bullet."
Then, Loeffler mentions that Wright advised that some fragments were found in Connally's wrist and were turned over to Texas highway patrolman Nolan. Loeffler next says that Wright assumed that Nolan would take the bullet to the state lab in Austin.
So, we can either believe that Loeffler somehow thought the stretcher bullet was really just the wrist fragments, even though he had just referred to "the bullet" twice, or we can make the more logical assumption that Loeffler simply reverted to referring to the stretcher bullet when he said Nolan would take the bullet to the state lab. The focus of the memo was the location of the stretcher bullet, not the wrist fragments.
If Loeffler thought "the bullet" was the wrist fragments, why did he use the term "bullet" at all in the memo? Why didn't he simply explain that "we thought that a bullet had been removed from Connally's body, but it turns out that only some fragments were removed from his wrist"?
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZR7fTHs3/O-P-Wright.jpg)
A bullet wasn't taken from the body of Connally. A nurse did not have possession of a bullet removed from Connally. Wright gave the bullet that he received from Tomlinson to Richard Johnsen. The memorandum was unmistakably about the fragments removed from Connally. Nolan received bullet fragments, not a bullet. Loeffler was not assuming that Nolan had a bullet as well as the fragments. Loeffler was not assuming anything in that memorandum. Stop being so ridiculous. The memorandum is a clear example of an FBI agent referring to bullet fragments as a bullet.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZR7fTHs3/O-P-Wright.jpg)
A bullet wasn't taken from the body of Connally. A nurse did not have possession of a bullet removed from Connally. Wright gave the bullet that he received from Tomlinson to Richard Johnsen. The memorandum was unmistakably about the fragments removed from Connally. Nolan received bullet fragments, not a bullet. Loeffler was not assuming that Nolan had a bullet as well as the fragments. Loeffler was not assuming anything in that memorandum. Stop being so ridiculous. The memorandum is a clear example of an FBI agent referring to bullet fragments as a bullet.
BS: That memo is clearly bullet and fragments.
A bullet mentioned several times
-
BS: That memo is clearly bullet and fragments.
A bullet mentioned several times
The memo is about the fragments removed from Connally. I posted it as an example of an FBI agent referring to bullet fragments as a bullet. If you were familiar with the subject, you wouldn't have ended up with your foot in your mouth.
-
The memo is about the fragments removed from Connally. I posted it as an example of an FBI agent referring to bullet fragments as a bullet. If you were familiar with the subject, you wouldn't have ended up with your foot in your mouth.
OP Wright carried a bullet around in his pocket for a 1/2 hour.
The FBI refused to take it.
Eddie Barker | News Director, KRLD-TV
Wright: I told him [Tomlinson] to withhold and not to let anyone remove the bullet, and I would get a hold of either Secret Service,
or the FBI and turn it over to them. Thereby, it wouldn't have come through hands at all.
I contacted the FBI and they said they were not interested because it wasn't their responsibility to make investigations.
So I got a hold of a Secret Service man, and they didn't seem interested in coming to look at the bullet in the position it was in then.
So I went back to the area where Mr. Tomlinson was, and picked up the bullet, and put it in my pocket,
and I carried it some 30 or 40 minutes. And I gave it to a Secret Serviceman that was guarding the main door into the emergency room.
Barker: Mr Wright, when you gave this bullet to the Secret Service agent, did he mark it in anyway?
Wright: No, sir.
Barker: What did he do with it?
Wright: Put it in his left hand coat pocket.
Barker: Well now, did he ask your name, or who you were, or any questions at all about the bullet?
Wright: No, sir.
Barker: How did the conversation go? Do you remember?
Wright: I just told him, this was the bullet that was picked up on a stretcher,
that had come off the emergency elevator, that might be involved with the wounding of the Governor Connally.
And I handed him the bullet, and he took it, and looked at, and said, "O.K." and put it in his pocket.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The memo about a bullet "might be involved with the wounding of the Governor Connally."
The phone call was clarifying what he had told to a secret service agent.
::) It is a p--- poor example of the word bullet used to describe fragments
In this case was CE-399
-
OP Wright carried a bullet around in his pocket for a 1/2 hour.
The FBI refused to take it.
Eddie Barker | News Director, KRLD-TV
Wright: I told him to withhold and not to let anyone remove the bullet, and I would get a hold of either Secret Service,
or the FBI and turn it over to them. Thereby, it wouldn't have come through hands at all.
I contacted the FBI and they said they were not interested because it wasn't their responsibility to make investigations.
So I got a hold of a Secret Service man, and they didn't seem interested in coming to look at the bullet in the position it was in then.
