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. 
Recent Posts