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 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.

Michael, and Ms. Krotsch, thank you. It would take a thread to explain the clash of thinking "dictating" the approach counter to mine. I'll try to present a brief outline with one "prime" example. I'm sure you've noticed how Lance has been posting lately. His frustration is similar to mine. I had a favorable opinion of him until he voiced his strong objection to the right of women to control what goes on in their own bodies.

I am convinced most prefer not to be informed of new, verifiable research details. In fact, exposure to it is resented, often angrily.

Background: Jean Davison and a poster named Brian with a brief, strong presence triggered my interest in November, 2015. The result was all of this research, in chronological order.

My research definitely hit a nerve.:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160419175050/http://jfk.education/node/11
Sorry Brian, Jean, and DVP, Banks Did Not Key-Punch 1963 P.O. Money Orders
Submitted by Admin on Tue, 11/10/2015 - 06:47
Updated November 19, 2015:....
Two pages of supporting research of discoveries outline above.:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160419152939/http://jfk.education/node/12

https://web.archive.org/web/20160419180202/http://jfk.education/node/13

I have never directly communicated with Lance but together, we inadvertently went to a "don't go there," territory that collided with "finished product".

Michael, even reading it four years later, it still seems so divorced from the way I think and the approach I take. It seems
a concrete overcoat with an anchor chain wrapped around any researcher's neck, for good measure.

MWT Graves had suggested Jim let up on Lance, in an Ed Forum post.
I had stumbled into and presented an evidence heavy, reasonable explanation of all Klein's postal money order Armstrong "outliers" and Lance had found the purpose for the numbers string (138....etc.) inked onto the front of the $21.45 money order.:


A "third" way is unappreciated and unwelcome.

is simkin still penn jones in the 2020s are LNs still out on their 3-martini lunch?

True

This thread illustrates just how nutty CTs can be. Millions of people saw Ruby kill Oswald and that still isn't enough to convince some people of his guilt.

Had there been a hi-def security camera on the 6th floor of the TSBD and it showed Oswald taking aim and firing three shots out the window, some people would find some excuse to dismiss the footage. No amount of proof that Oswald was the assassin could ever be enough for a dedicated CT.

Matthews on the assassination:  "I think we know what happened. No one’s come up with any evidence that really supports an alternative theory. They have questions, of course; they always will. I think part of it is in Shakespeare, the grand protagonist must be felled or challenged by a great protagonist, it can’t be petty, it can’t be a John Hinckley. All of the assassins throughout history have basically been pretty pathetic people. So the reality is so much different than the dramatic notion we all carry with us that it must be an Iago figure. It can’t just be some guy disillusioned from the Soviet Union who carries a torch for Castro.

I’ve written about this in a number of books. Oswald had a very consistent left-wing fanaticism about him. It’s not hard to figure. I always say to people who have some big conspiracy theory: Just tell me this: How come he had that job at the book depository way before they had the parade route that day? I’ve been working around government a long time, so I don’t have this spooky notion of the government or the CIA. I don’t think some dark forces are at work."

People think great events need a great cause or force behind it. It couldn't be this pathetic Oswald changing history so dramatically. But history can turn on small things, it doesn't have to be major forces. The problem with the conspiracy crowd is they can't accept this, that history changed so much because some nobody with a $20 rifle was behind it.

Link/source: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/xxxx-st-chris-matthews-jfk-50-years-assassination-20131122-story.html

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