So I went back to the area where Mr. Tomlinson was, and picked up the bullet, and put it in my pocket,
and I carried it some 30 or 40 minutes. And I gave it to a Secret Serviceman that was guarding the main door into the emergency room.
Barker: Mr Wright, when you gave this bullet to the Secret Service agent, did he mark it in anyway?
Wright: No, sir.
Barker: What did he do with it?
Wright: Put it in his left hand coat pocket.
Barker: Well now, did he ask your name, or who you were, or any questions at all about the bullet?
Wright: No, sir.
Barker: How did the conversation go? Do you remember?
Wright: I just told him, this was the bullet that was picked up on a stretcher,
that had come off the emergency elevator, that might be involved with the wounding of the Governor Connally.
And I handed him the bullet, and he took it, and looked at, and said, "O.K." and put it in his pocket.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The memo about a bullet "might be involved with the wounding of the Governor Connally."
The phone call was clarifying what he had told to a secret service agent.
::) It is a p--- poor example of the word bullet used to describe fragments
In this case was CE-399
I don't have the patience at the moment to deal with your stupidity. Read the memo again. Read it very carefully. Try to understand what you read.
-
I don't have the patience at the moment to deal with your stupidity. Read the memo again. Read it very carefully. Try to understand what you read.
I see exactly what it says. Call it stupidity all day long.
Thumb1: Right back ya. He is referring to the bullet and what he was told about fragments
How can you think a memo with the name OP Wright and the word bullet is referring to fragments as the same?
I'm not aware of him finding - being given - or having anything to do - with any fragment JBC or JFK.
He only found a bullet.
-
I see exactly what it says. Call it stupidity all day long.
Thumb1: Right back ya. He is referring to the bullet and what he was told about fragments
How can you think a memo with the name OP Wright and the word bullet is referring to fragments as the same?
I'm not aware of him finding - being given - or having anything to do - with any fragment JBC or JFK.
He only found a bullet.
No surgeon testified to a bullet being removed from JBC's body Only fragments. Try putting 2 and 2 together some time and see what it adds up to.
-
No surgeon testified to a bullet being removed from JBC's body Only fragments. Try putting 2 and 2 together some time and see what it adds up to.
:D no one is saying that.
try and follow along
-
Nothing from MTG for over 48 hours on this thread he started. I wonder if he has thrown in the towel and left Michael Capasse to die on this hill.
-
Quote from: Tim Nickerson on September 10, 2026, 02:15:06 AM
The memo is about the fragments removed from Connally. I posted it as an example of an FBI agent referring to bullet fragments as a bullet. If you were familiar with the subject, you wouldn't have ended up with your foot in your mouth.
That memo is clearly bullet and fragments. A bullet mentioned several times
I see exactly what it says. Call it stupidity all day long. He is referring to the bullet and what he was told about fragments.
How can you think a memo with the name OP Wright and the word bullet is referring to fragments as the same? I'm not aware of him finding - being given - or having anything to do - with any fragment from JBC or JFK. He only found a bullet.
You are of course undeniably correct. Wright played no role in handling the Connally wrist fragments, but he did play a role in the handling of the bullet that eventually became CE 399. The main subject of the memo is clearly the bullet that was removed from Connally, and the information about what Wright was told about the wrist fragments is an aside and is unrelated to the bullet.
But you'll never get Nickerson or Corbett to admit this fact. You've dealt with Corbett enough to know what he's all about.
Let me tell you a little about Nickerson: In my thread on why the back-of-head bullet fragments destroy the lone-gunman theory, he made the astonishing and hilarious claim that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are the same object, even though both objects can be plainly seen on the AP x-ray, even though they have different dimensions and shapes, and even though they are located at opposite ends of the skull. At first I thought he had misspoken, but he soon made it clear that he was actually making this argument. When I pointed out that both objects are clearly visible on the AP x-ray, that they are located at opposite ends of the skull, and that they look nothing like each other, he still refused to admit his blunder. Why? Because he knows that the 6.5 mm object is fatal to the lone-gunman theory.
So if he will not admit such an undeniable, bald-faced blunder as that, he's not about to admit that the Loeffler memo is clearly mainly talking about CE 399 and that the wrist fragments are an aside.
Objective readers will see that the likes of Nickerson and Corbett have nothing but strained, unreasonable, and disingenuous explanations for Dr. Young's straightforward, corroborated account. You couldn't ask for a more credible and powerful witness, not to mention a more decidedly hostile witness.
Since Dr. Young was such an ardent believer in the lone-gunman theory, WC apologists here don't dare accuse him of lying, so they must resort to the comical argument that it was either all a giant "misunderstanding" or an amazing hallucination.
