Why do you always clip your sources out of context? Why didn't you post the entire affidavit or a link to it? Inspected the limo is not the same as searched the limo. Because you left out a chunk of the affidavit, we are left to guess at the context.
You might or might not have confirmation the two NCOs searched the limo but since you only posted a portion of the affidavit, we are left to guess at that. What you don't have is any confirmation they found a bullet and took it with them to Bethesda. Why would the Secret Service have kept a fragmented bullet and let the NCOs take a whole bullet with them to Bethesda. Are we supposed to believe that the Secret Service searched the limo and missed a bullet that was later found by the NCOs? Do you ever think things through?

Do you ever stop posting such transparently dishonest, ridiculous dodges?

Quoting the most relevant portion of a four-page source is not quoting "out of context." I doubt that you even know what that term actually means. What "context" could change the obvious meaning of Agent Taylor's statement that "representatives from Dr. Burkley's office at the White House, William Martinell and Thomas Mills, inspected SS-100-X"? Huh? What? Tell us. Do you think Taylor wrote elsewhere in his report that he was only kidding when he said Mills and Martinell inspected the limo?!

It is just juvenile ignorance and silliness to imply that my quote from Taylor's affidavit is somehow suspect because I "left out a chunk of the affidavit." Every time anyone quotes a paragraph from a book, they are "leaving out a chunk of the book."

Oh, and "inspected" is "not the same" as "searched"?! Really?! Sheesh, just how silly and foolish can you get? I mean, really, this is the kind idiotic dodging you'd expect from a teenager who couldn't bring himself to acknowledge something he didn't want to admit.

FYI, the terms "inspected," "examined," and "searched" are used interchangeably in zillions of investigative documents when referring to things such as cars, rooms, areas, drawers, compartments, etc. Indeed, Taylor said that Secret Service agents Paterni and Boring also "inspected" the limo, and he said this in the same paragraph and sentence as the one I quoted! The ellipses I inserted replaced this statement. Let's read:

At 10:10 p.m., Deputy Chief Paterni, ASAIC Boring, and representatives from Dr. Burkley's office at the White House, William Martinell and Thomas Mills, inspected SS-100-X.

You can confirm this yourself by reading page 2 of Taylor's report, which you can find here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/16573650/TaylorAff

As you probably don't know, Paterni and Boring were the ones who found the two bullet fragments in the front of the limo. They found the fragments when they "inspected" the limo! Paterni was the one who handed the fragments over to FBI agent Orrin Bartlett, who in turn took them to the FBI lab and gave them to the FBI's Robert Frazier (3 H 435).

Paterni and Boring never claimed to find skull fragments and a misshapen bullet in the limo, because they didn't. Mills and Martinell found them. Paterni turned over the items that he found, i.e., the two bullet fragments, to the FBI, while Mills and Martinell took the items that they found, i.e., the skull fragments and the deformed bullet, to the autopsy, as they were instructed to do.

Why would the Secret Service have kept a fragmented bullet and let the NCOs take a whole bullet with them to Bethesda.

LOL! Is this a serious question? Really? "Why," you ask? Umm, because the two Navy NCOs were the ones who found the bullet and the skull fragments, because they were under orders to bring to the autopsy what they found in the limo, and because they were acting on orders given by a Navy O-6 who was the chief aide to the White House doctor, the chief aide to the personal physician of the President of the United States! Gee, ya think?!

BTW, what happened to your nonsensical argument that the Secret Service never would have let Mills and Martinell search the limo? Huh?

Finally, why do you keep using the dishonest term "fragmented bullet" to describe the two bullet fragments found in the front of the limo, when those fragments constituted less than half of the mass of a bullet?

CE 567 weighed 41.5 grains. CE 569 weighed 21 grains. The two fragments combined weighed only 62.5 grains. But, the average rifle bullet weighs between 150 and 180 grains, and a WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullet weighs 160.8 grains.

In other words, the two bullet fragments found in the front of the limo constituted only 39% of the mass of the kind of bullet that Oswald allegedly used, and constituted no more than 42% and as little as 35% of the mass of an average rifle bullet.

As I point out in my article "Where Was Oswald During the Shooting?", since Oswald was seen by Eddie Piper on the first floor at noon, and since Williams was on the sixth floor at noon to eat his lunch, the only time Oswald could have gone up to the sniper's nest was after Williams left the sixth floor at 12:15 or 12:20, but Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald on the first or second floor at 12:15 or 12:20.

