The point of this thread is to establish how Nutters such as yourself deal with this issue.

If you can't prove Givens lied, there is no issue to deal with.

Do you accept Givens' account of returning to the 6th floor as laid out in the WC report?

I have no reason not to. You certainly haven't provided one.

BTW, any evidence that makes it into the conclusions of the WC report can be considered 'key'. It's not a matter of whether or not YOU think it's key evidence.

Even if you could establish that Givens made up this story, which you haven't, it doesn't negate all the other evidence that positively establishes Oswald was the one who fired the shots from the sniper's nest. The WC scenario doesn't require that it be proven Oswald  was on the 6th floor 35 minutes before the shooting because there is ample proof he was in the sniper's nest at the time of the shooting.

Do you guys ever bother to apply even a modicum of logic to your arguments.

No, but the fact that neither you nor MTG can produce a single eyewitness who saw a bullet removed from the grass along Elm St., despite being prodded to do so multiple times, is a pretty good indication no such bullet was ever found.

more repeat. more 

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.

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. 

You are correct that  a 1st shot before Z224 to the right of the JFK limo, could strike the manhole cover.
However it would have to be high above JFKs head. So that suggests  an inadvertent unaimed shot fired as the TSBD shooter was in the act of adjusting the rifle on the boxes. It seems plausible enough to me but I’m having trouble dismissing the majority witness hearing the 1….2.3 pattern, and Tague seemly more inclined That it was 2nd or 3rd shot.

There is no evidence of a bullet strike on or near the manhole cover. That is a separate issue from the Tague injury. That could have been caused by a bullet hitting just to the right of the limo, ricocheting off the pavement, and continuing down range to strike the curb near Tague.

Seems to me improbable that an MC bullet would break apart after hitting the manhole cover such that a fragment of lead  completely separated from the copper jacket and flew across to the curb, while the remainder of the bullet still in the copper  jacket buried into the grass. Maybe an experiment  is necessary to see if it could happen this way.

There is no evidence of a bullet strike in the grass. One assumptions and rumors. There isn't a single witness who said he/she saw a bullet taken out of the grass.

Similarly, if no copper trace element was found in the curb and only lead then does not that rule out a 1st missed shot before Z224? Unless…Maybe it hit the road and ricocheting?    Hmm…possible but It would be almost the same result:a portion of lead separated completely from the copper jacket and flew to the curb, while the Rest of the bullet with copper went into the grass ( or where?)

Why are you hung up on a bullet in the grass. There is no evidence a bullet ever hit the grass. It's all hearsay. 

But if it was the TSBD shooters MC bullet surely they should have found the builet if it buried in the grass. There is no reason not to document that if it was found (unless it was Not an MC bullet?)

There is no documented evidence of a bullet being recovered from the grass. It's a myth.

So this  leaves the Z313 shot breaking up such that a lead fragment separated  completely and flew to  hit the curb. However if it got over the windshield  then as Andrew Mason noted ( if his math is correct)that the fragment would only be traveling approx 200 ft/ sec ( the parabolic arc physics equation).

I haven't done the calculation so I can't say whether his is correct or not. To eliminate a fragment from the head shot as a possible cause of Tague's injury, you not only have to calculate what the exit velocity of the fragment from the head would have to be for it to arc down and strike the curb near Tague, you would have to determine what the minimum velocity would needed for it to chip the concrete and cause the chips to hit Tague. If the latter is greater than the former, that would eliminate a fragment from the headshot as the cause of Tague's injury.

So… the only  other possibility is a Z313 a fragment that went just to the left side of Greers head such that the parabolic arc is flattened by not having to go over the windshield, thus the fragment velocity could be much greater, say more like 1000 ft/ sec which with be enough  force of  impact on the curb to explode some  particles of concrete.

I haven't looked at the geometry for that possibility but just trying to visualize it from what I remember when there was a video camera on the 6th floor looking down Elm St., that seems unlikely to me. Going from JFK's head to the left of Greer seems like that would be too much of a diagonal to get anywhere near Tague.