Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)

[John Iacoletti]

The contrarian "mind" is an astounding thing to behold.  I specifically noted that whether Tague was wounded makes no difference to the LN vs CTer debate.  And the contrarian suggests that I have only questioned this witness because it supports my view that Oswald was the assassin.  Huh?  Of course, Tague being wounded is part of the "official" narrative that contrarians so mightily struggle against.  Making it all the more astounding that questioning Tague's story is somehow promoting that narrative.

But the narrative also requires that for Tague to have been wounded at all, it could not have been the second (magic bullet) shot.

[John Iacoletti]

There's no photo of Nick McDonald's allegedly "bloodied nose" either, but the LN-faithful don't seem to reserve any of their Tague skepticism for that..

[Bill Chapman]

No bloody nose needed
The scrape will do

[Andrew Mason]

But the narrative also requires that for Tague to have been wounded at all, it could not have been the second (magic bullet) shot.

No it doesn't. It just requires accepting that the first shot struck JFK. The entire WC was of that view.

[John Iacoletti]

No bloody nose needed
The scrape will do

Will do for what?  McDonald himself said that was self-inflicted.

[Richard Smith]

No bloody nose needed
The scrape will do




[/quote

There were also numerous witnesses to Oswald resisting arrest and/or involved in the actual struggle to subdue him.  And, of course, whether McDonald had a bloody nose or not is not material to the event.  Whereas the nature of Tague's injury (product of preexisting injury, bullet fragment, or overpass pillar) is the entire point in that situation.

[Bill Chapman]

Will do for what?  McDonald himself said that was self-inflicted.

McDonald himself said that was self-inflicted.
_AKA known as he was trying to wrench the gun away from Oswald