Why the James Tague Wounding Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory

[Michael T. Griffith]

Here's a good, succinct article on the Tague wounding written in 2013 by NBC journalist Jeff Smith and published on the local NBC Dallas-Fort Worth website:

"Spectator's Minor Injury Changes JFK Assassination Explanation"
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/minor-injury-changed-jfk-assassination-history/2066552/

Smith wrote the article after interviewing Tague in Dealey Plaza. Here's the bulk of the article's content:

Tague was standing under the triple underpass on the west side of Dealey Plaza when the motorcade turned onto Elm Street, in front of the Texas School Book Depository. That's when a sharp noise pierced through the cheering crowds.

"Somebody threw a firecracker. And then I thought what kind of an idiot would be throwing a firecracker with the president driving by," Tague said.

Of course, it wasn't a firecracker -- it was an assassin's bullet.

"I'm standing there still in disbelief over somebody throwing a firecracker, and then, 'Crack! Crack!' Two rifle shots, not a second apart, and something stings me in the face."

What stung Tague was a fragment from a bullet that struck the nearby curb.

"It could've been a mixture of a little bit of lead and concrete," Tague said. "I was sprayed. Debris hit me in the face. Broke the skin in maybe three or four places. A drop of blood in each place. Nothing serious."

But it's arguably the most important "minor injury" in American history, and here's why: Just two weeks after the assassination, the FBI finished its investigation and concluded Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots. Two of those shots hit Kennedy and one hit Connally. The Warren Commission was prepared to reach the same conclusion months later.

But when commissioners read the local newspaper reports proving the curb shot, they realized that one of the three shots missed the motorcade entirely.

"I didn't know I was changing history. I just knew it was probably important that there was a missed shot," Tague said.

The 27-year-old filed an affidavit about what happened.

"All of a sudden the Warren Commission had a big problem. They had to rewrite the report."

That spawned the infamous "single bullet theory" or the "magic bullet theory," the contested conclusion that just one bullet caused significant injuries to both Kennedy and Connally.

"It changed history. If that policeman had not ran up to me, if I had just gotten back in my car and gone home, and forgot all about it, history would've been different," Tague said.

Tague understands his role in history. But even now, 50 years later, he struggles with what happened.

The Tague wounding was not the only reason Arlen Specter had to concoct the fanciful single-bullet theory (SBT), but it was one of two major reasons. The other reason was that Specter and other WC staffers realized there was a serious timing problem caused by Gov. John Connally's wounding as seen in the Zapruder film.

The WC said the first hit occurred between Z210 and Z225. However, they had to account for the dramatic drop of Connally's right shoulder, the puffing of his cheeks, and the pained expression on his face in Z238-242, which clearly indicated Connally was hit by a separate bullet after JFK was first hit, just as Connally insisted was the case. Even assuming JFK was hit at Z210 and Connally was hit two to four frames before Z238, that would still only allow 24 frames between the hit on JFK and the hit on Connally, or only 1.3 seconds -- far, far too little time for the alleged murder weapon to have fired two shots. This vexing timing problem was the other major reason that drove Specter to conjure up the SBT.

[John Corbett]

Tague's injury didn't change anything. It's likely the WC would have arrived at the SBT without it. The Secret Service recreations showed that at the moment JFK was first struck, JBC was directly in line to be hit by the bullet exiting JFK's throat. It would have taken a magic bullet to miss hitting JBC.

The WC considered the possibilities and could not reach a conclusion as to which stray shot had caused Tague's injury. What they did opine is that the mark on the curb contained lead and antimony indicating it was unlikely a whole FMJ bullet had struck the curb. That would mean it could have been the first missed shot that ricocheted and continued down range to strike the curb in front of Tague or it could have been a fragment from the head shot. I lean toward the first explanation but it cannot be proven conclusively that it was a fragment from the first shot that caused Tague's injury.

MTG has proposed a missed shot fired from the Dal-Tex building could have struck the curb near Tague but has offered no evidence of any shot fired from the Dal-Tex or any location other than the TSBD sniper's nest. He demands that the LNs prove every last detail of the shooting but doesn't apply the same standard to his own hypotheses. He offers theories completely devoid of supporting evidence.
His motto seems to be, "One rule for me, another for thee".

[Michael T. Griffith]

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

Yes, exactly. He pretends to be a know-it-all but he actually knows very little and has repeatedly embarrassed himself with stunning gaffes.

For example, a few weeks ago Corbett started a thread aimed at my quoting of Dr. Vincent DiMaio on the established forensic fact that FMJ bullets will never shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when striking skull bone and that FMJ bullets are ruled out when x-rays show dozens of tiny fragments. Incredibly, Corbett said DiMaio was talking about FMJ handgun bullets and not FMJ rifle bullets, even though DiMaio specified twice in the quote that he was talking about FMJ rifle bullets.

