Why the James Tague Wounding Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory

[Michael T. Griffith]

The Warren Commission (WC) and the FBI tried to ignore the wounding of James Tague. Tague was standing about 450 feet from the Texas School Book Depository during the shooting. A bullet or large fragment struck the curb on Main Street about 20 feet from where he was standing. Moments after the shooting, a police officer noticed that Tague was bleeding from his right cheek. Tague had either been struck by a piece of concrete that had been sent flying from the curb scar, or by a fragment from the missile that hit the curb, or by a fragment that struck him before it hit anything else.

The curb scar was deep enough that Tague assumed he could have been cut by a chip of concrete from it. He recalled that when the shooting started he had felt a sting on his cheek. Later, he described the mark on the curb as it appeared when he saw it:

There was a mark. Quite obviously, it was a bullet, and it was very fresh. (WCR, p. 116)

Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers, who saw the mark soon after the shooting, agreed that it had been caused by a bullet. Patrolman Clyde Haygood, who radioed in the incident at around 12:40, said Tague might have been hit “by a ricochet from the bullet off the concrete” (WCR, p. 116). In a 1966 filmed interview, Tague unequivocally said the curb mark was the result of a bullet striking the curb.

WC apologists have been unable to provide a plausible, credible explanation for the Tague wounding.

Gerald Posner's theory to explain the Tague incident is the most fanciful of all the attempts to explain it. Posner theorizes that the scar on the curb was caused by a lead fragment from a bullet that allegedly struck a limb of the oak tree, in spite of the fact that the tree whose limb the bullet supposedly hit was at least 400 feet from the curb. Additionally, according to Posner, this was the first shot, but Tague said it was the second shot that hit the curb and caused the wound on his face.

Moreover, Posner theorizes that the lead core separated from its copper jacketing after the alleged tree-branch collision and then traveled in a straight line to the curb, missing everything in between. However, after separating from the jacket and then flying over 400 feet, it is extremely doubtful the lead core would have been able to hit the curb with enough force to cause a concrete chip or metal fragment to reach Tague with enough speed to visibly cut his face, nor is it at all likely that such a lead fragment would have had enough force to fly straight to Tague's face and then cut it.

To make matters worse, Posner says the tree-branch-collision bullet also sent a sizable fragment downward, and that this fragment was the missile that five witnesses saw hit the pavement behind the limo early in the shooting. 

Those who are familiar with FMJ bullet behavior will see other problems with Posner's theory, assuming for the sake of argument that the bullet was an FMJ bullet fired from the sixth-floor window. Ballistics tests show that an FMJ bullet fired from the sixth-floor window would have easily penetrated several inches into an oak limb and would not have had its jacket and core separated by the collision. Typically, an FMJ bullet will penetrate at least 2 inches into oak wood when fired from around 100 feet away (the oak tree was 60-100 feet from the sixth-floor window, depending on which limb one assumes was hit).

If the bullet merely grazed a tree limb, this certainly would not have caused the jacket to separate from the lead core, nor would it have caused the bullet to lose two sizable fragments. 

The WC's theory to explain the Tague wounding is only slightly less implausible than Posner's fairy tale. The WC theorized that a fragment from the head shot hit the curb and/or wounded Tague's face -- never mind the fact that the fragment would have exited the righthand side of the skull, whereas Tague was standing to the left of the limo; and never mind the fact that the fragment would have had to clear the limo's windshield and roll bar and then dive downward while still retaining enough velocity to cause the required damage.

It is no wonder that WC staffers and the FBI did their level best to ignore the Tague wounding. Indeed, when the WC finally got around to asking the FBI to look into the matter, the Dallas FBI office replied that they could not find the curb scar, and suggested it had been wiped away by street cleaners! 

The lone-gunman theory's inability to explain the Tague wounding is one of many proofs that it is implausible and untenable.

"The Wounding of James Tague Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory of the JFK Assassination"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QGE1Se8HuF99CToouKhKW0OSRprmspwX/view

[John Corbett]

The Warren Commission (WC) and the FBI tried to ignore the wounding of James Tague. Tague was standing about 450 feet from the Texas School Book Depository during the shooting. A bullet or large fragment struck the curb on Main Street about 20 feet from where he was standing. Moments after the shooting, a police officer noticed that Tague was bleeding from his right cheek. Tague had either been struck by a piece of concrete that had been sent flying from the curb scar, or by a fragment from the missile that hit the curb, or by a fragment that struck him before it hit anything else.

Probably but not certainly.

