Repeating pure hogwash does not improve it. Again, let's see you produce just one example from any FBI or other investigative document where the term "missile" was used to refer to two small bullet fragments that constituted less than 2% of the mass of a bullet. Let's see it. We both know you can't produce such an example because it doesn't exist, because no one would be dumb enough or careless enough to willingly describe two small bullet fragments as a "missile."
Wow, I guess you saw no need to mention any of the problems and indications of fraud that I pointed out in Sibert and O'Neill's HSCA and ARRB statements. I guess you saw no need to mention that I documented that Sibert and O'Neill repeatedly distinguished between "missile/bullet" and "fragments" in their 11/26/63 report and in their HSCA and ARRB interviews. I guess you saw no need to mention that Boyers, the Navy corpsman who supposedly typed the "missile" receipt, said there were three or four fragments, not two, and that Sibert likewise indicated there were more than two fragments in the evidence bottle. You ignored all these points and falsely cited me as if I had contradicted Michael Capasse's arguments.
Some might view such omissions as an indication of an intent to mislead.
MG: Repeating pure hogwash does not improve itCapesse is the baseless repeater. Tell
him that.
MG: Again, let's see you produce just one example from any FBI or other investigative document where the term "missile" was used to refer to two small bullet fragments that constituted less than 2% of the mass of a bullet. Let's see it. We both know you can't produce such an example because it doesn't exist, because no one would be dumb enough or careless enough to willingly describe two small bullet fragments as a "missile.The one example we have is the Sibert/O'Neill receipt from the autopsy. Should go without saying, should it not?
Anyway, If you want to claim that there is no "FBI or investigative document" that refers to fragments as a "missile," it is up to you to demonstrate this. Neither I nor anyone else is required to disprove your baseless assertion. Asserting something, then demanding that everyone else disprove the assertion is shifting the burden of proof.
MG: I guess you saw no need to mention any of the problems and indications of fraud that I pointed out in Sibert and O'Neill's HSCA and ARRB statements.You are correct. I see no need to mention something that doesn't actually exist.
I guess you saw no need to mention that I documented that Sibert and O'Neill repeatedly distinguished between "missile/bullet" and "fragments" in their 11/26/63 report and in their HSCA and ARRB interviews.Since Sibert and O'Neill did not generate the receipt, whatever terms they themselves used is immaterial. There is, then, no need to mention it.
MG: I guess you saw no need to mention that Boyers, the Navy corpsman who supposedly typed the "missile" receipt, said there were three or four fragments, not two, and that Sibert likewise indicated there were more than two fragments in the evidence bottle.Note that Boyers and Sibert said "fragments" and not "bullet." Since the current argument revolves around the assertion that the "missle" was a bullet, the Boyers and Sibert statements are solid arguments
against that assertion. Not sure why you wanted to bring it up. BTW, Sibert told the HSCA that there were two fragments, both in his interview and the affidavit he presented. O'Neil likewise told the HSCA that only two fragments were removed. Their 1963 report specifically states that the fragments were the 1x3mm and 7x2mm fragments....that is, exactly two fragments.
You ignored all these points and falsely cited me as if I had contradicted Michael Capasse's arguments.I ignored your points (no big loss, see above) because I responded to something that Capasse said. Namely, his statement: "Well then, it should be easy to find clarification in the official documents for such a major discrepancy." I pointed out that the ARRB statements of Sibert and O'Neill qualify as such. They are, after all, part of the "official record," and in these official records S&O both state that the receipt was given for fragments, not a whole bullet. When Capasse foolishly repeated himself, I repeated my original point and noted that you and Corbett had, at the time of my reply, been discussing Sibert and O'Neill's statements that the receipt really was for fragments, even if it said "missle." There is nothing misleading or dishonest about what I said; it is completely true. Sibert and O'Neill have repeatedly and
exclusively stated that the receipt was for fragments, not a bullet. Your attempt to say that I've been dishonest is wrong, and is itself dishonest.
Recent Posts