Sometimes it literally seems like Corbett can't understand English. You just have to wonder how in the world he could have missed the fact that DiMaio specified, twice, that he was talking about FMJ rifle bullets. I had presented that quote to Corbett at least six times, and then he started a thread about my use of the quote and proceeded to make the hilarious blunder of claiming that DiMaio wasn't talking about FMJ rifle bullets but rather FMJ handgun bullets and that therefore I was misrepresenting DiMaio!

Corbett's responses in this thread are just more examples of his usual pitiful, uninformed, and dogmatic blundering and posturing. In his uneducated mind, the SBT is still the only plausible explanation for JFK and Connally's non-fatal wounds, yet our exchanges on the powerful evidence that refutes the SBT prove he has no rational, credible explanation for that evidence.

In his uneducated mind, the WC's comical theory that a fragment from the head shot caused Tague's wounding is "plausible," but then he turns around and hedges his bets by saying, gee, we don't really know what caused Tague's wound. Well, uh, yeah we do: a projectile from a bullet or propelled by a bullet cut Tague's face.

He responds with abject nonsense and evasion when asked to explain the fact that the closest projectile he can offer to explain Tague's wounding have would have come from a bullet (1) that was over 200 feet away, (2) had just finished plowing through a human skull, and (3) would have exited from the righthand side of the skull (whereas Tague was to the left of the limo), not to mention the fact that 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.

And, one wonders who this 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.

I mean, yikes, even Gerald Posner and Jim Moore don't buy the WC's ridiculous theory.

There's another problem: the sample smears taken from the Tague curb scar contained no copper. Uh oh, that's a big problem, because Oswald's alleged ammo was copper-jacketed FMJ ammo. This is why Posner floats the unscientific fairy tale that when Oswald allegedly fired his first shot from the sixth-floor window, the bullet hit a branch of the oak tree on Elm Street, that this collision supposedly caused the copper jacket to separate from its lead core. Then, so Posner's tale goes, this lead core split into two large fragments, with one fragment flying downward and striking the pavement behind the limo and with the other fragment streaking in a straight line over 400 feet to hit the curb near Tague, somehow weaving through the rest of the tree limbs before continuing its mythical journey to the curb.

Anyone who has done any reading on the behavior of FMJ bullets knows that an FMJ bullet is not going to shed its copper jacket from its lead core merely from hitting an oak limb. That's just not going to happen. FMJ bullets will penetrate 2 to 7 inches into oak wood when fired from less than 200 feet away. If the bullet hits an edge of the limb, it will remove a chip from the edge and continue on its journey with no more than moderate deformation. Such collisions will certainly not cause the jacket to separate from the core.

It is comical that Posner would even propose such a theory and then turn around and defend the SBT, which says that an FMJ bullet ripped through seven layers of skin, smashed 4 inches of rib bone, and shattered a distal radius bone, yet emerged with its jacket and lead core still firmly attached, with minimal deformation, and even with its lands and grooves intact.

[John Corbett]

Yes, exactly. He pretends to be a know-it-all but he actually knows very little and has repeatedly embarrassed himself with stunning gaffes.

For example, a few weeks ago Corbett started a thread aimed at my quoting of Dr. Vincent DiMaio on the established forensic fact that FMJ bullets will never shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when striking skull bone and that FMJ bullets are ruled out when x-rays show dozens of tiny fragments. Incredibly, Corbett said DiMaio was talking about FMJ handgun bullets and not FMJ rifle bullets, even though DiMaio specified twice in the quote that he was talking about FMJ rifle bullets.

DiMaio never showed a case of what happens when an FMJ Carcano bullet strikes a skull which is the only thing that is relevant to the JFK assassination. It's silly to think such a bullet is going to behave like an FMJ .38 special round or an FMJ .30-06 round.

Sometimes it literally seems like Corbett can't understand English. You just have to wonder how in the world he could have missed the fact that DiMaio specified, twice, that he was talking about FMJ rifle bullets. I had presented that quote to Corbett at least six times, and then he started a thread about my use of the quote and proceeded to make the hilarious blunder of claiming that DiMaio wasn't talking about FMJ rifle bullets but rather FMJ handgun bullets and that therefore I was misrepresenting DiMaio!

Corbett's responses in this thread are just more examples of his usual pitiful, uninformed, and dogmatic blundering and posturing. In his uneducated mind, the SBT is still the only plausible explanation for JFK and Connally's non-fatal wounds, yet our exchanges on the powerful evidence that refutes the SBT prove he has no rational, credible explanation for that evidence.

