JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on January 31, 2022, 02:23:55 AM
-
Stavis Ellis, motorcycle escort cop with the DPD, described his sighting of where the first shot hit in his interview with Larry Sneed in Larry’s book “No More Silence”. Ellis’ position was just ahead of the lead car, which was just ahead of the JFK limo. Here’s the relevant passage:
We came west on Main Street to Houston Street and took a right, facing right into that building. The building with the window was looking right at us as we came up to Elm Street and made a left, heading back toward the Triple Underpass. Midway down Elm I remember waving at my wife’s niece and nephew, Bill and Gayle Newman, who had apparently come out to see the President. About the time I started on a curve on Elm, I had turned to my right to give signals to open up the intervals since we were fixing to get on the freeway a short distance away. That’s all I had on my mind. Just as I turned around, then the first shot went off. It hit back there. I hadn’t been able to see back where Chaney was because Curry was there, but I could see where the shot came down into the south side of the curb. It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there in just a flash, and a bunch of junk flew up like a white or gray color dust or smoke coming out of the concrete.
We have all seen the Murray photo of the detectives looking at the concrete surrounding manhole cover on the south side of Elm Street. They were investigating what appeared to be a mark left by a bullet that grazed the concrete. This area is inline with the position of James Tague who was grazed on the cheek by a piece of this bullet or a piece of the concrete curb adjacent to him. That curb was apparently also hit by a part of the bullet, which apparently skipped from the manhole area to that curb.
So the physical evidence was there. The above has been a theory that I began to believe once I found enough other evidence of a first shot miss. And I cannot help believing that Stavis Ellis saw the concrete dust from this shot!
-
Here is screenshot from Mark Tyler's Motorcade 63 animation just about a half-second before Z133:
(https://i.vgy.me/edB8sk.jpg)
It shows the location of Stavis Ellis relative to the people and the manhole area where the bullet appears to have struck. Ellis is the symbol -5 down near the triple overpass. Chaney, symbol 4, is one of the motorcycle cops near the presidential limo. And Curry is in the lead car, symbol 0, between Ellis and the limo. The concrete manhole cover is a small dark area on the south side of Elm Street about half-way between the symbols 73 and 79. It is well within Ellis' field of view when he looked back towards Chaney and the limo.
-
Here is screenshot from Mark Tyler's Motorcade 63 animation just about a half-second before Z133:
(https://i.vgy.me/edB8sk.jpg)
It shows the location of Stavis Ellis relative to the people and the manhole area where the bullet appears to have struck. Ellis is the symbol -5 down near the triple overpass. Chaney, symbol 4, is one of the motorcycle cops near the presidential limo. And Curry is in the lead car, symbol 0, between Ellis and the limo. The concrete manhole cover is a small dark area on the south side of Elm Street about half-way between the symbols 73 and 79. It is well within Ellis' field of view when he looked back towards Chaney and the limo.
Let's take a closer look at the image Charles has taken from Tyler's motorcade mapping program (this program is a truly monumental achievement, combining all known film, photographic and witness evidence and presenting it in such an accessible way). On my "The First Shot" thread I use the Tyler program and the witness statements collated by Pat Speer on his invaluable website to debunk various models regarding when the first shot occurred[starts Reply #788]
Note the position of the cars marked 7 and 8 in the image. These cars are the Vice-Presidential car [7] and the VP follow-up car [8]. The statements of the occupants of these cars reveal, unanimously, that both cars had completed the turn off Houston and onto Elm and were travelling on Elm Street when the first shot occurred:
VICE PRESIDENTIAL CAR
Hurchel Jacks [Driver] -
"My car had just straightened up from making the left turn. I was looking directly at the President’s car at that time. At that time I heard a shot ring out..."
Rufus Youngblood [Passenger Seat] -
"The motorcade then made a left turn, and the sidewalk crowds
were beginning to diminish in size. I observed a grassy plot to my right in back of a small crowd...I heard an explosion…"
"As we were beginning to go down this incline, all of a sudden there was an explosive noise."
"We had straightened on Elm now and were beginning to move easily down the incline in the wake of the cars ahead. Suddenly there was an explosive noise..."
Senator Yarborough [back left] -
“as the motorcade went down the slope of Elm Street toward the railroad underpass, a rifle shot was heard by me; a loud blast..."
Lady Bird Johnson [back centre] -
“we were rounding a curve, going down a hill and suddenly there was a sharp loud report..."
"...suddenly in that brilliant sunshine there was a sharp rifle shot. It came, I thought, from over my right shoulder."
