Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)  (Read 34676 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11351
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #77 on: February 20, 2022, 09:24:03 PM »
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.

Of course it's material.  The alleged punch in the nose was his excuse for punching Oswald in the face (which there IS photo evidence of) and then "subduing" him.

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4402
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #78 on: February 26, 2022, 01:40:05 PM »

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.


Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes. There was another one came up who was located, at the time he stated, on the south side of Elm Street back toward the triple underpass. Back, well, it would be north of the underpass there, and said he had gotten hit by a piece of concrete or something, and he did have a slight cut on his right cheek, upper portion of his cheek just to the right of his nose.
Mr. BELIN. Would he have been to the front or to the back of the Presidential…

Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1650
    • SPMLaw
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #79 on: February 27, 2022, 06:14:07 PM »

Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes. There was another one came up who was located, at the time he stated, on the south side of Elm Street back toward the triple underpass. Back, well, it would be north of the underpass there, and said he had gotten hit by a piece of concrete or something, and he did have a slight cut on his right cheek, upper portion of his cheek just to the right of his nose.
Mr. BELIN. Would he have been to the front or to the back of the Presidential…
Given the three impact locations on the windshield, one of which was about as high as possible, it would be surprising if there were not some fragments that went over the top of the windshield.  And then there is the evidence of the mark on the curb which was described as being a fresh mark.  There was no damage to the curb - no concrete missing.  It was just a mark that left traces of lead and antimony when it was analysed 8 months later.  For Tague to imagine something that did not happen but have it fit with this evidence would be implausible.  All this evidence fits with Tague being hit by a fragment from one of the shots - the second shot, according to Tague's WC testimony.

Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3774
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #80 on: February 27, 2022, 07:38:04 PM »
Given the three impact locations on the windshield, one of which was about as high as possible, it would be surprising if there were not some fragments that went over the top of the windshield.  And then there is the evidence of the mark on the curb which was described as being a fresh mark.  There was no damage to the curb - no concrete missing.  It was just a mark that left traces of lead and antimony when it was analysed 8 months later.  For Tague to imagine something that did not happen but have it fit with this evidence would be implausible.  All this evidence fits with Tague being hit by a fragment from one of the shots - the second shot, according to Tague's WC testimony.

"All this evidence fits with Tague being hit by a fragment from one of the shots - the second shot, according to Tague's WC testimony."

Isn't your second shot the one that was supposed to exit JBC's chest while he was facing Zapruder?
How could a fragment from such a shot head towards Tague?

Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1650
    • SPMLaw
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #81 on: March 02, 2022, 03:18:21 PM »
"All this evidence fits with Tague being hit by a fragment from one of the shots - the second shot, according to Tague's WC testimony."

Isn't your second shot the one that was supposed to exit JBC's chest while he was facing Zapruder?
How could a fragment from such a shot head towards Tague?
The deflection is off the wrist that is pressed against the chest.  The bullet sent a spray of lead throughout the wrist wound after striking and shattering the radius well above the wrist joint.

No one has ever been able to explain how the bullet and its resulting fragments would not obey the laws of physics and deflect away from the point of contact.  So if the bullet obeyed the laws of physics, it should have deflected up slightly.  The fragments that struck the windshield were spread over an area of about 12" x 12" ranging from the upper edge down to below the mirror.