Yet Another Bullet That the Lone-Gunman Theory Cannot Explain

[John Corbett]

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.

[Michael Capasse]

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

[John Corbett]

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?