Lyndon Johnson [back right] -
"After we had proceeded a short way down Elm Street, I heard a sharp report."
VICE-PRESIDENTIAL FOLLOW-UP CAR
Joe Henry Rich [Driver] -
“We turned off of Houston Street onto Elm Street and that was when I heard the first shot."
Cliff Carter [passenger seat] -
"...our car had just made the left hand turn onto Elm and was right along side of the Texas School Book Depository Building when I heard a noise which sounded like a firecracker."
Jerry Kivett [back right] -
"As the motorcade was approximately 1/3 the way to the underpass, traveling between 10 and 15 miles per hour, I heard a loud noise..."
Warren Taylor [back centre] -
“Our automobile had just turned a corner (the names of the streets are unknown to me) when I heard a bang which sounded to me like a possible firecracker —the sound coming from my right rear."
Thomas (Lem) Johns [back right] -
"We turned onto Elm Street...We were going downhill...which put the Texas Book Depository on our right, more or less...But we were going down this Elm Street, with my door open. I heard at least two shots.."
10 witnesses in 2 vehicles all corroborating each others statements. Not one or two ambiguous statements open to any kind of interpretation. Every single occupant of both cars are stating, basically, the same thing - at the time of the first shot these cars had turned off Houston Street and were travelling down Elm.
In the image posted by Charles, cars 7 and 8 are still on Houston - the VP follow up car hasn't even begun to make the turn!!
So, as far as witness evidence goes we have, on one hand, Ellis and on the other the coordinated, self corroborating witness statements of 10 people as to when the first shot occurred.
The question - How reliable is Ellis? - must be asked. For the answer we turn again to Speer's website where he has collated every known witness statement regarding the shots. In the OP we see Ellis waved to his wife's niece and nephew, the Newman's.
"(11-18-16 interview of William and Gayle Newman at the JFK Lancer Conference in Dallas) (On "Uncle Steve's" whereabouts when the shots rang out.) "Actually, he was on the other side of the triple underpass when the shots rang out."
Ellis was on the other side of the underpass when the shots rang out! He had already passed through the underpass when the first shot rang out, this is not shown in the image Charles posted, it shows Ellis still on the same side as the Newman's. After collating every known statement by Ellis regarding the shots, Speer concludes:
Ellis is a poster child for Selective Attribution Syndrome. Conspiracy theorists and single-assassin theorists alike love to use his comments about seeing something hit the curb as evidence for a first shot miss. But they should read on. He says that as this happened people began running everywhere. That they began falling... He is therefore describing the head shot. What he saw hit the curb then was quite possibly the skull fragment observed flying through the air by Charles Brehm and later found in the street by Harry Holmes and A.D. McCurley. This conclusion is further supported by Ellis' statements to Morrissette, moreover. There, he made clear that 1) he believed the bullet striking the windshield was the same bullet that struck the street, and 2) he had come to conclude the first shot hit the street because he was under the impression the bullet striking the skull did not exit. If this is so, and Ellis had mis-remembered the head shot as the first shot, well, then, his description of Kennedy reaching for his neck and the third shot striking the President in the head would appear to be more an assertion of what he believes happened, then what he saw happen. Sure enough, in Ellis’s statements to Larry Sneed in No More Silence, he admits he turned back around before the second shot was fired and therefore could not have seen what he is purported to have seen in Bowles’ book. His throwing in the “Bang Bang” at the end was probably poetic license but possibly a reflection that he did indeed hear one or two shots after the head shot. In any event, his recollections aren't particularly credible. To make matters worse, the Bell and Daniel films prove Ellis was nowhere near the lead car at the time of the shooting.
The reader can make their own mind up regarding the validity of Ellis' observations and of the early first shot Charles is proposing.
-
A quote from “Reclaiming History”:
…Royce Skelton, who was standing on top of the railroad overpass directly above Elm Street, and that Epstein forgot to cite Skelton’s testimony. If so, it’s just as good for Epstein that he “forgot.” Skelton said he in fact did see smoke in Dealey Plaza, but not coming from the grassy knoll area. As noted earlier, in his Warren Commission testimony he said one of two shots he heard just as the president’s car had completed its turn on to Elm hit the concrete to the “left front” of the car and he saw “smoke coming up off the cement” (6 H 237–238). In Skelton’s earlier statement to the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, he said the bullet hit the pavement to the “left rear” of the president’s car (Decker Exhibit No. 5323, 19 H 496).
