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.

Behold the pro-WC mind at work. It is indeed a thing to behold. As I've said, this thread is a prime example of the sad fact that WC apologists here are simply incapable of dealing with evidence in a credible, factual, logical manner.

Dr. Young's account bears no resemblance to the Nolan story. For starters, Dr. Young made it as clear as language can make something that he saw the bullet, whereas Nolan never saw the contents of the envelope he received from Nurse Bell. Nolan merely assumed the envelope contained a bullet, but he never saw the bullet. Dr. Young was not so careless; rather, as you would expect any competent senior military officer to do, he verified the contents of the envelope given to him by Chiefs Mills and Martinell before handing it over to Dr. Humes.

You guys keep dancing around, or just lying about, the fact that Navy historian Jan Herman confirmed to Dr. Randy Robertson that he called Chief Mills to verify Dr. Young's account and that Chief Mills confirmed (1) that a bullet was found in the limo and (2) that Dr. Young later called him to verify his recollection. I quote from Dr. Robertson's article:

In the interviews Dr. Young said that he had initially contacted White House Corpsman Chief Petty Officer Mills by telephone and Mills confirmed his recollection. Navy historians called Mills in an effort to verify Dr. Young’s claims. Mills told historian Jan Herman that he remembered the event but when pressed for details Mills stated that he didn’t want to talk about it even after the historians notified him that they represented the U. S. Navy Bureau of Medical and Surgery Office of Medical History. Significantly, Mills did not repudiate Dr. Young’s claim, something that might well have been expected if Young had fabricated the episode and falsely implicated Mills in the process. (https://aarclibrary.org/2017/09/08/white-house-physician-autopsy-eyewitness-questions-president-ford-about-missing-bullet/)

Dr. Robertson discusses this in his interview in the third episode of the documentary JFK: Destiny Betrayed:

Narrator: As part of a Naval oral history project, Jan Herman, who had interviewed Dr. Young on this subject, got in touch with Thomas Mills, one of the two men who had gone to the limo to retrieve the skull fragments.

Robertson: Jan Herman called up Mills, says, "Hey, do you remember Dr. Young calling you, asking you about this bent bullet?" He said, "Yeah, I remember him calling me." Yeah, he remembered it. He [Herman] says, "Can you shed any light on it?" And he [Mills] says, "I would rather not talk about that." (27:08 to 27:37)

This was clear, albeit tacit, confirmation that a bullet was found in the limo and given to Dr. Young. As Dr. Robertson notes, given that Mills was reluctant to comment further on the matter, if Dr. Young was wrong about the finding of the bullet, Mills surely would have said so immediately, rather than be implicated in a spurious story about a bullet being found in JFK's limo.

Milicent Cranor makes some cogent points about the claim that Dr. Young did not see a bullet but only saw CE 569 (one of the two bullet fragments found in the front of the limo):

The basic facts need repeating:

Young never even saw that little fragment. He stayed in the autopsy room and never went down to the garage where the limousine was, and where the front seat fragments were found. Petty officers were sent.

The front seat fragments were turned over to the FBI and whisked away. (Commission Exhibits 567 and 569)

The front seat fragments were NOT brought back to the autopsy table.

So how could James Young have confused a spent bullet (or any form of a bullet) with CE 569, which is the hollow base of a bullet -- with no tip, bent or otherwise? (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/bending-the-story-on-a-bent-bullet)

Indeed. Even in his 11/23/63 "What Price a Rose?" essay, Dr. Young described the bullet as a "brass slug" that was "half a centimeter in diameter" and "distorted." And keep in mind that Dr. Young read from the essay during his 2001 interviews with Navy historians Jan Herman and Andre Sobocinski. V. K. Remer's three-page 2013 article "What Price A Rose? A Navy Physician Remembers Nov. 22, 1963," which was edited by Sobocinski, confirmed that Dr. Young read from his 11/23/63 essay when he was interviewed. The 2013 U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery article "Navy Medicine and President Kennedy’s Autopsy: Recollections from a former White House Physician" also confirms that Dr. Young read from the essay when he was interviewed.

And, needless to say, the interview transcripts likewise confirm that Dr. Young read from the essay during his interviews.

                                                                           " Now let it go" ?

Then why does NBC to-this-day refuse to release their Original Darnell and Wiegman JFK Assassination Films? They ain't letting it go! Why ? The answer is obvious.

Dear Storm Trooper Storing.

Get professional help immediately.

-- Tom

"Premier Kissov."? <chuckle> Of Dr. Strangelove fame? <chuckle>

Was he assisted by Boris and Natasha Badanov?

Hello Mr. Sanders.

