Yet Another Bullet That the Lone-Gunman Theory Cannot Explain

[Michael T. Griffith]

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 12:45:57 PM
Perhaps you should learn to read. As I've noted and documented several times already in this thread, Dr. Young's first statements about the finding of a bullet in the limo and the bullet's appearance were written in his 11/23/63 hand-written essay "What Price a Rose?" So he wrote that essay on the afternoon of 11/23, less than 24 hours after the autopsy.

So you say but can't back up.

Huh?! Objective people who read this thread are going to conclude that either you can't read or that you are knowingly making a false claim here.

The published version of that essay contains no such reference to a whole bullet received at Bethesda.

Once again, objective people who read this thread are going to conclude that either you can't read or that you are knowingly making a false claim here. 

No bullets or fragments were received at Bethesda.

Then you are saying that Dr. Young was either lying or hallucinating, starting less than 24 hours after the autopsy, and that he was so dishonest or delusional that when he came across the reference to the bullet in his 11/23/63 essay years later, when he was making copies of the essay for his children, that he then repeated the lie/delusion in a letter to President Gerald Ford, that he repeated the lie/delusion again when he spoke with Arlen Specter, and that he repeated the lie/delusion yet again when he gave his Navy oral history interviews!

Let me guess: that scenario "makes sense" to you, right?!

Several fragments were removed from JFK's skull and given to Sibert and O'Neill.

Even here you can't be honest or accurate. The cover story that you are peddling demands that only two very small fragments were found, not "several," and that Sibert and O'Neill signed a receipt that described them as a "missile" even though they constituted less than 2% of the mass of a bullet. That's the story you're stuck with if you can't admit that the receipt was for a missile and not two very small fragments. 

Ah, but you know that Boyers and Sibert said there were more than two fragments in the evidence bottle, that Dennis David typed a memo for four bullet fragments removed from the skull, and that mortician Tom Robinson saw Humes remove about 10 fragments from the skull.

You also know that O'Neill said he saw Humes remove a bullet fragment from the back of the head and that it was one of the two fragments in the evidence bottle, a bombshell that you know decimates the cover story you're peddling and proves Humes was lying about the fragments he removed.

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 12:45:57 PM
That wasn't even 40 hours after the fact, much less 40 years. It is revealing that you guys keep ignoring this crucial fact.

Unfortunately for you, there is no documentation which proves your claim.

Once again, objective people who read this thread are going to conclude that either you can't read or that you are knowingly making a false claim here.

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 12:45:57 PM
Furthermore he wrote his letter to Gerald Ford in December 2000, not 2003, and he gave his first three Navy oral history interviews in 2001, not 2003. Additionally, he brought his 11/23/63 "What Price a Rose?" essay with him to those interviews and read from it during the interviews, as I've also mentioned and documented several times herein.

You've claimed but never documented that Young's notes contained a reference to a bullet being sent to Bethesda.

Once again, objective people who read this thread are going to conclude that either you can't read or that you are knowingly making a false claim here.

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.

The only "confusion" is in your silly, deceitful argument. Dr. Young never exhibited the slightest degree of "confusion" about the bullet. From his 11/23/63 essay, to his December 2000 letter to Ford, to his summer 2001 conversation with Specter, to his December 2001 Navy oral history interviews, he repeatedly made it clear that he saw the bullet, noting that it was brass in color, half a centimeter in diameter, and deformed. When he was asked in his third 2001 interview if the bullet was a copper-jacketed bullet, he said he didn't think so because it didn't "look like" that.

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.

What truly makes no sense is that you would pretend to have any clue about what makes sense. Earlier in this thread, you said that for Dr. Young's account to make sense, we'd have to believe that JFK's limo was driven to Bethesda. You said it made no sense that SS agents would turn over a whole bullet to Mills and Martinell, when no one has ever claimed any such thing. You said it made no sense that SS agents would keep the "fragmented bullet," when there was no "fragmented bullet" found in the limo and when no one has ever even claimed there was. You said it made no sense that Dr. Young would have verified the envelope's contents before handing it over to Dr. Humes in the autopsy of a U.S. president in the crime of the century. Over and over you said it made no sense that SS agents would let Mill and Martinell search the limo.

So you have no credibility to be telling anyone what makes sense and what does not.

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 12:45:57 PM
And, of course, never mind that Chief Mills corroborated Dr. Young's account, right?

Wrong. He corroborated none of this. He refused to go into any detail about that night. You know that but keep lying about it.

Once again, objective people who read this thread are going to conclude that either you can't read or that you are knowingly making a false claim here.