Dan, you can believe whichever “he said, she said” accounts that you want to regarding the timing of the first shot. Nothing that I can say or do is likely to change your mind. I have pointed out in earlier threads other physical evidence including films and photos that tends to confirm an early missed shot. Dismiss them if you wish, I really don’t care. This thread is about the physical evidence. The Mark Tyler animation image is to illustrate what Stavis Ellis stated to Larry Sneed that he saw when he heard the first shot.
-
Charles,
Your comments reminded me of an interesting thing regarding Faye Chism’s testimony. Immediately after the event that day I believe she did not mention seeing a bullet hit the ground, perhaps she thought it was a firecracker or “dumball” which is what Royce Skeleton thought. Later she says she recalls three shots.
I recently saw a 6th floor Museum video that was recorded a few years ago with Rickey Chism. He described what his mom saw regarding the first shot, and why she waited so many years to talk about it in detail (basically fear, given how they were treated in the aftermath that day). She separately made a living history statement with the museum, which included this:
“And they came down the hill. And I heard three shots. One hit the ground.”
https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/36521/marvin-faye--rickey-chism-oral-history
There was one other interview by Ken Rheberg that I read about regarding this missed shot that was discussed on alt.assassanation.jfk, started by Don Roberdeau in 2004. In Rheberg's interview Faye Chism went into specific detail as to where she saw the bullet hit the pavement. The forum discussion went like this:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRoberdeau
Good Day.... Can anyone else, please, provide any and all references
(besides her 22NOV63 DPD statement) for close attack DP witness, MARVIN
FAYE CHISM?
Don,
To my knowledge, there are no published quotations from Mrs. Chism other
than from her initial statement. The only researcher I know to have
interviewed Mrs. Chism is Ken Rheberg, who spoke with her a couple of
years ago and posted an article about it at the Lancer forum, with no
direct quotes from her.
Here's what he said:
I had a chance to speak with Mrs. Chism last week. Here is the substance
of our conversation.
Mrs. Chism goes by her middle name "Faye." I believe her to be a godly
woman, devoted to her family, and someone who possesses a good sense of
humor even about that darkest of days over forty years ago. I was
saddened, and surprised, to hear that her husband had died twenty years
ago from cancer. I thought he was still alive. I don't recall hearing or
seeing anything to the contrary, but then maybe I just missed it.
She said the first shot that was fired hit the street to the right of the
car, about halfway between the front and back. She saw the sparks as it
ricocheted off the street. The Chisms were in a good position to see this
since they were only a few feet away. This story corresponds with the
stories of others who saw bullets hit the street. She heard two more shots
but can't place where they came from or where they hit. Following the
shots, and during their run down Elm Street toward the triple underpass,
they were stopped by a Sheriff. After telling him what they had seen, they
were walked back to the Sheriff's Department where they were "held
hostage" (tongue in cheek with a little laugh) for six hours. Once they
were released, they walked back to their car which was parked up on the
Stemmons Freeway.
When they first arrived in Dealey Plaza to see the President, after
parking their car, they walked straight to the North Elm Street sidewalk
where they were filmed and photographed at the time of the assassination.
According to Mrs. Chism, they were never behind the wall at the top of the
grassy knoll at any time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you extend Chism’s direct line of view from the right side of the limo around z133, to her and then in a direction behind her, it coincidently points exactly to Royce Skelton.
On Don Roberdeau’s map the Chism’s position is circled in red here, with the line of site from her to an early shot beside the limo drawn in black, and also extended backwards intersecting Skelton.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14zR1nHXlcKWa0DKC-jak8nHryvN5all1/view?usp=sharing
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/14zR1nHXlcKWa0DKC-jak8nHryvN5all1/view?usp=sharing)
Is it just coincidence?
That line of vision is also not that far off what Ellis would have had at that time when looking behind to his right while coming out of the curve leaving the Plaza, with the lead car blocking his view to the middle right side of the limo.
-
Charles,
Your comments reminded me of an interesting thing regarding Faye Chism’s testimony. Immediately after the event that day I believe she did not mention seeing a bullet hit the ground, perhaps she thought it was a firecracker or “dumball” which is what Royce Skeleton thought. Later she says she recalls three shots.
