As I've mentioned, one of the things that makes Dr. Young's account so compelling, aside from the fact that it was confirmed by Chief Mills, is that Young devoutly believed in the Warren Commission's (WC's) version of the shooting. Young was so trusting and naive about the WC that he called Arlen Specter to try to get answers about the deformed limo bullet!

Let us read Dr. Young's complete answer from the interview transcript when he was asked if the limo bullet was a copper-jacketed bullet, instead of the slightly edited answer that appears in Milicent Cranor's article:

Question: So the bullet, again, was a copper-jacketed bullet like a military bullet?

Answer: No, it was a brass jacket. That's what I've described it as, a brass-jacketed bullet. It didn't look like it. I don't know, maybe it's copper, I couldn't tell. But it was that color of brass and it was slightly bent on the end. It was not a straight bullet. In other words, it had hit something and it bent. . . . ("Oral History with CAPT (ret) James Morningstar Young, MC, USN," Interview 3, p. 54, emphasis added, https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Capt_James_Young_Interview.pdf)

Notice that Dr. Young said the bullet "didn't look like" a copper-jacketed bullet, so he obviously saw the bullet.

Notice that Dr. Young also said that he "couldn't tell" if "maybe" the bullet had a copper jacket, that it was "that color of brass," and that it was was "slightly bent on the end." These statements are further clear proof that he saw the bullet. 

A note of clarification about the interview transcript: There were actually six interviews. They occurred on December 4, 7, and 17, 2001, and on January 7, 14, and 23, 2002. Interviews 1, 2, and 3 were the 2001 interviews. Interviews 4, 5, and 6 were the 2002 interviews. The interview transcript, produced by the U.S. Navy Medical Department Oral History Program, combines all six interviews into one 114-page transcript, although it identifies each interview by number.

Interview 3 was the interview in which Dr. Young made the above-quoted statements "it didn't look like it"; "maybe it's copper, I couldn't tell"; "it was slightly bent"; "it was not a straight bullet"; and "it had hit something."

The Office of Medical History's 12-page 2013 article was based on the 2001 interviews. It did not include the above-quoted paragraph, although it did include the statements that a deformed bullet was found in the back of the limo and that Dr. Young called Chief Mills to verify his recollection before sending Specter information on the bullet (“Navy Medicine and President Kennedy’s Autopsy: Recollections from a former White House Physician,” pp. 8, 10-11, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Navy_Medicine_and_President_Kennedy%E2%80%99s_Autopsy-_Recollections_from_a_former_White_House_Physician_(IA_NMAndTheKennedyAssassination).pdf).

The Office of Medical History's 2013 article is 12 pages long, but the three 2001 interviews occupy 55 pages in the Oral History Program's 114-page transcript. So the Office of Medical History's 12-page 2013 article is a markedly condensed version of what Dr. Young said in his three 2001 interviews, and the 11/21/2013 Navy Medicine article that Corbett blunderingly cited is a highly condensed version of the 12-page article.

It is worth noting that during the interviews, Dr. Young defended the WC's version of the shooting. For example:

Well, it's an interesting commentary and there's no question, well there's no question in my mind but the President was shot from behind. . . .

And, of course, the thing that I've said in here about Bill Greer, who was driving the Queen Mary was that [he] had brain tissue and blood spattered over his right posterior shoulder. Which, in my estimation could only have made that bullet come from behind, not from the grassy knoll, not from the side, not from the air or whatever. It had to come from behind and spray forward onto his right shoulder. ("Oral History with CAPT (ret) James Morningstar Young, MC, USN," Interview 3, pp. 54-55)

Dr. Young also criticized the conspiracy claim that JFK's body arrived in a body bag:

Doctor Humes, in his article that he wrote for JAMA back in '92 states clearly when the body was brought into the hospital it was not in a body bag, but it was draped in apparently a sheet or something. He said there was no body bag at all.

