Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)

[Andrew Mason]

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.

At least 2 fragments struck the windshield and frame.  If another fragment had gone an inch higher than the one that struck the windshield frame, it is not difficult to see that it would have gone toward where Tague was standing.  Tague was standing roughly in line with the car and the SN at z270-313.  A fragment on a slight upward trajectory would have gone up before falling to the ground.  Tague's evidence is corroborated by the curb mark and the subsequent analysis showing that it contained lead and antimony.  The fragment could have struck the street at a low angle and bounced off the street striking the curb and then deflecting upward. Or it could have struck just the curb.

Every event has a low a priori probability - until it occurs.

[Richard Smith]

At least 2 fragments struck the windshield and frame.  If another fragment had gone an inch higher than the one that struck the windshield frame, it is not difficult to see that it would have gone toward where Tague was standing.  Tague was standing roughly in line with the car and the SN at z270-313.  A fragment on a slight upward trajectory would have gone up before falling to the ground.  Tague's evidence is corroborated by the curb mark and the subsequent analysis showing that it contained lead and antimony.  The fragment could have struck the street at a low angle and bounced off the street striking the curb and then deflecting upward. Or it could have struck just the curb.

Every event has a low a priori probability - until it occurs.

I don't find the curb mark all that compelling.  I bet you could find a hundred similar marks along the curbs of any city street.  Are there photos of the wound?  It is curious that several authors apparently mistake the preexisting face wound with the alleged wound received as part of the assassination.   I'm not saying this couldn't happen.  Just that it seems odd absent some more specific information that I haven't seen (but may exist) to prove the basic facts.   In history, there is a lot of repeating information that, at its source, turns out to be questionable.  I don't think it impacts either the LN or CTer perspective as to whether Tague was wounded by a fragment.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

Another stunning example of "witnesses are only right when they support what I already believe happened, and unreliable when they don't".

[Richard Smith]

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. 

[Charles Collins]

I don't find the curb mark all that compelling.  I bet you could find a hundred similar marks along the curbs of any city street.  Are there photos of the wound?  It is curious that several authors apparently mistake the preexisting face wound with the alleged wound received as part of the assassination.   I'm not saying this couldn't happen.  Just that it seems odd absent some more specific information that I haven't seen (but may exist) to prove the basic facts.   In history, there is a lot of repeating information that, at its source, turns out to be questionable.  I don't think it impacts either the LN or CTer perspective as to whether Tague was wounded by a fragment.

Apparently the DPD was convinced that Tague was possibly wounded. Page 17 of Tague’s book “Truth Withheld” show a partial transcript of the DPD radio transmissions at 12:37pm. Referenced as Warren Report, pg. 463, Vol. X:
.
.
.

22.  I have one guy that was possibly hit by a rickashay (sic) from the bullet off the concrete and another one seen the President slump.

Disp.  10-4

.
.
.

[Charles Collins]

Another stunning example of "witnesses are only right when they support what I already believe happened, and unreliable when they don't".

The witness testified under oath that he didn’t know which shot to associate with his getting stung.



And here you imply that he actually knows that it wasn’t the first shot:

Except Tague said that he wasn't hit by the first shot.

If Tague actually said that, it is at odds with his sworn testimony. You can believe whatever you wish. I really couldn’t care less.

[Andrew Mason]

Another stunning example of "witnesses are only right when they support what I already believe happened, and unreliable when they don't".

I agree.  Tague was not inconsistent in his evidence.  He recalled 3 distinct shots and he recalled that he felt something strike his face on one of the shots.  He was able to accurately determine which shot struck him. He never changed his evidence on that.   When first asked the question as to which of the three shots struck him, he said he did not know.  However, when questioned further he was able to provide a clear answer:  he knew he heard a shot before he felt something and he knew he heard a shot after he was hit.  So while he did not consciously relate the feeling of being hit to the second shot at the time, his memory of when he was not struck left him with an unambiguous conclusion that he was struck on the second shot.

Anyone who speculates that the bleeding face cut was pre-existing, that the mark on the curb (described by all who saw it as being fresh) was pre-existing and that there were probably a whole lot of other similar marks on curbs in Dallas, is basing conclusions on speculation, not the evidence.