WRONG as usual.

I find it difficult to read this as referring to Landis. Landis said he didn't tell anyone about his finding of a bullet, and he said he took the bullet and a put it on a stretcher in Parkland. The Landis bullet would not have been reported as having been found in the limo.

However, the memo could be referring to the bullet that Chiefs Mills and Martinell found in the limo and brought to Dr. Young at the autopsy, since their search was allowed by the SS agents in the White House garage.

It makes more sense to me that the memo is referring to the bullet that Dr. Young said was found in the limo and brought to him at the autopsy.

So SS agent claimed to find a bullet in the limo. Two modest-sized bullet fragments were found in the limo after it arrived at the White House garage, but the SS said nothing about finding a bullet in the limo. The two fragments amounted to less than half the mass of a standard rifle bullet.

This is a very important memo because it definitely establishes that an extra bullet was found in the limo, a bullet that the lone-gunman theory cannot accommodate.

Nope, not at all. I accept VSA technology because of the strong scientific and experiential evidence of its reliability. I accept it partly from my knowledge of VSA usage in intelligence operations from my many years in U.S. intelligence.

You, on the other hand, reject VSA technology solely and only because it refutes your narrative.

Uh-huh, so never mind the numerous studies published in scientific journals that validate the reliability of VSA technology, right? Never mind the numerous tests and experiential cases that have established that VSA lie detection has a very high rate of accuracy, right? Never mind that hundreds of security and intel agencies, and thousands of law enforcement departments, around the world use VSA technology because of its proven reliability, right?

There are several kinds of perfectly valid evidence that courts won't allow to be presented to juries.

Uh, says who? You? If there's no "widespread consensus" that VSA technology is reliable, why do thousands of police departments and hundreds of security and intel entities around the world use it for lie detection? Why have numerous scientists published studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals that present evidence that VSA lie detection is reliable, and that VSA devices are actually more reliable than the standard polygraph?

Ballistic matching?! I have personally documented for you the fact that over the last 20 years ballistic matching has come under increasing and powerful attack from the scientific community, and that it continues to have restrictions or bans placed on its use as evidence in court. It is revealing that you would cite ballistic matching in the same breath with fingerprint evidence, given the information you've been given about the scientific objections to ballistic matching.   

LOL! Ah-ha! So, your bottom-line reason for rejecting VSA technology is that it contradicts other "well established and acceptable forms of evidence," i.e., forms of evidence that you find "acceptable"! This is the same lame, uneducated excuse you've given for rejecting the results of other scientific testing, such as the JFKA SBT and headshot wound-ballistics tests, the most sophisticated SBT trajectory analysis ever done, the HSCA's acoustical analysis that found scientific evidence of four shots and a grassy knoll gunman, and the NAA testing of Oswald's right-cheek paraffin cast that proved he did not fire a rifle on 11/22/1963, etc., etc. -- you reject these results from those scientific fields because they refute your version of the shooting.

Indeed, you've even rejected (1) the entire field of wound-ballistics testing with the juvenile strawman argument that no two gunshot wounds are exactly alike in every single aspect, (2) the entire field of trajectory analysis because, according to you, even a 2-4-inch difference in the locations of bullet wounds makes no difference in the trajectory of the bullets that caused those wounds!

Again, MTG accepts VSA solely because it supports his narrative.

There is a reason neither VSA nor traditional polygraphs have been widely accepted by the courts.

Unlike fingerprints and ballistic matching, there has never been widespread consensus that either is a reliable form of evidence.

The fact that it finds Oswald's declaration of innocence to be truthful when there are so many well established and acceptable forms of evidence that clearly indicates his guilt is reason enough not to accept VSA as a credible evidentiary tool.