The curb scar was deep enough that Tague assumed he could have been cut by a chip of concrete from it. He recalled that when the shooting started he had felt a sting on his cheek. Later, he described the mark on the curb as it appeared when he saw it:

There was a mark. Quite obviously, it was a bullet, and it was very fresh. (WCR, p. 116)

Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers, who saw the mark soon after the shooting, agreed that it had been caused by a bullet. Patrolman Clyde Haygood, who radioed in the incident at around 12:40, said Tague might have been hit “by a ricochet from the bullet off the concrete” (WCR, p. 116). In a 1966 filmed interview, Tague unequivocally said the curb mark was the result of a bullet striking the curb.

WC apologists have been unable to provide a plausible, credible explanation for the Tague wounding.

Not so. There is not positive proof of what caused Tague's injury. The most likely cause would a ricochet from the first shot miss or a fragment from the head shot. I have gone back and forth as to which one is the more likely explanation. There are arguments for and against both scenarios but nothing that settles the question.

Gerald Posner's theory to explain the Tague incident is the most fanciful of all the attempts to explain it. Posner theorizes that the scar on the curb was caused by a lead fragment from a bullet that allegedly struck a limb of the oak tree, in spite of the fact that the tree whose limb the bullet supposedly hit was at least 400 feet from the curb. Additionally, according to Posner, this was the first shot, but Tague said it was the second shot that hit the curb and caused the wound on his face.

Tague was wrong. The second shot was CE399 and that whole bullet, except for a few flakes of lead, was found at Parkland. The curb near Tague could have been struck by a first shot ricochet or a fragment of the headshot. There is no evidence that proves or disproves either possibility.

Moreover, Posner theorizes that the lead core separated from its copper jacketing after the alleged tree-branch collision and then traveled in a straight line to the curb, missing everything in between. However, after separating from the jacket and then flying over 400 feet, it is extremely doubtful the lead core would have been able to hit the curb with enough force to cause a concrete chip or metal fragment to reach Tague with enough speed to visibly cut his face, nor is it at all likely that such a lead fragment would have had enough force to fly straight to Tague's face and then cut it.

You are offering an unproven hypothesis based on your assumption. Not very compelling.

To make matters worse, Posner says the tree-branch-collision bullet also sent a sizable fragment downward, and that this fragment was the missile that five witnesses saw hit the pavement behind the limo early in the shooting.

Another unproven hypothesis based on an assumption. You are not alone in that regard.

Those who are familiar with FMJ bullet behavior will see other problems with Posner's theory, assuming for the sake of argument that the bullet was an FMJ bullet fired from the sixth-floor window. Ballistics tests show that an FMJ bullet fired from the sixth-floor window would have easily penetrated several inches into an oak limb and would not have had its jacket and core separated by the collision. Typically, an FMJ bullet will penetrate at least 2 inches into oak wood when fired from around 100 feet away (the oak tree was 60-100 feet from the sixth-floor window, depending on which limb one assumes was hit).

Your argument assumes the bullet behaved in a typical manner. An atypical behavior remains a possibility.

If the bullet merely grazed a tree limb, this certainly would not have caused the jacket to separate from the lead core, nor would it have caused the bullet to lose two sizable fragments. 

Another of your unproven hypotheses.

The WC's theory to explain the Tague wounding is only slightly less implausible than Posner's fairy tale. The WC theorized that a fragment from the head shot hit the curb and/or wounded Tague's face -- never mind the fact that the fragment would have exited the righthand side of the skull, whereas Tague was standing to the left of the limo; and never mind the fact that the fragment would have had to clear the limo's windshield and roll bar and then dive downward while still retaining enough velocity to cause the required damage.

The WC offered possibilities but did not reach conclusions for the same reasons I have identified. There is no proof positive as to what caused Tague's injury. This was the WC's final word on the Tague injury:

"The wide range of possibilities and the existence of conflicting testimony, when coupled with the impossibility of scientific verification, precludes a conclusive finding by the Commission as to which shot missed."

The above was the only sensible position to take on the matter. It is not necessary to prove exactly how Tague was injured.  It was enough to recognize the various possibilities.

It is no wonder that WC staffers and the FBI did their level best to ignore the Tague wounding. Indeed, when the WC finally got around to asking the FBI to look into the matter, the Dallas FBI office replied that they could not find the curb scar, and suggested it had been wiped away by street cleaners!

It is simply not true that the WC ignored the Tague injury. The fact that they could come to no definitive conclusion doesn't mean they ignored it. They discussed the possibilities thoroughly on pages 116-117 of the WCR.