I recently saw a 6th floor Museum video that was recorded a few years ago with Rickey Chism. He described what his mom saw regarding the first shot, and why she waited so many years to talk about it in detail (basically fear, given how they were treated in the aftermath that day). She separately made a living history statement with the museum, which included this:
“And they came down the hill. And I heard three shots. One hit the ground.”
https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/36521/marvin-faye--rickey-chism-oral-history
There was one other interview by Ken Rheberg that I read about regarding this missed shot that was discussed on alt.assassanation.jfk, started by Don Roberdeau in 2004. In Rheberg's interview Faye Chism went into specific detail as to where she saw the bullet hit the pavement. The forum discussion went like this:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRoberdeau
Good Day.... Can anyone else, please, provide any and all references
(besides her 22NOV63 DPD statement) for close attack DP witness, MARVIN
FAYE CHISM?
Don,
To my knowledge, there are no published quotations from Mrs. Chism other
than from her initial statement. The only researcher I know to have
interviewed Mrs. Chism is Ken Rheberg, who spoke with her a couple of
years ago and posted an article about it at the Lancer forum, with no
direct quotes from her.
Here's what he said:
I had a chance to speak with Mrs. Chism last week. Here is the substance
of our conversation.
Mrs. Chism goes by her middle name "Faye." I believe her to be a godly
woman, devoted to her family, and someone who possesses a good sense of
humor even about that darkest of days over forty years ago. I was
saddened, and surprised, to hear that her husband had died twenty years
ago from cancer. I thought he was still alive. I don't recall hearing or
seeing anything to the contrary, but then maybe I just missed it.
She said the first shot that was fired hit the street to the right of the
car, about halfway between the front and back. She saw the sparks as it
ricocheted off the street. The Chisms were in a good position to see this
since they were only a few feet away. This story corresponds with the
stories of others who saw bullets hit the street. She heard two more shots
but can't place where they came from or where they hit. Following the
shots, and during their run down Elm Street toward the triple underpass,
they were stopped by a Sheriff. After telling him what they had seen, they
were walked back to the Sheriff's Department where they were "held
hostage" (tongue in cheek with a little laugh) for six hours. Once they
were released, they walked back to their car which was parked up on the
Stemmons Freeway.
When they first arrived in Dealey Plaza to see the President, after
parking their car, they walked straight to the North Elm Street sidewalk
where they were filmed and photographed at the time of the assassination.
According to Mrs. Chism, they were never behind the wall at the top of the
grassy knoll at any time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you extend Chism’s direct line of view from the right side of the limo around z133, to her and then in a direction behind her, it coincidently points exactly to Royce Skelton.
On Don Roberdeau’s map the Chism’s position is circled in red here, with the line of site from her to an early shot beside the limo drawn in black, and also extended backwards intersecting Skelton.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14zR1nHXlcKWa0DKC-jak8nHryvN5all1/view?usp=sharing
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/14zR1nHXlcKWa0DKC-jak8nHryvN5all1/view?usp=sharing)
Is it just coincidence?
That line of vision is also not that far off what Ellis would have had at that time when looking behind to his right while coming out of the curve leaving the Plaza, with the lead car blocking his view to the middle right side of the limo.
Thanks for this Brian, that’s interesting. I need to take a more detailed look at this!
-
A quote from “Reclaiming History”:
…Royce Skelton, who was standing on top of the railroad overpass directly above Elm Street, and that Epstein forgot to cite Skelton’s testimony. If so, it’s just as good for Epstein that he “forgot.” Skelton said he in fact did see smoke in Dealey Plaza, but not coming from the grassy knoll area. As noted earlier, in his Warren Commission testimony he said one of two shots he heard just as the president’s car had completed its turn on to Elm hit the concrete to the “left front” of the car and he saw “smoke coming up off the cement” (6 H 237–238). In Skelton’s earlier statement to the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, he said the bullet hit the pavement to the “left rear” of the president’s car (Decker Exhibit No. 5323, 19 H 496).
Dan, you can believe whichever “he said, she said” accounts that you want to regarding the timing of the first shot. Nothing that I can say or do is likely to change your mind. I have pointed out in earlier threads other physical evidence including films and photos that tends to confirm an early missed shot. Dismiss them if you wish, I really don’t care. This thread is about the physical evidence. The Mark Tyler animation image is to illustrate what Stavis Ellis stated to Larry Sneed that he saw when he heard the first shot.
"Dismiss them if you wish, I really don’t care."
I know you don't care Charles.
The Tyler image you posted utterly refutes your notion of such an early shot thanks to the coordinated, self-corroborating evidence of 10 witnesses who unanimously agree their cars had completed the turn off Houston and were on Elm at the time of the first shot.
This is solid evidence but you dismiss it because you don't care.
The Newman's state that Ellis was on the other side of the underpass at the time of the shot but you dismiss it because you don't care.