And on and on we could go.

None of this, even if true, negates the finding that Oswald was in the sniper's nest firing the shots at 12:30. The times given by Williams and Arnold are nothing more than guesses. The fact they said 12:15 or 12:20 means they are unsure of the times. Do you think people make a habit of time stamping every little event in their lives. If you passed a co-worker in a hallway, would you make note of the time it happened? Of course you wouldn't. If somebody asked you later what time you saw that person, anything you said would be a guess.

For the sake of argument, let's say Williams did leave the 6th floor at 12:20 and Arnold did see Oswald on a lower floor at 12:20. That still leaves Oswald 10 minutes to get to the 6th floor get ready to shoot JFK. I tend to doubt either of the time estimates are accurate but neither precludes Oswald from being the shooter on the 6th floor at 12:30 which the body of evidence firmly establishes.

Well, well, in doing further research just this morning, I stumbled across confirmation that Chiefs Mills and Martinell inspected JFK's limo at the White House garage!

Secret Service agent Charles Taylor was with the limo at the White House garage from the time it arrived at around 9:00 PM on 11/22 until 4:30 PM the next day. He submitted a detailed affidavit to the Church Committee in 1976 about the examination of the limo. He confirmed that Mills and Martinell inspected the limo:

At 10:10 p.m. . . . representatives from Dr. Burkley's office at the White House, William Martinell and Thomas Mills, inspected SS-100-X. (Affidavit: Charles E. Taylor, Select Committee to Study  Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Operations, 3/12/1976, p. 2)

Why do you always clip your sources out of context? Why didn't you post the entire affidavit or a link to it? Inspected the limo is not the same as searched the limo. Because you left out a chunk of the affidavit, we are left to guess at the context.

As most here know, SS-100-X was the official designation for JFK's limo.

So here we have ironclad confirmation of a key part of Dr. Young's account. Chiefs Mills and Martinell did in fact inspect JFK's limo, just as Dr. Young reported.

You might or might not have confirmation the two NCOs searched the limo but since you only posted a portion of the affidavit, we are left to guess at that. What you don't have is any confirmation they found a bullet and took it with them to Bethesda. Why would the Secret Service have kept a fragmented bullet and let the NCOs take a whole bullet with them to Bethesda. Are we supposed to believe that the Secret Service searched the limo and missed a bullet that was later found by the NCOs? Do you ever think things through?

Hi Martin, thank you for the kind words.

The SBT is based on the evidence. I could present it to you but I know that you would never accept it as proof that the SBT should really be known as the Single Bullet Fact. When the SBT comes up in discussions on the assassination here and elsewhere it is usually brought up by CTs who refer to it as the Magic Bullet Theory. We're told by them that the wound in Kennedy's back, or back of the neck, does not line up with the wound in the throat from a shot fired from the Southeast window of the 6th floor of the TSBD; the entry wound being too low. We're told that Connally was not seated low enough for the bullet to hit him where it did. We're told that Connally wasn't far enough inboard of Kennedy for the bullet to have hit him where it did. We're told that the bullet could not have created all of the wounds that the SBT proposes it did and end up in the condition it did. My take is that you guys are wrong on all accounts. A strong case against the SBT does not exist.

The SBT is based on the evidence. I could present it to you but I know that you would never accept it as proof that the SBT should really be known as the Single Bullet Fact.

A lot of things can be called evidence, without it actually proving anything.

We're told by them that the wound in Kennedy's back, or back of the neck, does not line up with the wound in the throat from a shot fired from the Southeast window of the 6th floor of the TSBD

That may be, but aren't you basically saying that it does line up, without providing conclusive evidence for it?

We're told that the bullet could not have created all of the wounds that the SBT proposes it did and end up in the condition it did.

Do you have any evidence that the bullet could have created all the wounds? And what poof do you have to show that CE399 is that actual bullet?

My take is that you guys are wrong on all accounts.

You are entitled to your opinion

A strong case against the SBT does not exist.

There doesn't have to be one. It's the SBT that needs to be proven and as far as I can tell that hasn't been done - beyond presenting it as a theory and calling it a "fact" - since 1963

So Lou ivon said ferrie said clay Shaw was clay Bertrand? Doesn't that back up orest penas account that these two used hang out together?

From my research, Google ai says Lou ivon never actually said this.