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.

The wording is what was FUBAR. The bullet did not hit JFK in the back of the neck. I don't know why he proposed that. Perhaps he misunderstood Humes's testimony.

- The wound in the low neck

- in the low neck

- wound in the low posterior neck

- low in his neck

How exactly did he misunderstand Humes' testimony? Low neck is still the neck.

the second one would be their statement that SBT is not essential to the finding that JFK was killed by a lone gunman. If there was no single bullet, there had to be a second shooter.

I agree with you on that 100%. I've stated that here and elsewhere many times.

All Ford did was clarify and more accurately reflect the same description that was used in the autopsy report.

Autopsy report


Ford's correction


JohnM

Thanks John. That is what I've been trying to say. And the correction was not Ford's alone. It was unanimously agreed upon.

What you have demonstrated with this nonsense is that you are not a person who should be taken seriously and I won't.

Only a coward would make such a statement.
If I'd really posted any nonsense you would jump all over it. The fact is that you daren't genuinely engage in the debate because you've already made a buffoon out of yourself and fear further embarrassment.

So far two Nutters have tried to tackle this issue.
Both accept that Givens returned to the 6th floor because the Warren Commission told them to think that.
This leaves them in a difficult position.

Fact - Givens was questioned by Fritz and the FBI on the day of the assassination and failed to mention this key piece of information.
Fact - the WC failed to question why Givens was suddenly introducing this brand new piece of evidence.
Fact - this fabrication was used in the WC Report to demonstrate that the last person to see Oswald saw him on the 6th floor near the crime scene.
Fact - the WC Report stated that no-one else could be found who saw Oswald after Givens did. This is a falsehood (fact)
Fact - the WC omitted the testimonies of Lovelady, Arce and Williams regarding the elevator race.
Fact - the WC Report completely alters the reality of this incident.
Fact - the WC omitted the testimony of Eddie Piper, the last TSBD employee to see Oswald.
Fact - the reality is that Oswald was on the first floor around 12 noon. The WC report narrative is that Oswald was on the 6th floor, near the southeast corner.

Childish Nutter Logic does not apply - "they wouldn't do that therefore they didn't do it" or "I don't know why they would do that therefore they didn't do it".
Pretending that eyewitness testimony placing the prime suspect at the scene of the crime is trivial is not a sustainable strategy.

PS: I see John Mytton has posted on this thread but not concerning the topic of this thread - what do you think, John? Do you accept the Givens story?

I see no need to reply to John Corbett's latest juvenile, lame attempt to single me out for criticism, given the fact that (1) I've already answered his ridiculous misrepresentation of my argument on the supposed lone gunman's alleged missed shot,

The old reliable "I've-already-answered-that" dodge. How many times have we seen that?

Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, your argument that Oswald completely missed the huge limo is a ludicrous one, given that he wasn't trying to shoot the limo. How could he miss something he wasn't even aiming at? Your argument that Oswald was a poor marksman because he couldn't hit target of 120 square feet from 140 is pretty damn silly, but then so are most of the arguments you make.