I hope to try to give you an understanding of Thompson's research for his acoustics chapter within the following. Thompson bases his conclusions of the acoustics on the careless research by Donald Thomas (R.I.P.), whom you no doubt read about in Thompson's book. 

I am sure that you're now familiar with a Don Thomas after reading the acoustics chapter in "Last second in Dallas".  It is his "analysis" of the acoustics and the 2 channels made by the Dallas police department 11/22/1963, channel 1, the Dictabelt recording and channel 2, the grey audograph disc.  Thomas, like everyone, analyzed the recordings after they were transferred onto magnetic tape in 1964 by Dallas police communications supervisor James C. Bowles.

I am attaching a piece that I wrote in 2007-part of what was published in Vincent Bugliosi' Reclaimng History book, and also a revised edition also in 2007, on the Dale Myers website titled "Secrets of a Homicide", regarding Don Thomas' attack on Vince Bugliosi and myself , claiming that we were both "Bamboozled". Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am attaching the link to my article, below.  The article will explain why Don Thomas' theory holds no water, based upon a transmission he heard on channel one 3 seconds before the so called first "gunshot" recorded on the Dictabelt, which I mentioned above

I hope this helps you in some way to get a better understanding the conclusions reached by Thompson in his book, and how they are completely wrong regarding the "gunshot evidence". 

https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html

Mr. Sanders, I would actually encourage you to read the sources that Steve Barber cites, in addition to reading the sources that I've cited. If you do, you will see that Barber's sources do not even address the main points of evidence that support the findings of the HSCA's acoustical scientists.

One of the most frequently cited attacks on Dr. Thompson's 100-plus-page presentation on the acoustical evidence in his book Last Second in Dallas is a 14-page critique written by Louis Girdler, writing under the pseudonym "Premier Kissov." If you read it, you'll notice that Girdler says absolutely nothing about the new BBN research (such as Dr. Richard Mullen's PCC testing of the Decker transmission, which proves it is an overdub and not crosstalk), and says nothing about the impossible recording-pause theory, which was the crucial assumption of the debunked Decker-crosstalk argument ("'Your Lying Eyes'--Josiah Thompson's Lonely Labrinth: A Critical Review of 'Last Second in Dallas,'" pp. 27-40, published on the Kennedy Assassination Home Page, a pro-Warren Commission website).

Instead, Girdler simply rehashes some of the arguments made (1) by the NRC/NAS panel, (2) by Anthony Pellicano (who actually accidentally provided strong evidence against the recording-pause theory and provided evidence that the bell sound on the dictabelt does not prove it was not recorded in Dealey Plaza during the shooting), (3) by the FBI's Technical Services Division (who employed no acoustical scientists and proved they didn't even understand how N-waves can be identified in audio recordings), (4) by some Sonalyst analysts (who didn't even understand how AGC works), and (5) by amateurs such as Jim Bowles and Michael O'Dell.

The foundational assumption of the argument that the Decker transmission proved the impulse patterns on the dictablet were recorded after the assassination was the specious (and now debunked) assumption that Channel 2 on the dictabelt stopped recording for 31 to 60 seconds.

As several scientists pointed out years ago, for this recording-pause theory to even be theoretically possible, there would have to be an offset in the dispatcher time notations on the dictabelt after that point, but there is none. The 12:35 and 12:36 time notations occur exactly five and six minutes respectively after the 12:30 time notation. The NRC/NAS failed to explain this fact, as did Linsker, Garwin, Chernoff, Horowitz, and Ramsey in their 2005 rebuttal to Dr. Don Thomas's 2001 article on the acoustical evidence.

You would think that any critical review of Thompson's book would deal with the historic new BBN research on the acoustical evidence, especially the two appendices written by Dr. Barger and Dr. Mullen, but Girdler says nothing about any of this. Girdler also says nothing about the NRC/NAS panel's admissions about the high probabilities of the timing-movement correlations and the grassy knoll shot, nor about the windshield-distortion correlations.

This revealing exchange deserves a second look. Before this exchange, I had quoted DiMaio's two paragraphs about the behavior of FMJ rifle bullets at least six times to Corbett. DiMaio specified three times in those two paragraphs that he was talking about FMJ rifle ammo. Yet, somehow, someway Corbett failed to notice this and suggested that DiMaio was really only talking about handgun ammo! Let's read:

And how did Corbett reply to my exposure of his horrendous blunder? He wrote a one-sentence comment that said nothing about his baffling gaffe. Instead, his one-sentence response actually made the hilarious argument that the kind of FMJ ammo that Oswald allegedly used behaves differently than all other FMJ ammo, and that therefore DiMaio's observations about the behavior of FMJ bullets is not a "true comparison"! Let's read:

Notice he said nothing about his baffling failure to notice that DiMaio specified three times in the two quoted paragraphs that he was talking about FMJ rifle ammo. A mature, honest person would have said something like this in reply:

"Ok, yes, I  blundered. I don't know how I could have thought he was talking about handgun ammo when he said three times he was talking about rifle bullets. I admit it: I goofed."