The lone-gunman theory's inability to explain the Tague wounding is one of many proofs that it is implausible and untenable.

"The Wounding of James Tague Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory of the JFK Assassination"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QGE1Se8HuF99CToouKhKW0OSRprmspwX/view

It is duly noted that MTG does not offer an alternative explanation for the Tague injury. He knows that any alternative would have the same problems as the WC's attempt to explain the injury. It would have the same ambiguities, the same lack of definitive proof that the WC faced in dealing with the matter. This is standard practice for the CT crowd. They give us their objections to the WCR but fail to apply those same objections to any alternative theory they might present. Since the rarely offer any alternative theories to the one presented by the WCR, they don't need to face those same problems.

In short, the injury to Tague does not refute the Lone Gunman Theory as MTG has claimed. Plausible explanations do exist that are consistent with a lone gunman even if they are unproveable.

[Benjamin Cole]

MTG--

Thanks for posting.

Verily, the Tague shot is a puzzler.

I suppose it is possible that a bullet fractured somewhere, and then part of it struck the curb near Tague, and another part struck Tague in the directly in face. But such a small fragment would be likely to lose momentum before it struck Tague. 

The LNT-SBT is the contortion necessary to explain all the JFK-JBC wounds, given the Tague shot.

The FBI found only lead on the Tague curb, somewhat indicating it was a lead core strike. However, at that time the FBI was under tremendous pressure to support the LNT.

I agree, the prospect a ricochet, and only a soft lead core, striking the Tague curb with enough force to spray up concrete and cause a cut on Tague's face...is a long shot.

Another possibility is the bullet that struck the curb near Tague was not jacketed. That would indicate a shot from a handgun, possibly just a straight shot that missed.

While most 11.22 witnesses heard three shots, in the "bang....bang-bang" cadence, this does not rule out inaudible shots (silencers) or simultaneous shots.

I have no confidence in any explanation of the Tague shot.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Probably but not certainly.
Not so. There is not positive proof of what caused Tague's injury. The most likely cause would a ricochet from the first shot miss or a fragment from the head shot. I have gone back and forth as to which one is the more likely explanation. There are arguments for and against both scenarios but nothing that settles the question.
Tague was wrong. The second shot was CE399 and that whole bullet, except for a few flakes of lead, was found at Parkland. The curb near Tague could have been struck by a first shot ricochet or a fragment of the headshot. There is no evidence that proves or disproves either possibility.
You are offering an unproven hypothesis based on your assumption. Not very compelling.
Another unproven hypothesis based on an assumption. You are not alone in that regard.
Your argument assumes the bullet behaved in a typical manner. An atypical behavior remains a possibility.
Another of your unproven hypotheses.
The WC offered possibilities but did not reach conclusions for the same reasons I have identified. There is no proof positive as to what caused Tague's injury. This was the WC's final word on the Tague injury:

"The wide range of possibilities and the existence of conflicting testimony, when coupled with the impossibility of scientific verification, precludes a conclusive finding by the Commission as to which shot missed."

The above was the only sensible position to take on the matter. It is not necessary to prove exactly how Tague was injured.  It was enough to recognize the various possibilities.
It is simply not true that the WC ignored the Tague injury. The fact that they could come to no definitive conclusion doesn't mean they ignored it. They discussed the possibilities thoroughly on pages 116-117 of the WCR.
It is duly noted that MTG does not offer an alternative explanation for the Tague injury. He knows that any alternative would have the same problems as the WC's attempt to explain the injury. It would have the same ambiguities, the same lack of definitive proof that the WC faced in dealing with the matter. This is standard practice for the CT crowd. They give us their objections to the WCR but fail to apply those same objections to any alternative theory they might present. Since the rarely offer any alternative theories to the one presented by the WCR, they don't need to face those same problems.

In short, the injury to Tague does not refute the Lone Gunman Theory as MTG has claimed. Plausible explanations do exist that are consistent with a lone gunman even if they are unproveable.

Your arguments here range from uninformed to lazy to erroneous to misleading. What are the "plausible explanations" for the Tague curb chip and Tague wounding that preserve the lone-gunman theory? The least ridiculous pro-lone-gunman explanation is the WC's silly theory that has a fragment from the head shot somehow flying over the windshield and the roll bar and then diving downward and veering leftward (since Tague was to the left of the limo) yet miraculously somehow still retaining enough velocity to blast out a piece of concrete from the curb and send the piece streaking toward Tague with enough force to cut his face.