Lame Explanation 1: Even though Dr. Young made it clear in his 11/23/63 notes that he saw the bullet, and even though he said that Chief Mills confirmed to him the finding of the bullet in the limo, and even though Chief Mills tacitly but clearly confirmed this, well, you know, gosh, this was all just a "misunderstanding" and Dr. Young really only just assumed the envelope contained a bullet.
Lame Explanation 2: Dr. Young, looked at two small metal fragments that made up a tiny fraction of a bullet's mass and somehow, someway experienced a hallucination and saw instead a brass-colored misshapen bullet with a bent tip! Or, Dr. Young was so exhausted on 11/23/63 from having been up most of the night at the autopsy and then the embalming that he somehow merely dreamed that he saw a bullet when in reality he had not seen it but had merely assumed the envelope contained a bullet, even though he described the bullet in the notes he wrote that day.
And Dr. Young was so thoroughly convinced from this giant misunderstanding or stunning delusion that when he learned that the Warren Report had not discussed the bullet, (1) he wrote to former President Gerald Ford to ask if he had any info about the bullet; (2) he asked Arlen Specter about the bullet and even sent Specter a copy of his 11/23/63 notes; (3) he phoned Chief Mills to ensure that his recollection about the bullet was accurate; and (4) he repeated this huge misunderstanding or amazing delusion in his third 2001 oral history interview and even read from his 11/23/63 notes during the interview! Even more amazingly, Chief Mills must have experienced the same incredible misunderstanding or hallucination because he clearly tacitly confirmed to Navy historian Jan Herman that he and Chief Martinell found a bullet in the limo.
Here's the problem: For WC apologists this is a do-or-die issue. They cannot admit that Dr. Young saw a bullet that was found in the limo during the autopsy because such an admission destroys the lone-gunman theory. Regardless of how credible Dr. Young was, regardless of the fact that he wrote his first account less than 24 hours after the autopsy, and regardless of the fact that Chief Mills corroborated his account, WC apologists aren't going to accept his account unless they're willing to abandon the lone-gunman theory.
-
Let me tell you a little about Nickerson: In my thread on why the back-of-head bullet fragments destroy the lone-gunman theory, he made the astonishing and hilarious claim that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are the same object, even though both objects can be plainly seen on the AP x-ray, even though they have different dimensions and shapes, and even though they are located at opposite ends of the skull. At first I thought he had misspoken, but he soon made it clear that he was actually making this argument. When I pointed out that both objects are clearly visible on the AP x-ray, that they are located at opposite ends of the skull, and that they look nothing like each other, he still refused to admit his blunder. Why? Because he knows that the 6.5 mm object is fatal to the lone-gunman theory.
Humes removed the "6.5 mm object". It was the 7 x 2 mm fragment that was "somewhat behind the President's eye" and "in the brain tissue". Humes would later view the enhanced AP X-Ray and , after some difficulty, identify that 6.5 mm object as being the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Edward Reed and Jerrol Custer identified it without hesitation.
Gunn: Okay. Can you go back and look at it once again, from the left on the screen to the right on the body? There is a semi-circular white dot there. Do you see that?
Reed: Yes. I do.
Gunn: Do you recall seeing that on the night of the autopsy?
Reed: Yes. I did.
Gunn: What was your understanding of what that Was?
Reed: That is a metallic fragment from the bullet.
-------------------------------
Gunn: Can you identify that as an autopsy X-Ray that you took on the night of November 22nd/23rd 1963?
Custer: Yes, sir. Correct.
Gunn: HOW can you identify that as being one that you took?
Custer: Bullet fragment, right orbital ridge.
...................
Gunn: Earlier you pointed to what I’m going to call the half-circle that appears to be at the lightest part of the film, and you referred to that as a bullet fragment; is that right?
Custer: Yes, sir.
Gunn: Where was that bullet fragment located? Let me withdraw that question, and ask another question. Do you know where the bullet fragment located on the body?
Custer: Right orbital ridge, superior.
=========
And there's this from Joseph N Riley, Ph.D.:
"the location in terms of distance from vertex of the round fragment corresponds exactly with a bullet fragment located at the front of the skull at the "height" of the upper part of the frontal sinus. This corresponds, in the frontal x-ray, to the circular fragment located at the level of the right supraorbital ridge. Using an optical micrometer, the cross-sectional diameter of these two fragments is identical. (In the author's measurements, both fragments were measured to be 7mm in diameter; the Panel, using better quality material, measured the circular fragment as 6.5mm in diameter and Is almost certainly more accurate.) There can be no doubt that the large circular fragment represents a bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. In non-technical language, this corresponds to the bone behind the right eyebrow.