I mean, really, leaving aside his display of immaturity and insincerity in refusing to acknowledge his blunder, you have to wonder how anyone could read those two quoted paragraphs and not see that DiMaio was clearly talking about FMJ rifle bullets. What makes Corbett's blunder especially telling is that I had quoted those two paragraphs to him at least six times in replies, and, then, to make matters worse, he even started this thread in which he has claimed that DiMaio was talking about handgun ammo. I'm not joking here at all when I say that he actually seems to have a genuine reading-comprehension problem. 

As for Corbett's desperate, comical, and baseless speculation that WCC 6.5 x .52 FMJ bullets behave differently than all other FMJ bullets, I think this is further proof that he is unserious, insincere, and uninformed. Notice that he failed to provide a shred of evidence for his ridiculous speculation. 

Furthermore, I have pointed out to Corbett many times that the WC's head-shot wound-ballistics test used WCC 6.5 x .52 FMJ bullets, i.e., Oswald's alleged bullets, and that not one of those 10 bullets even remotely duplicated the behavior of the ammo that hit JFK's head, as proved by the x-rays of the test skulls alone. I discuss the WC's test at length in "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds." You can see the x-rays of the WC's test skulls in chapter 5 of physicist Howard Roffman's book Presumed Guilty.

In fact, let's read what Roffman points out about the x-rays of the WC's test skulls:

These x-rays depict gelatin-filled human skulls shot with ammunition of the type allegedly used by Oswald. They were classified by the government and remained suppressed until recently; they are printed here for the first time ever. What they reveal is that Oswald's rifle could not have produced the head wounds suffered by President Kennedy. The bullet that hit the president in the head exploded into a multitude of minuscule fragments. One Secret Service agent described the appearance of these metal fragments on the x-rays: "The whole head looked like a little mass of stars." The fragmentation depicted on these test x-rays obviously differs from that described in the president's head. The upper x-ray reveals only relatively large fragments concentrated at the point of entrance; the lower reveals only a few tiny fragments altogether. This gives dramatic, suppressed proof that Oswald did not fire the shot that killed President Kennedy.

Note that the fragmentation seen in the x-rays of the test skulls is similar to the kind of fragmentation that DiMaio said will occur when FMJ bullets do fragment after hitting skull bone. Moreover, the scientist who conducted the WC's test, Dr. Alfred Olivier, told firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue in a recorded interview in 1969 that the 10 test bullets only left a few fragments in each instance, which is consistent with what the x-rays of the test skulls show. Again, I discuss the WC's test at great length in "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds."

I should add that ardent WC apologist Dr. John Lattimer also conducted a head-shot wound-ballistics test with WCC 6.5 x .52 FMJ ammo. His test, like the WC test, failed to duplicate the behavior of the ammo that hit JFK's head, both in the number of fragments and in the fragmentation pattern. Keeping in mind that Lattimer was caught several times falsifying his test results, he claimed that one of his bullets produced eight visible fragments and about 10-15 smaller ones. However, the ammo that hit JFK's head left at least 35 tiny fragments in a "lead snowstorm" in the right-frontal region, left several small fragments to the left of the lead snowstorm, left two small fragments and some metal particles in the rear outer table of the skull, and left two small fragments at the opposite end of the skull just above and behind the right orbit that were at least 1 inch from the right-frontal fragment cloud.

The simple, demonstrable fact of the matter is that if FMJ ammo had hit JFK's head, the JFK autopsy skull x-rays would not show a cloud of dozens of tiny fragments in the right-frontal region, several small fragments to the left of the fragment cloud, two small fragments and some metal particles in the rear outer table of the skull, and two small fragments at the opposite end of the skull near the right orbit.

Since you are the one arguing that a Carcano FMJ bullet is going to fragment in the same manner as other types of FMJ ammo, the burden is on you to prove that claim. It is not at all logical to assume that a bullet with a different diameter, different length, and different velocity is going to behave the same as other ammo. The only way to establish how such a bullet is going to react upon being fired directly into a human skull is to study cases in which this was done. The only case study I know of is the JFKA and that bullet shattered badly and a number of fragments were found inside of the limo. Two of those fragments had enough mass and markings that they could be positively matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. If that fragmented bullet didn't hit JFK's head, where is the evidence that it struck something else first that caused it to break apart as it did.

It seems rather silly to argue that a Carcano FMJ bullet would not fragment in that manner when we have evidence that is exactly what did happen.