Something cut Tague's cheek during the shooting, because moments after the shooting a police officer noticed that Tague had a bleeding cut on his right cheek. Plus, the first two police officers who saw the curb scar recognized it as having been caused by a bullet, and Tague saw immediately that the curb scar was deep enough to have sent a chip of concrete that was large enough to cut his face. So it is comical for you to claim that, gee, we really don't know what caused Tague's injury. Yeah, we do.

To all but the brainwashed, it is obvious that a projectile from a bullet or propelled by a bullet caused Tague's injury -- that is the only rational, logical, scientifically credible explanation, but you can't admit it because your theory has no bullet that could have done this.

You don't even have a halfway credible explanation for the curb scar and Tague's wounding.

The closest projectile you have would have come from a bullet that was over 200 feet away and that had just finished plowing through a human skull and would have exited from the right side of the skull (but Tague was to the left of the limo), and this fragment would have then had to clear both the limo's windshield and roll bar and then magically dive downward and leftward like a guided missile while somehow, someway, in defiance of the laws of physics, still retaining enough velocity to do the required damage. This is one of the theories that you call "plausible"!

And, pray tell, how could your alleged lone headshot bullet have produced a fragment large enough and with enough velocity to gouge the curb and/or cut Tague's face over 200 feet away, when this same bullet would have had to leave a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment in the rear outer table of the skull, leave several tiny fragments near the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment (including the McDonnel fragment), leave a 3 x 1 mm fragment and a 7 x 2 mm fragment just above the right orbit at the opposite end of the skull, leave all the fragments contained in the high fragment trail, and also leave two large fragments inside the limo near the driver's seat?! Deep down, although you'll never admit it, you can't really believe this wild tale.

The next closest projectile you have was a bullet that was over 400 feet away that supposedly magically shed its copper jacket after merely hitting an oak tree limb (when in fact FMJ bullets will easily penetrate several inches into oak wood), and then, even more magically, supposedly sent one fragment downward to strike the pavement behind the limo and sent another fragment directly to the curb over 400 feet away, missing everything in between. Never mind that even an FMJ bullet traveling at a low velocity would not have behaved in this manner after striking an oak tree limb.

Again, it is no wonder the WC and the FBI ignored the Tague incident as long as they dared, until so many reports about it appeared in the press that they could no longer pretend it didn't happen.

The Tague incident proves there had to have been more than three shots fired and thus automatically refutes the lone-gunman theory. I bet you didn't even read my linked article on the subject.

A bullet fired from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building could have barely missed JFK and gone on to hit the curb near Tague. A number of witnesses thought gunfire came from the Dal-Tex Building; there is photographic evidence that suggests a shot was fired from a lower floor of that building, as Harold Weisberg documented; and a Mafia man, Eugene Hale Brading, was arrested coming out of the building shortly after the assassination because he seemed to be acting suspiciously.

Oh, Tague was wrong about which shot caused his wound?! Yeah, you bet. Tague said he'd already heard one shot before he felt something sting his face, but, nah, you say he was "mistaken." Right, of course. And then you fall back on the single-bullet theory (SBT) to justify your rejection of Tague's account, even though you know -- but won't admit -- that the SBT is refuted (1) by the hard physical evidence of the rear JFK clothing holes and of JFK's tie, (2) by Willis Slide 5 and Croft 3 and the Zapruder film, (3) by Connally himself, and (4) by the fact that we now know that at the end of the autopsy the autopsy doctors had established for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point based on direct observation of the probing done with the chest organs removed, including the observation of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, proving beyond any doubt that the back wound had no exit point -- which of course explains why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point (and Lt. Richard Lipsey confirmed that even after the autopsy, after Sibert and O'Neill had departed, the autopsy doctors were certain the back wound had no exit point).

[Royell Storing]

Your arguments here range from uninformed to lazy to erroneous to misleading. What are the "plausible explanations" for the Tague curb chip and Tague wounding that preserve the lone-gunman theory? The least ridiculous pro-lone-gunman explanation is the WC's silly theory.

Something cut Tague's cheek during the shooting; the first two police officers who saw the curb scar recognized it as having been caused by a bullet; and Tague saw immediately that the curb scar was deep enough to have sent a chip of concrete that was large enough to cut his face, so it is comical for you to claim that, gee, we really don't know what caused Tague's injury. Yeah, we do.

To all but the brainwashed, it is obvious that a projectile from a bullet or propelled by a bullet caused Tague's injury -- that is the only rational, scientifically credible explanation, but you can't admit it because your theory has no bullet that could have done this.