No problem then. I have no difficulty with that description whatsoever. ("Oral History with CAPT (ret) James Morningstar Young, MC, USN," Interview 3, p. 44)

I note these facts to show that Dr. Young was not some "conspiracy theorist" who was trying to take advantage of his status as an eyewitness at the autopsy to spin a tale to discredit the lone-gunman scenario.

The fact that Dr. Young was no naively trusting of the WC as to expect Arlen Specter to give him straight answers about the deformed limo bullet, not to mention that he defended the WC's version of the shooting and attacked a well-known conspiracy claim, shows that he is the textbook example of a hostile witness. This makes his account all the more credible and devastating.

dang, i like this one.  forgot where walker was at the time.  ask Steve Roe !  could just see that little sh*t thinking this in his profound state of mind. the cherry on the snowcone.

Oswald is the only one who knows why he did anything that day and he's not talking. It's fun to guess. My guess is he didn't plan to be taken alive and was going to shoot it out with any cop who tried to take him into custody. When Tippit got out of his car, Oswald probably figured that was about to happen. When MacDonald approached him, he seemed to have the same reaction. Fortunately, he was subdued without getting off a shot or MacDonald might have suffered the same fate as Tippit. Luckily for Oswald, Jack Ruby stepped forward a few days later and fulfilled Oswald's wish.

Thanks again, Jack.

As has already been established, John, you believe your interpretation of the evidence is a fact. You are unaware that what you believe is just your opinion.

It is a fact that Oswald killed JFK. The fact that some won't accept that does not change that fact.

You psychologically cannot accept that Oswald taking the shots is just a theory.

In the same sense that gravity is just a theory.

One one hand I find the level of your Denial quite disturbing but at least you are up front about unlike certain Nutters who like to pretend they are 'free thinkers' when, in fact, they are as rabidly zealous about their beliefs as you are.

We literally have nothing to discuss as you are incapable of any rational discussion.

The time for being open minded about Oswald's guilt expired a long time ago. Almost 62 years ago.

i can't quote Bugliosi exactly but he stated that if a person doesn't believe Oswald was JFK's assassin, either they are unfamiliar with the evidence against him, or they are very silly. I agree whole heartedly with that assessment.

JS

Yes, firecracker smoke, in the old-old days was identical to gunsmoke, both being "black powder."

However, Aalmost all "modern" gunpowder (even in the 1960s) is a mix of potassium nitrate, charcoal, and sulfur.

Firecrackers powder is usually made of fine aluminum or magnesium powder mixed with potassium perchlorate or potassium nitrate for a much brighter, louder crack.
 And results in a different smell.

Many who smelled gunsmoke in the GK in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA were vets and police officers. They were confident in the witness statements.

My best guess is a sub-nose .38, which gives off a loud report and a lot of smoke (depending on ammo used), was fired near the GK. It was the concealed carry weapon of the day.

Caveat emptor and draw your own conclusions. They will be as good as anyone else's.

A snub-nose .38 would be a poor choice because of it's lack of accuracy at any significant range. Short barrel weapons have a low muzzle velocity. The longer the barrel, the higher the muzzle velocity. That is because while the bullet is being pushed down the barrel, it is accelerating. That accelerating stops once it leaves the barrel so a snub-nose .38 is going to have a low muzzle velocity. Any handgun is going to have a lower exit velocity than a rifle both because of barrel length but also rifle ammo is generally more powerful than handgun ammo. Many lever action rifles such as a Winchester or Marlin fire the same ammo as some revolvers, but the rifle will create a higher muzzle velocity than the same round fired from a revolver.

"Oswald says "they've taken me in because of the fact I lived in the Soviet Union, I'm just a Patsy"

Really?
Or does he say, "they've taken me in because of the fact I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a Patsy"
Two very different things.
Your interpretation, that his 'Patsy' comment was connected to his 'Soviet Union' comment is undermined by Kantor's recollection that he heard the 'Patsy' comment unrelated to any reference to the Soviet Union.

However, you want to interpret Oswald's claim, it's  . Oswald was not a patsy. The evidence is conclusive that he was the one who fired the shots that killed JFK and in 62+ years, no one has found any credible evidence Oswald had even a single accomplice in his crime.