Just to remind everyone, one of the reasons that Navy historian Jan Herman called Chief Mills was that Dr. Young had said that he phoned Chief Mills to verify his recollection about the finding of the bullet and bringing of the bullet to him at the autopsy, and that Chief Mills confirmed his recollection.

The fact that Mills did not repudiate Dr. Young's account and confirmed that Dr. Young called him to verify his recollection is powerful evidence in support of the account. If Mills had not found a bullet and had not brought it to Dr. Young at the autopsy, he certainly would have immediately made this clear to Herman, especially since he was reluctant to discuss the matter further. The conversation would have gone something like this if Dr. Young had been wrong about the finding and delivery of the bullet:

Herman: Dr. Young says he called you to verify his recollection that you and Martinell found a bullet in the limo and that you brought the bullet in an envelope to him at the autopsy. Is this true?

Mills: He called me, but he totally got his facts mixed up. We didn't find any bullet and did not bring any bullet to him at the autopsy. So, no, I did not verify his recollection.

I think it would be worthwhile to review some of your other gaffes in this read, just to show readers that you have no business even posting in this forum:

-- You said Dr. Young wrote the 2013 V.K. Remer article for himself. Young died in 2008, and the article's byline identified Remer as the author and Andre Sobocinski as the editor.

-- You declared with great excitement that V.K. Remer's 3-page 2013 article on Dr. Young's account did not mention the finding of a bullet in the limo. You didn't realize that Remer's 2013 article was a highly condensed version of the U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery's earlier 12-page 2013 article, which does mention the finding of the bullet.

-- You said Captain Osborne was never interviewed by the HSCA, when in fact his HSCA interview is a matter of record and has been discussed in literally dozens of books on the JFK assassination -- proving, once again, that you have no business posting in this forum under the pretension that you know anything about the JFK case.

-- You said it doesn't matter if the autopsy doctors or the HSCA FPP got the rear head entry wound's location wrong by 4 inches because either way the shot aligns with the sixth-floor window! Did you just not get to take a basic geometry course in high school?

-- You claimed that you can accept the EOP entry site without rejecting the autopsy brain photos, even though the HSCA FPP correctly pointed out that the brain photos categorically disprove the EOP site. Of course, we both know that the all-important caveat here is that this is assuming the brain photos are authentic.

We both also know that even pro-WC Dr. Robert Artwohl was honest enough to confirm that the autopsy photos at the National Archives show undamaged cerebral cortex in the very spot of the alternative rear head entry wound site, i.e., the cowlick site, just as neuroanatomist Dr. Joseph Riley noted, and just as Dr. David Mantik has confirmed at the National Archives.

I suspect you just don't the character to admit it, but your only two choices are a rear head entry site that proves the brain photos are fraudulent or a site that is refuted by the autopsy photos of the head (as well as by the fact that the phantom site was conjured up in the first place in an attempt to explain what appeared to be a 6.5 mm bullet fragment on the AP x-ray, a "fragment" that was not mentioned in the autopsy report and that turned out to be a ghosted image that was superimposed over the image of a smaller and much thinner genuine fragment visible on the lateral x-rays).

-- You said we can't know what Sibert and O'Neill meant by the term "missile" on the receipt, when (1) they did not draft the receipt, and (2) in every other document and statement they always distinguished between a missile/bullet and missile/bullet fragments. This is not to mention the fact that Sibert clearly expressed misgivings about having signed the receipt in his HSCA interview, and that O'Neill dropped the bombshell in his HSCA statement that one of the fragments in the evidence bottle was a fragment from the back of the head.

-- You claimed that I have denied there was a shot to the back of the head, when I have spent literally dozens of replies in numerous threads arguing for the veracity of the autopsy report's description of the rear head entry wound.

-- You said that I think Sibert and O'Neill were "qualified radiologists," a truly bizarre claim whose origin I cannot fathom, since I have never once even remotely implied that they tried to read x-rays at the autopsy (they merely reported what they heard the autopsy doctors say).

-- You asked me if Captain Osborne said "he and Sibert received whole bullets at the autopsy," apparently forgetting that Osborne insisted he saw and handled a bullet at the autopsy, and that Captain Stover said he recalled that a bullet arrived at the autopsy in an envelope.

 

[John Corbett]

Huh?! Objective people who read this thread are going to conclude that either you can't read or that you are knowingly making a false claim here.

Once again, objective people who read this thread are going to conclude that either you can't read or that you are knowingly making a false claim here. 

