Why the James Tague Wounding Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory

[John Corbett]

Just to be accurate, Posner's theory is that the alleged lone gunman's first bullet hit a limb of the intervening oak tree -- not a leaf, but a limb. Then, so the theory goes, the bullet's jacket separated from the lead core, and the bullet then sent two large fragments streaking in different directions, one striking the pavement behind the limo and the other magically weaving through the other tree limbs and jetting straight to the Tague curb site over 400 feet away.

Yes, it is fairy-tale material to assume that a supposed "sharpshooter" aimed at JFK's head or upper back but was so wildly off the mark that the bullet hit one of the tree limbs, and even hit far enough up the limb so the limb didn't snap or bend. No sensible, rational, objective person is going to buy such an utterly absurd scenario.

Specter and the FBI recognized immediately that the Tague wounding wreaked havoc on their single-assassin theory, which is why they ignored it for as long as they dared. Indeed, as mentioned, when the WC finally asked the FBI to investigate the Tague incident, the Dallas FBI claimed they could not find the Tague curb scar and theorized that street cleaners had wiped it away!

Like most CTs, MTG ignores the obvious difficulties with the first shot that were not present for the subsequent shots. The first shot was by far the most difficult one and not at all surprising that Oswald would completely miss with it. He also pretends Posner's theory is the only viable one available to those who believe Oswald acted alone. 

Nothing about the Tague injury calls into question the lone assassin scenario. There are plausible explanations for Tague's injury that are perfectly consistent with Oswald as the lone gunman.

[Michael T. Griffith]

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.

The windshield was hit from the front. We have eight witnesses, including a doctor, two federal agents, and two police officers, who saw a hole in the windshield. Dr. Glanges saw the hole minutes after the shooting when she saw the limo outside Parkland Hospital. One of the police officers who saw the hole at Parkland even stuck a pencil through it.

In addition, the lone-gunman shooting scenario cannot explain the round dent in the chrome above the rearview mirror. The WC suggested the dent may have already been present before the shooting, but this idea was debunked decades ago with photographic evidence from the previous motorcades in Texas. 

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.

It definitely wasn't the first shot.

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

Oswald didn't fire any shots. NAA testing of the paraffin cast of Oswald's right cheek shows he did not fire a rifle on 11/22/63. PSA/VSA analysis of Oswald's televised statements at the police station that he didn't shoot anyone indicate he was telling the truth.

And, there were more than three shots, as the Zapruder film alone proves to anyone who is willing to acknowledge what their eyes can plainly see.

"Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film"

The numerous witnesses who reported hearing shots from the grassy knoll and/or four or more shots were not dreaming.

[John Corbett]

The windshield was hit from the front.

 

We have eight witnesses, including a doctor, two federal agents, and two police officers, who saw a hole in the windshield.

You have 8 people who knew JFK had been shot, saw the defect in the windshield and understandably assumed he had been shot from the front through the windshield. None of them was able to examine the windshield closely. The Secret Service agents were able to examine the windshield closely and determine that the windshield had been struck from the inside and that the missile and not gone through the windshield.

Dr. Glanges saw the hole minutes after the shooting when she saw the limo outside Parkland Hospital.

What difference does it make when she saw it. Do you think that gave her a better look at it than the Secret Service agents who examined it that night in Washington DC?

One of the police officers who saw the hole at Parkland even stuck a pencil through it.

 

In addition, the lone-gunman shooting scenario cannot explain the round dent in the chrome above the rearview mirror. The WC suggested the dent may have already been present before the shooting, but this idea was debunked decades ago with photographic evidence from the previous motorcades in Texas.   

The bullet that passed through JFK's head broke apart with some fragments leaving the limo and others striking inside the limo. One of those cracked the windshield and another likely caused the dent. Not hard to figure out.

It definitely wasn't the first shot.

Thank you for that, Captain Obvious.

Oswald didn't fire any shots.

 

NAA testing of the paraffin cast of Oswald's right cheek shows he did not fire a rifle on 11/22/63. PSA/VSA analysis of Oswald's televised statements at the police station that he didn't shoot anyone indicate he was telling the truth.

Paraffin tests don't prove anything. They produce both false positives and false negatives. An FBI agent fired Oswald's rifle and was administered the same paraffin test and he too tested negative. Either you are pretending you didn't know that or you really don't know that which makes you are really bad researcher.

PSA/VSA tests don't prove anything either. That is why they are not admissible in court. They are used in pretrial hearings to help judges decide whether a defendant is a flight risk or not but the judge has the discretion to disregard the results of the test and make the decision on his own. They do not and cannot prove guilt or innocence. Why would you even propose that they prove Oswald was innocent?

