Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Yet Another Bullet That the Lone-Gunman Theory Cannot Explain  (Read 652 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.
« Last Edit: Today at 03:39:56 AM by Michael Capasse »

Online Benjamin Cole

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 985
MC--

It is difficult to believe that not one but two FBI agents would use the word "missile" to mean something other than a whole bullet.

Forgotten today, in 1963--

Under longtime Director J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI accepted applicants who possessed either a law degree or a four-year college degree in accounting.---AAI

In the early 1960s, FBI agents were smart guys. Obviously literate.

There is something fishy when it comes to the topic of bullets and the JFKA. Too many bullets spoils the plot?

While I do not subscribe to a "Deep State" crime and cover-up of the JFKA, it is clear that LBJ and WC pursued the LNT to the exclusion of all else. No nuke wars with Russia!

The second official investigation, the HSCA 1979, into the JFKA found there was likely a JFKAC.

And there it stands.

Caveat emptor, and draw your conclusions.