I based that statement on the following:

https://archive.org/stream/WhatPriceARoseANavyPhysicianRemembersNov.221963NavyMedicine/What%20Price%20A%20Rose_%20A%20Navy%20Physician%20Remembers%20Nov.%2022%2C%201963%C2%A0_%C2%A0Navy%20Medicine_djvu.txt

It states from the top that it is the full text of "What Price a Rose" and it contains no reference to a bullet or I slug. This morning, I found another version of "What Price a Rose" which does contain a reference to a slug. It appears that despite the article saying it was the full text of Dr. Young's essay, it appears to be a slightly abridged version so I had been misled. When I discovered the more complete version, I deleted the statement I had already typed which said the essay contained no reference to the slug.

What hasn't changed is the fact that there is no corroboration for Dr. Young's statement that the envelope with the bone fragments also contained a bullet. Contrary to what you have stated repeatedly, Chief Mills did not corroborate Young's claims. He only stated that he had a conversation about "the event" but gave no other details. That is not a corroboration of Young's account.

You have also made the claim that someone named Stover corroborates Young but despite having been asked, you have yet to provide a citation that backs up your claim. You have only given us your spin on what Stover saw.

Then you are saying that Dr. Young was either lying or hallucinating, starting less than 24 hours after the autopsy, and that he was so dishonest or delusional that when he came across the reference to the bullet in his 11/23/63 essay years later, when he was making copies of the essay for his children, that he then repeated the lie/delusion in a letter to President Gerald Ford, that he repeated the lie/delusion again when he spoke with Arlen Specter, and that he repeated the lie/delusion yet again when he gave his Navy oral history interviews!

I neither said Dr. Young was lying or hallucinating. Those are your words. I indicated Dr. Young apparently had a misconception about what was in the envelope. He might have just assumed that based on the report he got from the Secret Service from the White House garage. They informed him they had found some bone fragments and might have also told him about the bullet fragments found. Young might have just assumed they were referring to a whole bullet and not a fragment. There is no record of a whole bullet having been found in the limo. Not from the Secret Service and not from Mills. The reason for doubting Young's account is that it would make no sense for them to have sent a whole bullet to Bethesda. The record shows that the bullet fragments found in the limo were turned over to the FBI. What sense would it make for them to turn the fragments over to the FBI but send a whole bullet to Bethesda. I have yet to see you address this conundrum.

Let me guess: that scenario "makes sense" to you, right?!

Again. I did not use the word lie.. I used the word confused.

Even here you can't be honest or accurate. The cover story that you are peddling demands that only two very small fragments were found, not "several," and that Sibert and O'Neill signed a receipt that described them as a "missile" even though they constituted less than 2% of the mass of a bullet. That's the story you're stuck with if you can't admit that the receipt was for a missile and not two very small fragments. 

Now you try your trick of trying to redirect the conversation. The issue of whether a whole bullet was sent to Bethesda from the White House garage has nothing to do with what Sibert and O'Neill RECEIVED from the autopsy team at Bethesda.

Ah, but you know that Boyers and Sibert said there were more than two fragments in the evidence bottle, that Dennis David typed a memo for four bullet fragments removed from the skull, and that mortician Tom Robinson saw Humes remove about 10 fragments from the skull. '

The question of how many fragments Sibert and O'Neill received at Bethesda has nothing to do with your claim that Bethesda had received a whole bullet from the White House garage. The premise of the thread as stated in your OP is that a whole bullet being found in the limo is inconsistent with the finding that a lone gunman did the shooting. Your sole basis for claiming such a bullet was found is Dr. Young and nobody corroborates his story and the story makes no sense. Are you ever going to even attempt to explain why the Secret Service would have sent a whole bullet they found in the limo to Bethesda when they had turned all the fragments that were found, including the one found by Mills, over to the FBI?

You also know that O'Neill said he saw Humes remove a bullet fragment from the back of the head and that it was one of the two fragments in the evidence bottle, a bombshell that you know decimates the cover story you're peddling and proves Humes was lying about the fragments he removed.

Try to focus. The issue is whether whole bullet was found in the limo and sent to Bethesda.

Once again, objective people who read this thread are going to conclude that either you can't read or that you are knowingly making a false claim here.

Once again, objective people who read this thread are going to conclude that either you can't read or that you are knowingly making a false claim here.

Objective people will see you are trying to bluster your way through the discussion by trying to redirect the conversation to the fragments that were turned over to the FBI and away from Young's claim that a whole bullet was delivered to Bethesda.

The only "confusion" is in your silly, deceitful argument. Dr. Young never exhibited the slightest degree of "confusion" about the bullet. From his 11/23/63 essay, to his December 2000 letter to Ford, to his summer 2001 conversation with Specter, to his December 2001 Navy oral history interviews, he repeatedly made it clear that he saw the bullet, noting that it was brass in color, half a centimeter in diameter, and deformed. When he was asked in his third 2001 interview if the bullet was a copper-jacketed bullet, he said he didn't think so because it didn't "look like" that.