You don't even have a halfway credible explanation for the curb scar and Tague's wounding.

The closest projectile you have would have come from a bullet that was over 200 feet away and that had just finished plowing through a human skull, and this fragment would have had to clear both the limo's windshield and roll bar and then magically dive downward and leftward like a guided missile while somehow, someway, in defiance of the laws of physics, still retaining enough velocity to do the required damage.

The next closest projectile you have was a bullet that was over 400 feet away that supposedly magically shed its copper jacket after merely hitting an oak tree limb (when in fact FMJ bullets will easily penetrate several inches into oak wood), and then, even more magically, supposedly sent one fragment downward to strike the pavement behind the limo and sent another fragment directly to the curb over 400 feet away, missing everything in between. Never mind that even an FMJ bullet traveling at a low velocity would not have behaved in this manner after striking an oak tree's limb.

Again, it is no wonder the WC and the FBI ignored the Tague incident as long as they dared, until so many reports about it appeared in the press that they could no longer pretend it didn't happen.

The Tague incident proves there had to have been more than three shots fired and thus automatically refutes the lone-gunman theory. I bet you didn't even read my linked article on the subject.

A bullet fired from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building could have barely missed JFK and gone on to hit the curb near Tague. A number of witnesses thought gunfire came from the Dal-Tex Building; there is photographic evidence that suggests a shot was fired from a lower floor of that building, as Harold Weisberg documented; and a Mafia man, Eugene Hale Brading, was arrested coming out of the building shortly after the assassination because he seemed to be acting suspiciously.

    And with your, "....bullet fired from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex building...." in mind, what about SA Hickey's AR-15?

[John Corbett]

Your arguments here range from uninformed to lazy to erroneous to misleading. What are the "plausible explanations" for the Tague curb chip and Tague wounding that preserve the lone-gunman theory?

I just told you, I could crush a Grape ooooh yummy yummy. It could have been a ricochet from the first shot miss or a fragment from the head shot. Neither is provable and either is possible. Now why don't you give us a plausible explanation for Tague's wound that wasn't from a shot fired by Oswald.

The least ridiculous pro-lone-gunman explanation is the WC's silly theory that has a fragment from the head shot somehow flying over the windshield and the roll bar and then diving downward and veering leftward (since Tague was to the left of the limo) yet miraculously somehow still retaining enough velocity to blast out a piece of concrete from the curb and send the piece streaking toward Tague with enough force to cut his face.

Since you can't give us a plausible alternative to either of the ones I provided, we don't have a least ridiculous explanation from you. We don't have an explanation from you at all.

Something cut Tague's cheek during the shooting, because moments after the shooting a police officer noticed that Tague had a bleeding cut on his right cheek. Plus, the first two police officers who saw the curb scar recognized it as having been caused by a bullet, and Tague saw immediately that the curb scar was deep enough to have sent a chip of concrete that was large enough to cut his face. So it is comical for you to claim that, gee, we really don't know what caused Tague's injury. Yeah, we do.

To all but the brainwashed, it is obvious that a projectile from a bullet or propelled by a bullet caused Tague's injury -- that is the only rational, logical, scientifically credible explanation, but you can't admit it because your theory has no bullet that could have done this.

You don't even have a halfway credible explanation for the curb scar and Tague's wounding.

You don't have an explanation at all.

The closest projectile you have would have come from a bullet that was over 200 feet away and that had just finished plowing through a human skull and would have exited from the right side of the skull (but Tague was to the left of the limo), and this fragment would have then had to clear both the limo's windshield and roll bar and then magically dive downward and leftward like a guided missile while somehow, someway, in defiance of the laws of physics, still retaining enough velocity to do the required damage. This is one of the theories that you call "plausible"!

It's more plausible than anything you have offered.

The next closest projectile you have was a bullet that was over 400 feet away that supposedly magically shed its copper jacket after merely hitting an oak tree limb (when in fact FMJ bullets will easily penetrate several inches into oak wood), and then, even more magically, supposedly sent one fragment downward to strike the pavement behind the limo and sent another fragment directly to the curb over 400 feet away, missing everything in between. Never mind that even an FMJ bullet traveling at a low velocity would not have behaved in this manner after striking an oak tree limb.

Who said it hit the oak tree. That's Posner's theory, not mine. I don't know what Oswald's missed shot first struck. It could have hit the pavement. next to the limo. Some have theorized it hit the traffic bar. I can't prove nor disprove any of the possibilities, only recognize that they exist.