On a number of occasions Ellis states he was alongside the lead car at the time of the shots but at no time is he alongside the lead car.
In one version of events he only sees the first shot, in another he sees all three shots.
On a number of occasions Eliis states JFK looked over his right shoulder, something refuted by the Z-Film.
But you don't care.
What's even more puzzling is that you, for some reason known only to yourself, equate what Ellis saw with the manhole cover that was struck by a bullet. You then introduce Skelton's evidence about the bullet striking just in front of the Pres. limo, hundreds of feet away from the manhole cover.
What's going on with that?
Why not chuck in Virgie Baker who saw a bullet strike the road behind the limo.
One shot striking three different locations simultaneously!! Wow.
Things you post on this forum will be challenged.
I expect exactly the same thing.
-
An interesting demonstration by the Mythbuster crew:
-
Based on what has been posted regarding what the witnesses have said they saw and the physical marks on the concrete manhole cover and curb, and what the Mythbusters have demonstrated regarding ricochets, here is a diagram of a possible scenario that I believe fits:
(https://i.vgy.me/OMA0JS.jpg)
I have drawn the approximate position of the limo at Z133. And a black line from the sniper's window to a spot on the pavement near the limo. Then an orange line from the impact point on the pavement to the manhole cover area. Based on what the Mythbusters demonstrated, the angles involved are reasonable. The path of the bullet doesn't cross any bystanders or motorcade objects. It's just a theory that appears to me to be feasible.
-
Here is a crop of an infamous Allen photo of the three tramps. I was scanning photos to see if any of them showed a good view of the area of pavement in which I showed the possible impact point for a first shot miss around the Z133 time frame. I have drawn a red arrow showing what I think could be the bullet mark in the pavement. I believe that it is in the exact area that I show on the map in the above previous post. You can get a better quality photo from the photo archives in this website. It is photo #49 in Allen's section. If there are any photo experts who might be able to verify what this image shows in the pavement, please feel free to comment on your opinions. Thanks!
(https://i.vgy.me/Eof4X2.png)
-
Charles: Max Holland theorizes something along the lines that you do. But he thinks the shot first hit the street light mast arm and was deflected and then hit the concrete. The Haag's determined that a Carcano bullet hitting directly into concrete would essentially disappear and leave a larger hole than is apparent. Holland argues, if I understand him correctly, that if the bullet first struck the mast first, was slowed and lost its jacket, and then hit the concrete that the damage would more closely resemble what appears. He also thinks the shot was fired before Zapruder had re-started filming.
His piece is here: https://www.acsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/DeRonja-Holland-2.pdf
-
Steve, thanks for the Holland reference. I’ll throw in some speculation and some “fragmented” thoughts.
I think the main difference in Max Holland’s scenario is that it doesn’t have the full mass of a bullet hitting the pavement near the limo. If only part of the jacket hit the road after being ripped from its core, I’m thinking that it wouldn’t have the energy to kick up concrete shards accompanied by an upward burst of pavement dust that may have been seen coming off the pavement by a few onlookers (like Chism, Skelton) and looking like a small spark/explosion accompanied by some smoke coming off the pavement.
But staying within the TSBD three shot scenario, if you assume that some marks near the manhole cover concrete and the curb by Tague were actually caused in some way by the TSBD shots, there may be a couple of other possibilities that kind of fits in with these thoughts. For example, assume there is a strike to the pavement and it is violent enough to either 1) fully destroy all the bullet (like you said the Haags think) without acting downfield, or 2) partially destroy the bullet with a remaining fragment only making it downfield to the manhole cover concrete (like the diagram Charles has). I think it is a bit of a stretch to think it could fragment on the pavement and then go on to strike the manhole cover concrete and then go on to strike the curb, and then strike the underpass, having enough energy to gouge pavement and cement each step of the way as it goes along. Tague was always pretty sure the first shot was not the one that affected him.
For the first possibility 1) if the Haags are right, then any downfield marks would necessarily be solely from the third shot. About half the mass of that third bullet was never found. If the missing mass split into two fragments that had different drag properties when they escaped the limo, it looks like the manhole cover and the Tague curb could each be on a trajectory to receive a fragment. I once estimated that a missing third shot fragment could possibly make it to Tague and divot the curb.
Perhaps first shot version 2) like Charles depicts, is needed to have alignment with the Stavis Ellis first shot testimony and the Haags were only partially correct. The Tague incident could then still be related to the third shot, but needing only one fragment escaping the limo.
It would be interesting to further figure out the disposition of that early first shot.