And, there were more than three shots, as the Zapruder film alone proves to anyone who is willing to acknowledge what their eyes can plainly see.

Just how does the Zapruder film prove more than three shots. We see visual evidence of JFK and JBC being struck at about Z222 and JFK obviously being shot in the head at Z313. Evidence of an earlier missed shot lies in combining JBC's statement with what we observe him do in the Z-film prior to being shot. We see him turn to look over his right shoulder just as he said he did upon hearing the first shot. While not proof positive, it is still highly probative. Beyond that, there is no visual evidence of any other gunshot. 

"Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film"

The numerous witnesses who reported hearing shots from the grassy knoll and/or four or more shots were not dreaming.

Most witnesses remember hearing three shots. Some only remembered hearing two. Those who thought they heard four or more shots were a small minority.

There were numerous witnesses who said all the shots came from the GK and numerous others who said all the shots came from the TSBD. Do you think the latter group was dreaming? CTs never want to apply the same questions to their beliefs that they apply to the WC findings. Why is that.

The simple fact is both groups cannot be right. One or the other has to be wrong. The way to determine which group got it right is to look at other evidence.  We had eyewitnesses who SAW a gunman on the 6th floor of the TSBD. No eyewitnesses to a GK shooter. Thress spent shells were found at the location where witnesses had seen the gunman. A rifle was found a short distance away that was positively matched to the shells that were found and also to the only two recovered bullets. No shells or weapon was found on the GK.
Every qualified medical examiner who has reviewed the medical evidence has agreed both JFK and JBC were shot from behind. There is no medical evidence of a shot from in front of or to the right of the victims. Even Dr. Cyril Wecht who believed there was a frontal shooter did not base that belief on medical evidence but on his interpretation of what the Z-film showed. As a film analyst he was no more qualified than you or me. Both of you are entitled to your opinion but those opinions are not evidence that any court would accept as valid.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Two follow-up points:

-- The FBI destroyed the spectrographic plate that contained the sample taken from the Tague curb scar, claiming it was destroyed in routine housecleaning to save space. We didn't learn about this destruction of evidence until Harold Weisberg filed a lawsuit to have the plate made available for independent testing. It says volumes that the FBI would destroy such a potentially historic, crucial piece of evidence, a piece of evidence that only occupied a few square inches of space.

-- Rockefeller Foundation fellow and investigative journalist Henry Hurt had the Tague curb section analyzed by a building materials scientist in 1983. The scientist, Jose T. Fernandez, the chief engineer of the firm Construction Environment, concluded the curb scar had probably been patched (Reasonable Doubt, pp. 376-377; Weisberg, Case Open, pp. 163-165).

When Weisberg examined the curb section at the National Archives, he had no trouble seeing that the curb hole had in fact been patched:

When I examined that curbstone in the National Archives, it was very obvious that there had been a hole and that it had been patched. To a degree this is clear in the picture I had taken. The patch is much darker. Because the material used for the patch, which was a relatively small area, prevented the use of coarse aggregates, it is ever so much smoother to the touch as it is visible to the eye. (Case Open, p. 165)

Of course, everyone who saw the curb scar right after the shooting could see that it had enough substance missing from it that it could have produced a chip of concrete large enough to cut Tague's face.

I mention these things only because some WC apologists have claimed that the object that hit the curb barely grazed it and removed virtually no substance from it.

[Jake Maxwell]

Two follow-up points:

-- The FBI destroyed the spectrographic plate that contained the sample taken from the Tague curb scar, claiming it was destroyed in routine housecleaning to save space. We didn't learn about this destruction of evidence until Harold Weisberg filed a lawsuit to have the plate made available for independent testing. It says volumes that the FBI would destroy such a potentially historic, crucial piece of evidence, a piece of evidence that only occupied a few square inches of space.

-- Rockefeller Foundation fellow and investigative journalist Henry Hurt had the Tague curb section analyzed by a building materials scientist in 1983. The scientist, Jose T. Fernandez, the chief engineer of the firm Construction Environment, concluded the curb scar had probably been patched (Reasonable Doubt, pp. 376-377; Weisberg, Case Open, pp. 163-165).

When Weisberg examined the curb section at the National Archives, he had no trouble seeing that the curb hole had in fact been patched:

When I examined that curbstone in the National Archives, it was very obvious that there had been a hole and that it had been patched. To a degree this is clear in the picture I had taken. The patch is much darker. Because the material used for the patch, which was a relatively small area, prevented the use of coarse aggregates, it is ever so much smoother to the touch as it is visible to the eye. (Case Open, p. 165)

Of course, everyone who saw the curb scar right after the shooting could see that it had enough substance missing from it that it could have produced a chip of concrete large enough to cut Tague's face.