Again, it is no wonder the WC and the FBI ignored the Tague incident as long as they dared, until so many reports about it appeared in the press that they could no longer pretend it didn't happen.

Now you resort back to lying your a** off. The WC did not ignore the Tague wound. It dealt with it on page 116.

The Tague incident proves there had to have been more than three shots fired and thus automatically refutes the lone-gunman theory. I bet you didn't even read my linked article on the subject.

You have to be really stupid to think that. It is completely illogical. There are a number of possible explanations for Tague's wound that can neither be proven nor disproven. That's why the WC did not reach a definitive conclusion about it. Proof of more than three shots would require that you prove Tague's wound was caused by a bullet fired from a rifle other than Oswald's. Not only have you failed to do that, you haven't even proposed an alternative. That would require you to present a hypothesis that you would need to support with evidence. We both know you are incapable of doing that.

A bullet fired from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building could have barely missed JFK and gone on to hit the curb near Tague. A number of witnesses thought gunfire came from the Dal-Tex Building; there is photographic evidence that suggests a shot was fired from a lower floor of that building, as Harold Weisberg documented; and a Mafia man, Eugene Hale Brading, was arrested coming out of the building shortly after the assassination because he seemed to be acting suspiciously.

You have provided zero evidence that a shot was fired from the Dal-Tex building. Tell us what this photographic evidence is of a shot from the Dal-Tex. Suggestions are not evidence.

Oh, Tague was wrong about which shot caused his wound?! Yeah, you bet. Tague said he'd already heard one shot before he felt something sting his face, but, nah, you say he was "mistaken." Right, of course. And then you fall back on the single-bullet theory (SBT) to justify your rejection of Tague's account, even though you know -- but won't admit -- that the SBT is refuted (1) by the hard physical evidence of the rear JFK clothing holes and of JFK's tie, (2) by Willis Slide 5 and Croft 3 and the Zapruder film, (3) by Connally himself, and (4) by the fact that we now know that at the end of the autopsy the autopsy doctors had established for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point based on direct observation of the probing done with the chest organs removed, including the observation of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, proving beyond any doubt that the back wound had no exit point -- which of course explains why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point (and Lt. Richard Lipsey confirmed that even after the autopsy, after Sibert and O'Neill had departed, the autopsy doctors were certain the back wound had no exit point).

Neither you nor anybody else has ever refuted the SBT. It remains the only plausible explanation for JFK's non-fatal wounds and all of JBC's wounds. If there was a plausible alternative to it, somebody would have come up with one by now. Andrew Mason has come up with a ridiculous alternative but at least he has tried. You won't even do that because you know you would get destroyed as soon as you did.

[Michael Capasse]

I just told you, I could crush a Grape ooooh yummy yummy. It could have been a ricochet from the first shot miss or a fragment from the head shot. Neither is provable and either is possible. Now why don't you give us a plausible explanation for Tague's wound that wasn't from a shot fired by Oswald.
Since you can't give us a plausible alternative to either of the ones I provided, we don't have a least ridiculous explanation. We don't have an explanation from you at all.
You don't have an explanation at all.
It's more plausible than anything you have offered.
Who said it hit the oak tree. That's Posner's theory, not mine. I don't know what Oswald's missed shot first struck. It could have hit the pavement. next to the limo. Some have theorized it hit the traffic bar. I can't prove nor disprove any of the possibilities, only recognize that they exist.
Now you resort back to lying your Bahookie off. The WC did not ignore the Tague wound. It dealt with it on page 116.
You have to be really stupid to think that. It is completely illogical. There are a number of possible explanations for Tague's wound that can neither be proven nor disproven. That's why the WC did nor reach a definitive conclusion about it. Proof of more than threes shots would require that you prove Tague's wound was caused by a bullet fired from a rifle other than Oswald's. Not only have you failed to do that, you haven't even proposed an alternative. That would require you to present a hypothesis that you would need to support with evidence. We both know you are incapable of doing that.
You have provided zero evidence that a shot was fired from the Dal-Tex building. Tell us what this photographic evidence is of a shot from the Dal-Tex. Suggestions are not evidence.
Neither you nor anybody else has ever refuted the SBT. It remains the only plausible explanation for JFK's non-fatal wounds and all of JBC's wounds. If there was a plausible alternative to it, somebody would have come up with one by now. Andrew Mason has come up with a ridiculous alternative but at least he has tried. You won't even do that because you know you get destroyed as soon as you did.

Hand waved away by a *know-it-all* that can only respond with insults.