Anyone who posts the nonsense you have over the years is the last person who should be talking about other people's "pitiful, uninformed, and dogmatic blundering and posturing". You seem to fancy yourself as an intellectual when in reality you are just another assclown pontificating on a wide range of fields in which you have no expertise.

In his uneducated mind, the WC's comical theory that a fragment from the head shot caused Tague's wounding is "plausible," but then he turns around and hedges his bets by saying, gee, we don't really know what caused Tague's wound. Well, uh, yeah we do: a projectile from a bullet or propelled by a bullet cut Tague's face.

Here is where you resort to simply lying about the facts. The WC never theorized what caused Tague's injury. They simply identified possibilities. Without definitive proof as to which shot caused Tague's injury, they took the responsible position of not ruling anything in or out. You have arbitrarily claimed that it would not be possible for a fragment to exit JFK's skull, arc over the windshield and then down to strike the curb near Tague. You provide no data to support that assumption. You provide no data to support your assumption that such a fragment could not have caused the chip in the concrete curb. To prove your assumption, you would need to calculate the maximum velocity a fragment could have left JFK's skull at and still struck the curb near Tague. Then you would have to determine the minimum velocity such a fragment could have had and still caused the chip. If that maximum exit velocity from the skull is less than the minimum velocity needed to cause the chip, you would have your proof but you have provided neither. You have simply made that assumption, just as you have assumed that a ricochet from the missed shot could not have caused the chip in the curb near Tague. You have done so without any evidence as to what or where that missed shot first struck.

He responds with abject nonsense and evasion when asked to explain the fact that the closest projectile he can offer to explain Tague's wounding have would have come from a bullet (1) that was over 200 feet away, (2) had just finished plowing through a human skull, and (3) would have exited from the righthand side of the skull (whereas Tague was to the left of the limo), not to mention the fact that 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.

You are the one arguing that it would not be possible for such a fragment to have caused the chip in the curb that injured Tague. The burden of proof for that argument is on you. I have not claimed that is what happened and in absence of empirical evidence to the contrary, I simply recognize that as a possibility. I also acknowledge the possibility that it was a ricochet from the first shot which caused Tague's injury. Without knowing what that shot first struck, I can only consider possibilities, and those possibilities do not rule out that shot could have caused Tague's injury.

In short, you are the one who has argued that Tague's injury is proof of a fourth shot that came from a firearm other than Oswald's rifle. The burden of proof for that argument is on you. You have not even attempted to offer such proof. You have simply taken the coward's way out and simply assumed what you cannot prove. Assumptions do not make for compelling arguments.

And, one wonders who this 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.

This is where MTG pretends he is an expert on wound ballistics.

I mean, yikes, even Gerald Posner and Jim Moore don't buy the WC's ridiculous theory.

That's some duo you have cited. Jim Moore offered one of the silliest LN theories ever presented. Posner lied about what the WC concluded, pushing the myth that the WC concluded Oswald fired his three shots in 5.6 seconds or less.

There's another problem: the sample smears taken from the Tague curb scar contained no copper. Uh oh, that's a big problem, because Oswald's alleged ammo was copper-jacketed FMJ ammo. This is why Posner floats the unscientific fairy tale that when Oswald allegedly fired his first shot from the sixth-floor window, the bullet hit a branch of the oak tree on Elm Street, that this collision supposedly caused the copper jacket to separate from its lead core. Then, so Posner's tale goes, this lead core split into two large fragments, with one fragment flying downward and striking the pavement behind the limo and with the other fragment streaking in a straight line over 400 feet to hit the curb near Tague, somehow weaving through the rest of the tree limbs before continuing its mythical journey to the curb.

Posner's first shot theory might or might not be true. There is no definitive proof as to what the first shot first hit or where it went after that. In absence of such proof, the best anyone can do is recognize possibilities. Posner has identified a possibility without actually proving his theory. It remains an open question as to which shot injured Tague. The only one we can rule out is CE399.

Anyone who has done any reading on the behavior of FMJ bullets knows that an FMJ bullet is not going to shed its copper jacket from its lead core merely from hitting an oak limb. That's just not going to happen. FMJ bullets will penetrate 2 to 7 inches into oak wood when fired from less than 200 feet away. If the bullet hits an edge of the limb, it will remove a chip from the edge and continue on its journey with no more than moderate deformation. Such collisions will certainly not cause the jacket to separate from the core.

Do you have a source to back up your claim or did you just pull it out of your a**? That's a rhetorical question that pretty much answers itself. The bullet striking a tree limb is just one possibility. Others have postulated that it hit the pavement near the limo or struck the traffic light arm. I can't logically dismiss any of those possibilities.

