The Wounding of James Tague Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory

[Joe Elliott]

A few remarks on Mr. Griffith’s article.

It implies the cut on Mr. Tague’s face was caused by a concrete chip dislodged and sent flying. The curb does not have a gouge in it, only a lead smear. Even if the curb did have a gouge in it, caused by a bullet, we would have no way of knowing if Mr. Tague’s cheek was cut by a concrete chip or the bullet fragment.

Neither Mr. Tague nor Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walters, nor any other observer, were experts on what a bullet strike on concrete looks like and what a tire rim strike looks like. All were looking for bullet strikes. None were looking for tire rim strikes. And so likely to report a any lead smear as a bullet strike.

None were experts on how much time could pass and still have a lead smear look fresh.

You say “In a 1966 filmed interview, Tague unequivocally said the curb mark was the result of a bullet striking the curb. Well, that’s enough for me. It must have been a bullet strike. What greater expert in the world on bullet strikes and tire rim strikes onto concrete is there than Mr. Tague? Right.

Yes. All these people said the mark on the curb was caused by a bullet strike. But they also say a chip was missing from the curb and there is no chip missing from the curb, unless it is a chip too small to be seen in photographs.



Using Don Roberdeau’s map, the curb was 260 feet from the limousine at z313, but Mr. Tague himself was 280 feet away and a good deal higher.

How could a fragment go on to strike Mr. Tague? While only 40 % of the mass of the bullet was recovered in the two fragments found in the car, so the third fragment could have weighed up to 60% of the bullet mass. Even with only half or a third of the speed left, it could easily reach Mr. Tague.

In addition, if the missile had been fired from the sixth-floor window, the bullet would have
approached from the right rear and would have struck the head at a downward angle of around
20 degrees. How would a fragment from such a bullet have traveled upward so as to clear both
the roll bar and the windshield?

Not 20 degrees. 16 degrees relative to the horizon. 13 degrees relative to the limousine.

How could the fragment be deflected at least 13 degrees upwards? Well, the fragment that struck the window was deflected upwards about 10 degrees. The fragment that struck the windshield frame was deflected upwards about 14 degrees. Just a little higher deflection would clear the windshield frame and visor, while still passing under the roll bar. And the windshield frame is lower in the direction of Mr. Tague than it is where the other fragment struck the windshield frame. And in the direction of Mr. Tague, the visor does not stick so high above the windshield frame either.

there is still the fact that the curb was visibly marked and that some concrete had been blasted out of the curb mark by the object that caused it

There is no missing chip of concrete on the curb. Only a lead smear. That is a false fact. No missing chip in the curb in the photograph taken the next day. No missing chip in the curb stored at the National Archives. The people who report this was a bullet strike also report that the curb had a gouge in it from the chip that was sent flying. Both “facts” are wrong.

Dr. Tom Canning, the trajectory expert for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, told the committee that the windshield damage appeared to be too high to have been caused by a fragment from the headshot missile.

This is correct. The fragment strikes on the windshield and windshield fragment are too high to be caused by fragments from the headshot. Or fragments which caused by any of the wounds to the President and Governor (how else would fragments be formed?). Assuming the fragments were not deflected by the body of the person they wounded. Unless, of course, the bullets came from the following Secret Service car and were fired through the windshield of that car. But this is all based on the assumption that bullets and bullet fragments do not deviate from a straight line.

Tom Canning was not a ballistic expert but a NASA engineer. He had not observed the paths of bullets and bullet fragments fired through ballistic gel. Real world ballistic experts report that bullet and bullet fragment do follow curved paths through ballistic gel. Asking a NASA engineer if bullet fragments can deviate from a straight-line path is like asking a professor of Psychology if a neuromuscular spasm can happen in a human.

Do not rely on a ballistic expert to blast you into space. Or a NASA engineer to tell you the path of bullet through bodies. Follow these simple rules and you may live to a ripe old age.

[Gary Craig]

I agree that a mark on the edge is coincidental, but in this case I don’t discount anything

Here is link that shows photos including one with the proper orientation of the curb.
https://emuseum.jfk.org/search/curb

What I noticed in the pictures that show the mark before any “word done” like patching or cutting etc, do not appear to show the associated scratches. Later pictures do show scratches.