I mention these things only because some WC apologists have claimed that the object that hit the curb barely grazed it and removed virtually no substance from it.

Behold... a second magic bullet!

[John Corbett]

Two follow-up points:

-- The FBI destroyed the spectrographic plate that contained the sample taken from the Tague curb scar, claiming it was destroyed in routine housecleaning to save space. We didn't learn about this destruction of evidence until Harold Weisberg filed a lawsuit to have the plate made available for independent testing. It says volumes that the FBI would destroy such a potentially historic, crucial piece of evidence, a piece of evidence that only occupied a few square inches of space.

-- Rockefeller Foundation fellow and investigative journalist Henry Hurt had the Tague curb section analyzed by a building materials scientist in 1983. The scientist, Jose T. Fernandez, the chief engineer of the firm Construction Environment, concluded the curb scar had probably been patched (Reasonable Doubt, pp. 376-377; Weisberg, Case Open, pp. 163-165).

When Weisberg examined the curb section at the National Archives, he had no trouble seeing that the curb hole had in fact been patched:

When I examined that curbstone in the National Archives, it was very obvious that there had been a hole and that it had been patched. To a degree this is clear in the picture I had taken. The patch is much darker. Because the material used for the patch, which was a relatively small area, prevented the use of coarse aggregates, it is ever so much smoother to the touch as it is visible to the eye. (Case Open, p. 165)

Of course, everyone who saw the curb scar right after the shooting could see that it had enough substance missing from it that it could have produced a chip of concrete large enough to cut Tague's face.

I mention these things only because some WC apologists have claimed that the object that hit the curb barely grazed it and removed virtually no substance from it.

You do love inventing strawman arguments to tear down. In 35 years of arguing about the JFKA in online forums, I have never come across any LN having made that argument. I suppose it's possible some LN postulated that, but it is hardly a widely held belief.

[Michael T. Griffith]

It is worth noting that the WC did not interview James Tague until July 23, 1964, when the Warren Report was already in draft form, and that the interview only happened because a week or so earlier Dallas reporter Tom Dillard had asked the U.S. Attorney for North Texas, Harold Sanders, a question about the Tague wounding during a public appearance, and Sanders had then sent a registered letter about the wounding, including a photo, to the WC's chief counsel, J. Lee Rankin.

This gives us a good idea of how determined the WC was to ignore the Tague wounding.

Also, understanding the state of the investigation up to that point helps us futher understand the WC's reluctance to interview Tague.

The FBI had already submitted its massive report on the assassination to the WC. The FBI report contradicted the final version of the Warren Report on some crucial subjects. This is undoubtedly why the WC, amazingly, did not include the FBI's report in its 26 supplemental volumes.

The FBI report rejected the single-bullet theory (SBT), said there were no missed shots, and said all three bullets hit Kennedy or Connally. The FBI report also said that JFK's back-wound bullet entered at a much steeper angle than the WC posited, an angle so steep that the bullet could not have exited JFK's throat, hence the FBI's rejection of the SBT. 

To make matters worse for the WC, the Secret Service agreed with the FBI's shooting sequence! Both the FBI and Secret Service analyses ignored the Tague wounding.

Interestingly, when the conflicts between the Warren Report and the FBI report finally surfaced in 1966, none other than J. Edgar Hoover insisted the FBI's version was correct!

Of course, we now know that there was a third official version of the shooting, i.e.., the CIA analysis. Shortly after the assassination, CIA analysts studied the Zapruder film and concluded that the first shot did not come from the sixth-floor window and that more than one gunman was involved. The WC was probably not aware of the CIA analysis. The CIA's conclusions only came to light thanks to the ARRB in the late 1990s.

Anyway, the FBI and Secret Service analyses of the shooting help us understand why the WC was so determined to ignore the Tague wounding. If U.S. Attorney Sanders had not been asked about the wounding in a public appearance, and if Sanders had not then sent a registered letter and photo to Rankin, it is almost certain the WC never would have interviewed Tague.

For Arlen Specter, being forced to acknowledge the Tague wounding left him no choice but to go with the ridiculous SBT. As we now know, three of the seven members of the WC rejected the SBT, but the public did not know this until years later because Rankin refused to allow any mention of this substantial dissent to appear in the Warren Report.

Dr. Gerald McKnight, a professor of history at Hood College, discussed all of these facts in his 2005 book Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why.