Yes, Young did exhibit confusion when he claimed to have seen a bullet that nobody else knows anything about. Not the Secret Service agents who searched the limo. Not Mills nor Martinell. Not Admiral Burkey. Not Humes, Boswell, nor Finck. Not Gerald Ford nor Arlen Specter. Nobody by Young.

What truly makes no sense is that you would pretend to have any clue about what makes sense. Earlier in this thread, you said that for Dr. Young's account to make sense, we'd have to believe that JFK's limo was driven to Bethesda. You said it made no sense that SS agents would turn over a whole bullet to Mills and Martinell, when no one has ever claimed any such thing. You said it made no sense that SS agents would keep the "fragmented bullet," when there was no "fragmented bullet" found in the limo and when no one has ever even claimed there was. You said it made no sense that Dr. Young would have verified the envelope's contents before handing it over to Dr. Humes in the autopsy of a U.S. president in the crime of the century. Over and over you said it made no sense that SS agents would let Mill and Martinell search the limo.

I got that impression from what you wrote in the OP. You only said that Mills and Martinell had found a bullet in the limo. You failed to mention that they had been sent to the White House garage to search the limo. Silly me for thinking you had told us the whole story.

So you have no credibility to be telling anyone what makes sense and what does not.

You apparently have no sensible explanation for why the Secret Service would give the bullet fragments to the FBI but send a whole bullet to Bethesda. Does that make sense to you?

Once again, objective people who read this thread are going to conclude that either you can't read or that you are knowingly making a false claim here.

Just to remind everyone, one of the reasons that Navy historian Jan Herman called Chief Mills was that Dr. Young had said that he phoned Chief Mills to verify his recollection about the finding of the bullet and bringing of the bullet to him at the autopsy, and that Chief Mills confirmed his recollection.

Again you are telling a flat out lie. Mills only told Herman that he had a conversation with Young. He refused to tell Herman what was discussed. There is no record of Mills confirming Young's claim that a bullet was found in the limo and sent to Bethesda. If you had any evidence of that, you would have posted it by now.

The fact that Mills did not repudiate Dr. Young's account and confirmed that Dr. Young called him to verify his recollection is powerful evidence in support of the account.

Oh, because Mills did not repudiate what his former commanding officer had claimed, you took that as confirmation. One more example of the illogical way your mind works. Any unknowns are treated as evidence that supports the narrative you are pushing.

If Mills had not found a bullet and had not brought it to Dr. Young at the autopsy, he certainly would have immediately made this clear to Herman, especially since he was reluctant to discuss the matter further. The conversation would have gone something like this if Dr. Young had been wrong about the finding and delivery of the bullet:

Herman: Dr. Young says he called you to verify his recollection that you and Martinell found a bullet in the limo and that you brought the bullet in an envelope to him at the autopsy. Is this true?

Mills: He called me, but he totally got his facts mixed up. We didn't find any bullet and did not bring any bullet to him at the autopsy. So, no, I did not verify his recollection.

 
That was worthy of six BS emotes. You have no idea what Mills would have said or why. I don't suppose you ever considered that maybe Mills didn't want to talk about it to Herman because he didn't want to embarrass his former CO. I could just as easily posted an imaginary conversation between the two based on that premise and it would carry the same weight as your imaginary conversation which is none at all. All we know is that Mills refused to go into detail with Herman without giving a reason.

I think it would be worthwhile to review some of your other gaffes in this read, just to show readers that you have no business even posting in this forum:

-- You said Dr. Young wrote the 2013 V.K. Remer article for himself. Young died in 2008, and the article's byline identified Remer as the author and Andre Sobocinski as the editor.

-- You declared with great excitement that V.K. Remer's 3-page 2013 article on Dr. Young's account did not mention the finding of a bullet in the limo. You didn't realize that Remer's 2013 article was a highly condensed version of the U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery's earlier 12-page 2013 article, which does mention the finding of the bullet.

So you acknowledge what I wrote at the beginning of this post that there was an abridged version of Young's essay which didn't mention a bullet. That is not a gaffe by me. Am I supposed to know that a longer version of that essay was available, especially since the version I referenced stated it was a FULL TEXT.

-- You said Captain Osborne was never interviewed by the HSCA, when in fact his HSCA interview is a matter of record and has been discussed in literally dozens of books on the JFK assassination -- proving, once again, that you have no business posting in this forum under the pretension that you know anything about the JFK case.

