S. M. Holland's "Smoke" on the Grassy Knoll

[John Corbett]

It is pure speculation as to what happened with Oswald's first missed shot. We are left to make educated guesses. My guess is the bullet skipped off the pavement, struck the curb in front of James Tague, and kicked up debris which caused Tague's superficial facial wound, but that is hardly an established fact. It's one of the few unanswered questions of the JFK assassination that will likely never be answered with any certainty. We don't need to know that because we know what happened with Oswald's second and third shots. That is a certainty.

[Royell Storing]

It is pure speculation as to what happened with Oswald's first missed shot. We are left to make educated guesses. My guess is the bullet skipped off the pavement, struck the curb in front of James Tague, and kicked up debris which caused Tague's superficial facial wound, but that is hardly an established fact. It's one of the few unanswered questions of the JFK assassination that will likely never be answered with any certainty. We don't need to know that because we know what happened with Oswald's second and third shots. That is a certainty.

  "Educated guesses"?  "We don't need to know..."?  The guy harping about Proof and Evidence is NOW forced into considering, "educated guesses", and then running away with, "We don't need to know..."?  Hilarious back peddling.

[John Corbett]

  "Educated guesses"?  "We don't need to know..."?  The guy harping about Proof and Evidence is NOW forced into considering, "educated guesses", and then running away with, "We don't need to know..."?  Hilarious back peddling.

Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we need to ignore what we do know. We know where Oswald's second and third shots struck. Nothing that could have happened with that first shot changes the fact Oswald's second shot hit JFK in the upper back and went on to seriously wound JBC. His third shot struck JFK it the back of the head causing an unsurvivable massive brain injury. We have proof of that.

There are a number of things we don't know and probably never will. We don't know Oswald's motive nor do we need to know in order to prove he was the assassin. He would be nice to know but because he never admitted to what he did, he never would have told anyone why he did it. He didn't leave behind a manifesto explaining his actions and there was no social media in those days which often gives clues as to the motives off modern day crackpots.

If you want to be anal and take the position that the case is unsolved because we can't prove every single detail, that's your choice. I'm perfectly content knowing that Oswald was the assassin and there isn't a scrap of evidence indicating he had even a single accomplice in his crime and I really don't care where his first shot went.

[Royell Storing]

Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we need to ignore what we do know. We know where Oswald's second and third shots struck. Nothing that could have happened with that first shot changes the fact Oswald's second shot hit JFK in the upper back and went on to seriously wound JBC. His third shot struck JFK it the back of the head causing an unsurvivable massive brain injury. We have proof of that.

There are a number of things we don't know and probably never will. We don't know Oswald's motive nor do we need to know in order to prove he was the assassin. He would be nice to know but because he never admitted to what he did, he never would have told anyone why he did it. He didn't leave behind a manifesto explaining his actions and there was no social media in those days which often gives clues as to the motives off modern day crackpots.

If you want to be anal and take the position that the case is unsolved because we can't prove every single detail, that's your choice. I'm perfectly content knowing that Oswald was the assassin and there isn't a scrap of evidence indicating he had even a single accomplice in his crime and I really don't care where his first shot went.

    You're avoiding addressing the obvious. You got 3 hulls vs physical evidence of only 2 bullets. That's a Big problem. This "lost bullet" stuff is David Copperfield worthy. When do you saw the lady in half?

[Tom Graves]

You've got three hulls and only two bullets. That's a Big problem. This "lost bullet" stuff is David Copperfield worthy.

Dear Royell,

Should Oswald have employed a bullet catcher to catch his difficult "Z-124" bullet in case he missed everything with it (he did)?

-- Tom

[John Corbett]

    You're avoiding addressing the obvious. You got 3 hulls vs physical evidence of only 2 bullets. That's a Big problem. This "lost bullet" stuff is David Copperfield worthy. When do you saw the lady in half?

It is absurd to expect every bullet that is fired to be recoverable, especially the bullets from missed shots. Shots that don't hit the intended target can travel great distances and are not going to always be recoverable. It isn't a problem at all that we have 3 spent hulls and only 2 recovered bullets. That missed shot ended up somewhere. We just don't know where that was nor do we need to.

[Royell Storing]

It is absurd to expect every bullet that is fired to be recoverable, especially the bullets from missed shots. Shots that don't hit the intended target can travel great distances and are not going to always be recoverable. It isn't a problem at all that we have 3 spent hulls and only 2 recovered bullets. That missed shot ended up somewhere. We just don't know where that was nor do we need to.

    For starters, where is there Evidence of a "missed shot"? And didn't the HSCA claim a 4th shot was a "missed shot". This "missed shot" stuff cuts both ways. But this is where you are at. Now claiming that Oswald while standing up, fired a "missed shot" through a 1/2 open window. Ludicrous.