-
Charles: Max Holland theorizes something along the lines that you do. But he thinks the shot first hit the street light mast arm and was deflected and then hit the concrete. The Haag's determined that a Carcano bullet hitting directly into concrete would essentially disappear and leave a larger hole than is apparent. Holland argues, if I understand him correctly, that if the bullet first struck the mast first, was slowed and lost its jacket, and then hit the concrete that the damage would more closely resemble what appears. He also thinks the shot was fired before Zapruder had re-started filming.
His piece is here: https://www.acsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/DeRonja-Holland-2.pdf
Thanks Steve, yes I am familiar with both Holland’s ideas and the work that the Haags have done. Both are interesting and I respect them both and admire their efforts.
Holland appears to be trying to justify why an early first shot would miss. After all LHO was a competent marksman and an early shot would have been closer to him than the other two. Holland focuses totally on the traffic light mast as a potential culprit for a missed shot and apparently nothing else. Over the years he has tested it in all kinds of ways but came up empty. It appears to me that he managed to show that if the bullet struck the mast at an angle that would direct the bullet to the manhole cover, the resulting indention in the mast would be very shallow. And that that indention and the underlying changes in the grain of the metal most likely would have been completely obliterated by corrosion (rust) by the time they were able to perform the tests. I believe that they have shown that it is possible that the bullet struck the mast. But I don’t believe that they have shown that it actually did so.
When I created a virtual (computer) 3D model of the sniper’s nest, I discovered two additional possibilities for why an early first shot might miss the limo entirely. (1). There is potential interference from the barrel of the rifle hitting a corner of the box that lies on the window sill when a shooter is seated and aiming at the limo in Z133 area. (2). There is also potential interference from a shooter’s left elbow hitting the conduit closest to the window when aiming a rifle in the direction of the limo at the Z133 area. LHO could have mentally practiced his intended shots. However, I don’t believe that he would have taken a chance of being seen with the rifle practicing his shots before the motorcade arrived. Therefore, I think either one of the above potential interferences could have been a surprise to LHO and caused an early inadvertent missed shot that missed the limo entirely.
I had seen the Haag demonstration with the chunk of highway asphalt before. After reviewing it again, I am still left puzzled. Bullets don’t just disintegrate without leaving a trace! I would guess that it was deflected up and over their backboard. Also, asphalt is not homogenous, and it can be varying degrees of hardness depending on several factors. Temperature will affect the hardness. We have no way of knowing how the asphalt that the Haags used compares to what was on Elm Street on 11/22/63. And there a many, many more variables that need to be considered before reaching a conclusion. I know that the demonstration by the Mythbuster crew is using a pistol and ammunition that is different from the Carcano. However, their demonstration is apparently on an actual road that gets traveled and compacted and heated up by the sun and cooled down at night. The surface of the pavement on Elm Street on 11/22/63 appears to have been there for quite some time (the photos do not appear to indicate newly laid asphalt, it appears old and worn to me). Elm Street is a very, very, busy street with heavy trucks and busses on it daily. With all the traffic in the Dallas Texas weather, I imagine that it became very compacted and therefore was much harder than an average piece of asphalt.
One other factor that I think is worth mentioning is that if the bullet struck the white line (as it appears in the Allen photo), the white paint on some the small pieces of asphalt that get “ejected like a volcano” would have reflected the bright sunlight that day (better than just dark asphalt would). And could have made it more visible and possibly look like smoke, or sparks as the witnesses described. Just a thought…
Anyway, I think that neither Holland or the Haags have shown that the theory of a bullet ricocheting off the pavement is out of the question.
-
Steve, thanks for the Holland reference. I’ll throw in some speculation and some “fragmented” thoughts.
I think the main difference in Max Holland’s scenario is that it doesn’t have the full mass of a bullet hitting the pavement near the limo. If only part of the jacket hit the road after being ripped from its core, I’m thinking that it wouldn’t have the energy to kick up concrete shards accompanied by an upward burst of pavement dust that may have been seen coming off the pavement by a few onlookers (like Chism, Skelton) and looking like a small spark/explosion accompanied by some smoke coming off the pavement.
But staying within the TSBD three shot scenario, if you assume that some marks near the manhole cover concrete and the curb by Tague were actually caused in some way by the TSBD shots, there may be a couple of other possibilities that kind of fits in with these thoughts. For example, assume there is a strike to the pavement and it is violent enough to either 1) fully destroy all the bullet (like you said the Haags think) without acting downfield, or 2) partially destroy the bullet with a remaining fragment only making it downfield to the manhole cover concrete (like the diagram Charles has). I think it is a bit of a stretch to think it could fragment on the pavement and then go on to strike the manhole cover concrete and then go on to strike the curb, and then strike the underpass, having enough energy to gouge pavement and cement each step of the way as it goes along. Tague was always pretty sure the first shot was not the one that affected him.