One other point suggesting a bullet is that I recall hearing the curb mark analysis mentioned lead with only a trace of antimony (but I have never seen a copy of an official analysis report).  I was thinking lead wheel balancers used hardened lead with at least a few percent of antimony as a hardening agent.

The FBI, according to Harold Weisberg, tossed out the official chemical analysis of the mark on the curb when they moved into their current building in DC. They said it took up too much space. 1/16th of an inch thick???

[John Iacoletti]

Neither Mr. Tague nor Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walters, nor any other observer, were experts on what a bullet strike on concrete looks like and what a tire rim strike looks like.

Neither are you, but that doesn’t prevent you from just decreeing that scratches look exactly like they were caused by an unknown tire rim.

How could a fragment go on to strike Mr. Tague? While only 40 % of the mass of the bullet was recovered in the two fragments found in the car, so the third fragment could have weighed up to 60% of the bullet mass. Even with only half or a third of the speed left, it could easily reach Mr. Tague.

Uh, you’re kinda forgetting about the fragments left in Kennedy’s head.

[Joe Elliott]

This remains Joe Elliott’s favorite logical fallacy.

You could pick any spot that a bullet or fragment happened to strike and say that this particular spot has a much smaller chance of being hit than all the other spots. That doesn’t make it a “coincidence”.

A roulette wheel has 38 slots, 18 red, 18 black and 2 greens, labeled “0” and “00”. Following Iacoletti’s logic, you should always split you bets between “0” and “00”, because the ball will land in a green slot as often as it lands in a red or a black slot. Using “The Iacoletti system”, betting let’s say 1% of your remaining money on “0” and 1% on “00”, on each spin, you should almost certainly make money hand over fist. You’ll likely end up owning the casino. And if you do, the first thing you should do is close down all the roulette wheels.

Believe me, if you play roulette at Las Vegas, use the Iacoletti system, or any other system, you soon run out of all the money you bet unless you quit early.

Just as in roulette, where a ball rarely lands in a green slot, but usually in a black or red slot, a random bullet strike on a curb will usually strike the vertical or the horizontal face of the curb, and not right on the edge.

[Joe Elliott]

Mr. Elliott: Thank you. Well stated. 

Thank you John.

[John Iacoletti]

A roulette wheel has 38 slots, 18 red, 18 black and 2 greens, labeled “0” and “00”. Following Iacoletti’s logic, you should always split you bets between “0” and “00”, because the ball will land in a green slot as often as it lands in a red or a black slot.

Nope. Using the Joe Elliot system, if the ball lands on 7, that’s an unlikely coincidence because there was only a 1/38 chance of it landing there. And if it lands on 34, that’s an unlikely coincidence because there was only a 1/38 chance of it landing there. Etc, etc. Therefore, the reasonable assumption is that they didn’t spin the ball at all and a mouse dropped it there. Mouses do that all the time.

[Joe Elliott]

I agree that a mark on the edge is coincidental, but in this case I don’t discount anything

I don’t consider coincidences impossible. But I am always suspicious of them.

Here is link that shows photos including one with the proper orientation of the curb.
https://emuseum.jfk.org/search/curb

Thank you. Was not aware of that photograph.

What I noticed in the pictures that show the mark before any “word done” like patching or cutting etc, do not appear to show the associated scratches. Later pictures do show scratches.

All the before pictures I have seen show the vertical face of the curb in shadow, so I can’t tell if it has scratches or not. I suspect it did.

I don’t see why removing a curb would leave curved scratches on it and one of the curve scratches pointing right at the lead smear.

One other point suggesting a bullet is that I recall hearing the curb mark analysis mentioned lead with only a trace of antimony (but I have never seen a copy of an official analysis report).  I was thinking lead wheel balancers used hardened lead with at least a few percent of antimony as a hardening agent.

WCC/MC bullets had antimony and that is also common in lead tire weights. In any case, as I recall (I may be mistaken) the lead smear had too little lead to detect antimony, just lead.