Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)  (Read 34681 times)

Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1100
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #35 on: February 13, 2022, 12:13:28 AM »
Great work! This does appear to be something that should have interested the investigators. Wow!
For reference, look at this photo of the car as it sat at Parkland:


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4402
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #36 on: February 13, 2022, 01:55:05 AM »
For reference, look at this photo of the car as it sat at Parkland:



Yes, thanks Mitch. Brian shows that image twice in his pdf. One version is at a higher resolution than the other one.

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4402
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #37 on: February 13, 2022, 03:08:09 AM »
Except Tague said that he wasn't hit by the first shot.

Tague has said a lot of inconsistent things. I believe that he really doesn’t know which shot it was. Therefore, I personally am not going to rule out the first shot based on Tague’s guesses. And it really doesn’t matter to me whether or not you want to believe whatever the “story du jour” from Tague.




FYI:

 Tague testified he heard three shots and “guesses” and “believes” the bullet that struck the curb was the second one (7 H 555)

 

Offline Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6008
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #38 on: February 14, 2022, 10:05:19 PM »
Tague has said a lot of inconsistent things. I believe that he really doesn’t know which shot it was. Therefore, I personally am not going to rule out the first shot based on Tague’s guesses. And it really doesn’t matter to me whether or not you want to believe whatever the “story du jour” from Tague.




FYI:

 Tague testified he heard three shots and “guesses” and “believes” the bullet that struck the curb was the second one (7 H 555)

I always wondered if he was even wounded during the assassination or made this story up on the fly.  He admitted having some preexisting facial injury.  He tried to peddle some film footage of a race car crash to a reporter.  Not exactly a guy who missed an opportunity to make a buck.

Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1650
    • SPMLaw
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #39 on: February 15, 2022, 12:39:11 AM »
Arguing where the first shot hit the road is like arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin. The first shot struck JFK, according to the evidence.

Also, the MythBusters video shows that a 1200 fps 115 grain jacketed bullet from a handgun is not going to hit asphalt without leaving a trace. So it is obvious that a 2000 fp 170 grain jacketed bullet, with more than four times the energy of the Mythbuster's bullet, will leave a noticeable divot in the pavement.  Does anyone seriously think the FBI could not find such a mark in the pavement if it really existed?

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6506
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #40 on: February 15, 2022, 12:53:47 AM »
I always wondered if he was even wounded during the assassination or made this story up on the fly.  He admitted having some preexisting facial injury.  He tried to peddle some film footage of a race car crash to a reporter.  Not exactly a guy who missed an opportunity to make a buck.

No wondering necessary if one looks things up
Soon after the shots, Detective Buddy Walthers noticed specks of blood on Tague's right cheek. Tague also had a small left facial scab from a cut, which occurred a week before the assassination.
Cite: Wiki

And he thought 'firecracker' at the first shot
« Last Edit: February 15, 2022, 01:05:48 AM by Bill Chapman »

Offline Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6008
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #41 on: February 15, 2022, 05:01:42 PM »
No wondering necessary if one looks things up
Soon after the shots, Detective Buddy Walthers noticed specks of blood on Tague's right cheek. Tague also had a small left facial scab from a cut, which occurred a week before the assassination.
Cite: Wiki

And he thought 'firecracker' at the first shot


That is his story.  It is odd that Tague just happens to have a preexisting cut to his face.  Photos taken afterward apparently often confuse that wound for the alleged wound during the assassination.  Why would he allow anyone to take photos of the preexisting wound that has nothing to do with the assassination?  He ducked behind the overpass when the shooting began.  Maybe he caused this wound while doing that and thought it was related to the assassination.  It just seems extremely unlikely - but not impossible - that a bullet fragment fired at the JFK car ends up wounding Tague given his position at the time.  I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it just seems unlikely that no one along the parade route was hit by a bullet fragment but Tague standing a couple streets over is wounded.  Is there any confirmation from Buddy Walthers that he saw the blood?  There were apparently pictures taken of the wound but I've also never seen them.