Again, I made that on the basis of an internet source that listed witnesses who testified before the WC, the HSCA, and the ARRB as well as those who gave affidavits. I was unaware that the list is incomplete and in the future I will take that into account.

-- You said it doesn't matter if the autopsy doctors or the HSCA FPP got the rear head entry wound's location wrong by 4 inches because either way the shot aligns with the sixth-floor window! Did you just not get to take a basic geometry course in high school?

The effect of the geometry would be negligible given that a 4 inch difference at a range of 88 yards would have little change on the angle of the trajectory and either entry point is possible with Oswald as the shooter. There is ample other evidence that establishes Oswald was the shooter who fired that shot. Most notably, the fragmented bullet found in the limo which had two fragments which were positively matched to Oswald's rifle which was found on the 6ht floor.

-- You claimed that you can accept the EOP entry site without rejecting the autopsy brain photos, even though the HSCA FPP correctly pointed out that the brain photos categorically disprove the EOP site. Of course, we both know that the all-important caveat here is that this is assuming the brain photos are authentic.

I can accept that because unlike you, I haven't deluded myself into believing I am an expert in forensic medicine and am in no position to conclude which group correctly placed the entry wound. What matters to me is where that bullet was fired from and both groups agreed JFK was shot in the back of the head which is consistent with the finding that Oswald fired the shot.

We both also know that even pro-WC Dr. Robert Artwohl was honest enough to confirm that the autopsy photos at the National Archives show undamaged cerebral cortex in the very spot of the alternative rear head entry wound site, i.e., the cowlick site, just as neuroanatomist Dr. Joseph Riley noted, and just as Dr. David Mantik has confirmed at the National Archives.

All this crap you are bringing up is just another example of you trying to redirect the conversation away from your original premise that an extra bullet was found in the limo, a claim you made on the weakest of evidence.

I suspect you just don't the character to admit it, but your only two choices are a rear head entry site that proves the brain photos are fraudulent or a site that is refuted by the autopsy photos of the head (as well as by the fact that the phantom site was conjured up in the first place in an attempt to explain what appeared to be a 6.5 mm bullet fragment on the AP x-ray, a "fragment" that was not mentioned in the autopsy report and that turned out to be a ghosted image that was superimposed over the image of a smaller and much thinner genuine fragment visible on the lateral x-rays).

I know you don't have the character to admit you are wrong even though you are almost all the time with your FUBAR analysis of the evidence. I also know that if I had left out an important word like you did in the first sentence of the above paragraph, you would have made a big deal about it.

-- You said we can't know what Sibert and O'Neill meant by the term "missile" on the receipt, when (1) they did not draft the receipt, and (2) in every other document and statement they always distinguished between a missile/bullet and missile/bullet fragments. This is not to mention the fact that Sibert clearly expressed misgivings about having signed the receipt in his HSCA interview, and that O'Neill dropped the bombshell in his HSCA statement that one of the fragments in the evidence bottle was a fragment from the back of the head.

Didn't they sign the receipt?

-- You claimed that I have denied there was a shot to the back of the head, when I have spent literally dozens of replies in numerous threads arguing for the veracity of the autopsy report's description of the rear head entry wound.

-- You said that I think Sibert and O'Neill were "qualified radiologists," a truly bizarre claim whose origin I cannot fathom, since I have never once even remotely implied that they tried to read x-rays at the autopsy (they merely reported what they heard the autopsy doctors say).

I intended that as a question. I was asking you if that's what you thought. I neglected to finish the sentence with a "?" which does change the meaning. My bad.

-- You asked me if Captain Osborne said "he and Sibert received whole bullets at the autopsy," apparently forgetting that Osborne insisted he saw and handled a bullet at the autopsy, and that Captain Stover said he recalled that a bullet arrived at the autopsy in an envelope.

You keep claiming this but never provide a quote or a source for this claim.

[John Corbett]

My, my, my, what have we here?

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/McKnight%20Working%20Folders/Part%203/HSCA%20-%20Captain%20John%20H%20Stover%20Interview/HSCA%20-%20Captain%20John%20H%20Stover%20Interview%2001.pdf

MTG has repeatedly said throughout this thread that Captain John Stover corroborated Dr. James Young's claim that a whole bullet was delivered to Bethesda during JFK's autopsy. Despite my requests for MTG to cite a source for his claim, he failed to do so. I decided to look for the documentation myself and the above link is what I found. It is an HSCA Outside Contact Report which summarizes the interview with Captain Stover. I point to item 5 in the report which states the following:

"Stover cannot recall ever seeing an intact missile in the autopsy room."

My question to MTG is whether this was a gaffe on your part or did you just outright lie about Stover's statement.