For the first possibility 1) if the Haags are right, then any downfield marks would necessarily be solely from the third shot. About half the mass of that third bullet was never found. If the missing mass split into two fragments that had different drag properties when they escaped the limo, it looks like the manhole cover and the Tague curb could each be on a trajectory to receive a fragment. I once estimated that a missing third shot fragment could possibly make it to Tague and divot the curb.
Perhaps first shot version 2) like Charles depicts, is needed to have alignment with the Stavis Ellis first shot testimony and the Haags were only partially correct. The Tague incident could then still be related to the third shot, but needing only one fragment escaping the limo.
It would be interesting to further figure out the disposition of that early first shot.
I agree that there could be fragments from two different bullets involved with the two locations (manhole cover and Tague’s position). Or perhaps two separate fragments from the same bullet. Tague points out that the mark on the curb adjacent to his position is consistent with the size of an intact lead core of the Carcano bullet. (And that a much smaller fragment wouldn’t have left the size mark that was on that curb.) I don’t know if that is true or not, but something to consider. Also, Tague has been inconsistent and I believe one of his statements does leave open the possibility of the first shot being the one that caused his wound. Personally, I wouldn’t rule out that possibility. I think it is possible that if the first shot hit the pavement near the limo that the lead core was deflected to Tague’s position, and that the copper jacket from that bullet could have veered due to aerodynamics and caused the mark at the manhole position. That would explain Stavis Ellis’ description of grass flying. Ellis also describes this at the south side of the curb and I question whether or not he would even be able to see the pavement area where I show the impact and the mark is shown in the Allen photo.
-
Here’s a partial transcript from the Haag’s TV show “The shot that Missed” I added a couple of my comments in brackets:
NARRATOR: The next test will investigate what would happen to a Carcano bullet that hits asphalt.
LUKE HAAG: From the laser scanning data, I know that that asphalt creates about a 30-degree angle with the sixth floor window. That’s what we’ve set up here. We’ve got a section of highway asphalt here. We’ll see what happens to the bullet.
MALE VOICE: Five. Four. Three. Two. One.
NARRATOR: When they check the witness panel for signs of fragments, the result is unexpected.
LUKE HAAG: The fragments of asphalt and stone basically come back out like a volcano erupting, but they don’t go out to the sides. So a person could be standing within a couple of feet of an event like this and not be hit by material.
NARRATOR: Inspecting the asphalt, there’s another surprise.
LUKE HAAG: There’s loose debris down here in the crater, which is I’d say maybe an inch and a half deep. But there is no bullet, not even a piece of a bullet. [What, nothing????!!!!]
NARRATOR: The Haag’s tests have shown that if Oswald’s first shot did miss the car and hit the pavement, the bullet would have completely disintegrated, and the physical evidence would only have lasted a few days. [ BS: BS: BS: BS: I find it very hard to believe that the Haags allowed this to be said by the narrator. This is impossible, this is not science folks. Shame on this show for trying to pass this off as the truth!]
LUKE HAAG: As soon as the street sweepers, the rain, and more traffic comes along, within days that crater that was nice and fresh and had very delicate edges and pulverized rock and loose material is now just a dimple in the road.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/the-shot-that-missed/ (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/the-shot-that-missed/)
-
Charles,
I hadn’t noticed that street mark before, good eye! I have seen some others when I was arguing with another person on another forum that there probably was no formal street inspection up by the depository building for a bullet strike (at least I saw no record or photos of it happening). A bullet mark in the pavement up the street on Elm would probably not have really stood out as much as people think, and it is quite possible there could have been a bullet mark on the street up there that went unnoticed because the Plaza roads were not all that pristine and additionally no one suspected a missed shot that early, so that scenario was never investigated.
For this discussion the pictures I was referencing are dropped in a summary here labeled Inspections for evidence of the first shot strike location. This will include the oak tree, traffic mast, and street. My favorite picture is of the Warren Commission members walking over “bullet strike like” divots in that area of the street.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hEtXLIwjVIU9plOW2X7E5cWuHVm-vb5w/view?usp=sharing
-
Charles,
I hadn’t noticed that street mark before, good eye! I have seen some others when I was arguing with another person on another forum that there probably was no formal street inspection up by the depository building for a bullet strike (at least I saw no record or photos of it happening). A bullet mark in the pavement up the street on Elm would probably not have really stood out as much as people think, and it is quite possible there could have been a bullet mark on the street up there that went unnoticed because the Plaza roads were not all that pristine and additionally no one suspected a missed shot that early, so that scenario was never investigated.