It is comical that Posner would even propose such a theory and then turn around and defend the SBT, which says that an FMJ bullet ripped through seven layers of skin, smashed 4 inches of rib bone, and shattered a distal radius bone, yet emerged with its jacket and lead core still firmly attached, with minimal deformation, and even with its lands and grooves intact.

There is nothing about the SBT that defies the laws of physics. It has been shown experimentally that an FMJ Carcano bullet will yaw when exiting soft tissue. The flattening of CE399 at the base is indication it was the base of the bullet, not the nose, that struck bone. Whether that was rib bone or wrist bone is uncertain. Either or both is possible. Since lead from the bullet was deposited in JBC's wrist and the lead from CE399 was only exposed at the base, this is an indication the base of the bullet likely struck JBC's wrist.

[Andrew Mason]

There's another problem: the sample smears taken from the Tague curb scar contained no copper. Uh oh, that's a big problem, because Oswald's alleged ammo was copper-jacketed FMJ ammo. This is why Posner floats the unscientific fairy tale that when Oswald allegedly fired his first shot from the sixth-floor window, the bullet hit a branch of the oak tree on Elm Street, that this collision supposedly caused the copper jacket to separate from its lead core. Then, so Posner's tale goes, this lead core split into two large fragments, with one fragment flying downward and striking the pavement behind the limo and with the other fragment streaking in a straight line over 400 feet to hit the curb near Tague, somehow weaving through the rest of the tree limbs before continuing its mythical journey to the curb.

Anyone who has done any reading on the behavior of FMJ bullets knows that an FMJ bullet is not going to shed its copper jacket from its lead core merely from hitting an oak limb. That's just not going to happen. FMJ bullets will penetrate 2 to 7 inches into oak wood when fired from less than 200 feet away. If the bullet hits an edge of the limb, it will remove a chip from the edge and continue on its journey with no more than moderate deformation. Such collisions will certainly not cause the jacket to separate from the core.

It is comical that Posner would even propose such a theory and then turn around and defend the SBT, which says that an FMJ bullet ripped through seven layers of skin, smashed 4 inches of rib bone, and shattered a distal radius bone, yet emerged with its jacket and lead core still firmly attached, with minimal deformation, and even with its lands and grooves intact.

Although I agree with all of the above, one has to look at the evidence to determine which shot struck Tague and which shot struck the windshield. It was likely the same shot. 

It wasn’t the first shot. Tague said that. 20+ witnesses said that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot. The Connallys, supported by Powers, Greer and Hickey, establish that the second shot struck JBC in the back/right armpit. Greer noted a “concussion” effect of something impacting in the car on the second shot. 40+ witnesses said the second shot was closer to the third shot than the first. Greer and Hickey provided testimony that support a second shot just before z280 fitting a second shot between z271 and z272.

And that is not inconsistent with Oswald firing all three shots.

[John Corbett]

Although I agree with all of the above, one has to look at the evidence to determine which shot struck Tague and which shot struck the windshield. It was likely the same shot. 

It wasn’t the first shot. Tague said that. 20+ witnesses said that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot. The Connallys, supported by Powers, Greer and Hickey, establish that the second shot struck JBC in the back/right armpit. Greer noted a “concussion” effect of something impacting in the car on the second shot. 40+ witnesses said the second shot was closer to the third shot than the first. Greer and Hickey provided testimony that support a second shot just before z280 fitting a second shot between z271 and z272.

And that is not inconsistent with Oswald firing all three shots.

Typically, you cite no forensic evidence to support your beliefs. That's because it never does.

[Andrew Mason]

Typically, you cite no forensic evidence to support your beliefs. That's because it never does.

Forensic evidence is science based evidence that requires evidence from an expert provided to a court in which the expert opines on something on which they have particular knowledge.  Often the opinions are with respect to something physical but not necessarily physical.  Experts, for example could be used to establish that certain behaviours indicate that the accused was engaged in trafficking drugs, or smuggling people, or committing fraud.

In this case, a mathematician could provide an opinion on the probability of this kind of distribution of independent witness observations where the vast majority were completely wrong.  That would be forensic evidence. 

But I also point to forensic evidence in the form of medical opinions of JBC’s doctors that his torso was turned far to the right when hit so that it was almost parallel to the flight path of the bullet.

I could also point to expert lip readers who say that JBC is saying “oh, no, no” around z245-250.

So where is your forensic evidence?  You are not an expert on interpreting human responses to gunshot sounds so your opinion on what you think is happening in the zfilm is not forensic evidence.  The zfilm itself is not forensic evidence. It is simply evidence.