More backward logic and flimsy evasion from John "I Don't Need a Rational Explanation" Corbett. The Tague wounding most certainly does refute the lone-gunman theory because the theory has no bullet that could have caused the curb scar and the wounding, which proves that more than three shots were fired.
That is just a lie. It is unknown where the first missed shot struck and where it went after that so that is a definite possibility. There is as much evidence for that being the shot that struck the curb near Tague as there is for a shot from a different weapon being the one that struck the curb near Tague which is to say there is no evidence at all for either possibility. All we have are possibilities. Another possibility, which I find slightly less likely, is a fragment from the head shot passed over the windshield and arced downward and struck the curb near Tague. We have evidence that there was a missed first shot and we have evidence that the head shot fragmented badly. What we don't have is definitive evidence as to which shot struck the curb near Tague and that is true for any theorized shot from a different weapon. The injury to Tague remains an open question and open questions do not prove nor disprove anything. Hence it doesn't refute the lone gunman theory.
Not one of Oswald's alleged three bullets could have caused the curb scar and then cut Tague's cheek, so it does not really matter which one of Oswald's supposed three shots you float as the source of the Tague incident.
You are forced to resort to such silly, zany theories as the tale that a bullet fragment from the head shot exited the right parietal area of the skull and then magically acquired its own propulsion system to fly over the limo's roll bar and windshield, then veered leftward, streaked over 200 feet, and then somehow, someway, in violation of the laws of physics, still had enough velocity to hit the curb so hard as to blast out a chip of concrete from it and to blast out the chip with enough force that the chip streaked 15-20 feet and cut Tague's face.
I have identified two possibilities. For the lone gunman scenario to be viable, possibilities are all that is necessary. You, on the other hand, have not provided evidence that the bullet that caused Tague's injury was fired by a second gunman. You haven't even proven there was a second gunman. You have simply assumed something you have not proven which is SOP for you.
This is the least-ridiculous, least-wacky theory you have to offer. The other theories your side has proposed are even worse, zanier, and more absurd.
You haven't even proposed a theory. You know you have no evidence of a second gunman and if you tried to present a theory, you know it would be shredded in a heartbeat because there simply is no evidence there was a second gunman. All you ever do is claim, without evidence, that the WC scenario is impossible. You assert what you cannot prove.
This is why the WC and the FBI tried so very hard to ignore the Tague wounding.
Only in your dreams. In the real world, the evidence against Oswald is riddled with contradictions, suspicious omissions, dubious chains of custody, and outright fraud, while there is considerable evidence that exonerates Oswald, starting with the strong evidence that he was not even on the sixth floor during the shooting, and the powerful evidence that the alleged shooting feat was far beyond his ability to perform.
This is the CT playbook in a nutshell. You present no positive evidence of a second gunman and can only make baseless claims that what the WC presented is impossible. If you think there is a better explanation for the body of evidence, then by all means present it to us so we can compare it to what the WC gave us. You realize there is nothing you can come up with that could stand the light of day so you simply resort to taking potshots at the WC's scenario. The WCR is the only plausible explanation that fits the body of evidence and you know it. That's why you have never presented an alternative explanation. The WCR wins by default.
Again, only in your dreams. Dozens of witnesses in the plaza heard shots fired from the grassy knoll.
Dozens of other witnesses said all the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. Which do you think is more likely, that one of the groups of witnesses was wrong about the source of the gunfire or that the GK earwitnesses couldn't hear the TSBD shots and the TSBD witnesses couldn't hear the shots from the GK?
Several witnesses saw gun smoke coming from a location behind the fence on the knoll,
They saw smoke . It is highly unlikely it was gun smoke because modern ammo emits very little smoke and it dissipates almost immediately. Maybe if your GK shooter fired a muzzle loader or a blunderbuss witnesses could have seen gun smoke.
and we have hard photographic evidence that confirms their accounts.
Now that's a new one. Tell us what this "hard photographic evidence" is that confirms these witnesses.
Several witnesses smelled the pungent odor of gunpowder on and near the knoll.
Some people on Elm St. smelled gunpowder residue. Do you think the shots were fired from Elm St.?
Two witnesses saw a man running from the grassy knoll into the railroad yard seconds after the shots were fired. Dozens of witnesses, including numerous police officers, rushed up the grassy knoll because they believed shots came from there.
Let me guess. One of your witnesses was Ed Hoffman <chuckle>. Who's the other?
It's never been disputed that some witnesses thought the shots came from the GK and some people did rush their after the shots. None of them saw a gunman. Neither did Lee Bowers who what a perfect view of the area behind the picket fence from his perch in the railroad tower. I wonder why.
Moreover, scientific acoustical evidence from a Dallas police tape recorded in the plaza during the shooting proves that a shot was fired from the grassy knoll. Even the NRC/NAS panel that was formed to refute the acoustical evidence admitted there is a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern identified as grassy knoll gunfire by the HSCA acoustical experts is indeed gunfire from the knoll, and subsequent research shows the probability is over 99%. In addition, new testing done by BBN acoustical scientists from 2015-2018 has refuted the Decker-crosstalk claim and has confirmed the validity of the acoustical evidence.
You show your desperation when you continue to cling to that long ago debunked "acoustics evidence" which wasn't peer reviewed when accepted by the HSCA and didn't stand up to peer review afterward. It was junk science accepted without question by the HSCA.
You also don't seem to care that the same acoustic evidence you want to hang your hat on determined that the fatal headshot was fired from the TSBD sniper's nest. How do you resolve that inconvenient fact?
