Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Yet Another Bullet That the Lone-Gunman Theory Cannot Explain  (Read 558 times)

Online John Corbett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2341
Re: Yet Another Bullet That the Lone-Gunman Theory Cannot Explain
« Reply #21 on: Yesterday at 07:38:55 PM »
Well then, it should be easy to find clarification in the official documents for such a major discrepancy.
Missile is a bullet, I'm not aware of any reference of other fragments found in this case called "missiles".
Even if "removed" Humes made no further reference to it, The document was hidden until 1972.

Find an official reference that missile means fragment would clarify it as not just another lame excuse

I've looked at a number of online dictionary definitions of "missile", some of which would apply to a bullet fragment and others which would not. It really isn't important. It is what the person who used the term "missile" meant by it. If that person considered a fragment to be a missile, then it is a missile.

Offline Michael Capasse

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 971
Re: Yet Another Bullet That the Lone-Gunman Theory Cannot Explain
« Reply #22 on: Yesterday at 07:42:20 PM »
I've looked at a number of online dictionary definitions of "missile", some of which would apply to a bullet fragment and others which would not. It really isn't important. It is what the person who used the term "missile" meant by it. If that person considered a fragment to be a missile, then it is a missile.

Does nothing to clarify the receipt dated 11/22/63
lame with a bit of mumbo-jumbo on the side

« Last Edit: Yesterday at 07:59:26 PM by Michael Capasse »

Online John Corbett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2341
Does nothing to clarify the receipt dated 11/22/63
lame with a bit of mumbo-jumbo on the side



According to my list of witnesses, neither Siebert nor O'Neill were ever called to testify before the WC, the HSCA, or the ARRB. So where does that leave us determining what they meant by a missile?

Offline Michael Capasse

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 971
According to my list of witnesses, neither Siebert nor O'Neill were ever called to testify before the WC, the HSCA, or the ARRB. So where does that leave us determining what they meant by a missile?

A receipt made out to Captain J.H. Stover, Jr., Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Medical School, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
That clearly states (a) missile.  singular.  NOTHING about multiple fragments (2) - or "portion of the projectile" wording used in the autopsy report.

 Thumb1: I gotta go with [vanishing] bullet.