The sole rationale for this contention by the Panel is that a sharp radiopaque image usually represents an object close to the x-ray film. For example, when Humes met with the Panel, the following exchange occurred (HSCA 7:251):
DR. PETTY. Now, may I ask you one other question on this X-ray, Dr. Humes.
Here is a view taken, I assume, with the radiation point above the face and the film behind the back of the head.
DR. HUMES. Not being a radiologist, I presume that.
DR. PETTY. If that's true, then the least distorted and least fuzzy portion of the radiopaque materials would be closest to the film, and we would assume then that this peculiar semilunar object with the sharp edges would be close to the film and therefore represent the piece that was seen In the lateral view —
DR. HUMES. Up by the eyebrow.
DR. PETTY. No. Up by the — in the back of the skull.
The anatomical evidence is unequivocal; however, for the sake of completeness, it may be pointed out that the clarity of a radiographic image, assuming sufficient beam intensity, depends upon the coherence ("sharpness") of the radiopaque image on the photographic emulsion. Physical factors that determine coherence include radiopaqueness (100% for a metal fragment), sharpness of the edge (minimizing beam scatter), and location relative to the radiation beam (minimizing defraction). In general, distance will correlate with clarity (the greater the distance to the emulsion, the greater the displacement due to scatter) but it is not causal. A bullet fragment in cross-section and located near the center of the radiation beam would be expected to produce an image such as that observed in the frontal x-ray. The essential points, however, are: (1) It is anatomically impossible that the "high" fragment is the circular fragment in the frontal x-ray and (2) The round fragment correlates exactly in size and location to the fragment in the lateral x-ray immediately superior to the frontal sinus.
There is a major bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. The evidence is unequivocal and, without qualification, the Panel is in error in equating the round fragment in the frontal x-ray with the "high" fragment in the lateral x-ray." -- Joseph N Riley, Ph.D. - "Respected neurologist who specialized in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology. His neurological research was published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, including the Journal of Comparative Neurology, Cell and Tissue Research, and Brain Research, and his research was cited by many other neuroscientists. He taught neuroscience at the University of Florida, the University of California, and the State University of New York."
https://archive.org/details/nsia-RileyJosephN/nsia-RileyJosephN/Riley%20Joseph%20N%2005/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater
===========
Post the enhanced AP X-Ray with an arrow pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in it. And while you're at it, point an arrow at the fragment that my red arrow is pointed at in the lateral view below.
(https://i.imgur.com/6EHLrcN.jpeg)
-
Nothing from MTG for over 48 hours on this thread he started. I wonder if he has thrown in the towel and left Michael Capasse to die on this hill.
Of course, the uneducated, blindly biased Corbett would post such a nonsensical comment.
No, I've not "thrown in the towel." Rather, when you realize you're dealing with people who refuse to be logical, reasonable, and factual on a subject, you reach a point where you recognize that further discussion with them is a waste of time.
WC apologists here have done nothing but offer downright silly, strained, and unreasonable nitpicking and vacuous assumptions in attacking Dr. Young's account. They would never offer such unserious, implausible arguments if we were talking about a witness account that supported the lone-gunman theory.
The main problem is that this is another do-or-die issue for WC believers. They will not admit that a bullet was found in the limo and given to Dr. Young in an envelope at the autopsy because such an admission would destroy their version of the shooting. Rather than admit that Dr. Young's account is entirely credible and strongly corroborated, they must resort to the kind of discrediting nitpicking, evasion, and speculation that we've seen them present herein.
-
Of course, the uneducated, blindly biased Corbett would post such a nonsensical comment.
No, I've not "thrown in the towel." Rather, when you realize you're dealing with people who refuse to be logical, reasonable, and factual on a subject, you reach a point where you recognize that further discussion with them is a waste of time.
I realize it is a waste of time reasoning with you, but I do this for amusement only. I gave up trying to talk sense with the CT crowd many years ago.
-
WC apologists here have done nothing but offer downright silly, strained, and unreasonable nitpicking and vacuous assumptions in attacking Dr. Young's account. They would never offer such unserious, implausible arguments if we were talking about a witness account that supported the lone-gunman theory.
The main problem is that this is another do-or-die issue for WC believers. They will not admit that a bullet was found in the limo and given to Dr. Young in an envelope at the autopsy because such an admission would destroy their version of the shooting. Rather than admit that Dr. Young's account is entirely credible and strongly corroborated, they must resort to the kind of discrediting nitpicking, evasion, and speculation that we've seen them present herein.
It is telling that the only person who believed a whole bullet was found in the limo was Dr. Young, someone who wasn't even present during the search of the limo. The people who were their said they found bone and bullet fragments. None of those people said a whole bullet was found. There is no corroboration for Young's belief that a whole bullet was found in the limo during the Secret Service search from anyone who was actually there.