For this discussion the pictures I was referencing are dropped in a summary here labeled Inspections for evidence of the first shot strike location. This will include the oak tree, traffic mast, and street. My favorite picture is of the Warren Commission members walking over “bullet strike like” divots in that area of the street.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hEtXLIwjVIU9plOW2X7E5cWuHVm-vb5w/view?usp=sharing
Thanks Brian! Yes, traffic from the remainder of the motorcade and the subsequent normal traffic flow which was allowed immediately after the shooting would most likely have made any bullet strike marks less obvious. And like you said, the investigation that followed didn’t really focus on this area because they thought the shots occurred later.
-
This is one of the illustration figures from the article on Max Holland"s efforts (linked earlier in this thread):
(https://i.vgy.me/YKS70Y.jpg)
I believe that the view in the above image is from the sniper's nest window. What struck me as significant about this image is that it appears that the mark in the white line on the pavement (visible in the Allen photo of the three tramps and pointed out with the red arrow, see photo posted below) would appear to be located in a position that is obscured from view from the sniper's nest window by the infamous oak tree. What this suggests is that it is possible that a first shot bullet could have first hit a tree limb, and then started tumbling before it hit the pavement. Therefore this could further complicate any ricochet studies of a Carcano bullet hitting pavement.
(https://i.vgy.me/CWL1yL.png)
-
I had a couple of thoughts after looking at the MythBusters video and the DeRonja-Holland report posted earlier.
Myth Busters ricochet video. Regarding the pavement strikes.
In the Myth Busters testing (as well as the Haag tests), in real time the pavement strike’s flying debris can visually be seen but then dissipates very fast. It looks to be visually dissipated in a fraction of a second. For example, in the Myth Busters 32deg angle test at time 2:20, if I look right at the impact spot, I can see it happen, but it’s just a very brief explosion with a small puff of smoke off the pavement.
Perhaps this might help explain why only a few people reported seeing a pavement strike in Dealey Plaza. You can easily hear the shot, but if you were not looking close to where it struck, you might miss seeing it entirely. For example, if you were looking at JFK and it hit near your line of sight to JFK you might see it (this might explain the Faye Chism dynamic). If you were focused on Jackie or somewhere else, it might be much harder to see the pavement strike in the periphery of your field of vision.
Just one other observation is that the copper jacketed bullets were only at about Mach 1, but in this test they still fragmented and deformed, independent of the tested shooting angles of incidence and rebound.
DeRonja-Holland report.
If indeed their final hypothesis is accurately depicted in their photograph Figure 20 in that study, then I wanted to comment on why so many I’ve heard saying the missed shot happened because of a mast deflection, may be wrong.
This may have been discussed before, but I thought it was worth noting that their proposed bullet trajectory could just be called a trajectory that would minimally miss the limo if the mast didn't get in the way (but it's not the smallest miss). On the cropped version here there is a magenta colored line from their mast strike point (a white dot) to a circle representing the President’s head as the target. That line length represents an associated aim angle of missing the target. The other line to the lower right at about 4 o’clock is a different angle of limo miss that is a smaller angle of miss depicted by its smaller line length (as measured in pixels) on the photo.
In their final scenario, it appears the real reason for the Presidential and limo miss is simply an error in aiming, not a mast deflection. In their hypothesis the mast just happened to get in the way of the bullet path for that scenario. If the mast was not even there, this shot would still miss the President and the limo by overshooting the limo, and it would miss by a larger margin than a minimum limo miss to the lower right. The mast now becomes their mechanism for disappearance of the bullet. The other smaller limo minimum miss to the lower right would have the bullet striking the pavement with disintegration or possibly some fragment ricochet as the mechanism for the bullet disappearance.
Net, an early missed shot would not need to be predicated on the mast. It could have been as simple as just poor target tracking with associated aim error and could occur at any time around there. Only 15-20 ft further down the road would have had the limo and the President totally in the clear, past the mast and before the tree branches.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/U8Mas0r141vf0oHxAf-6J9e5YoPvD7I_MDiHuyPLU-oYLo5II1aJt48o80xdLQpaTXdSAM9b09K2Q0B380ntatPzuUJXK7S_gWmAvIVy6Z2MEtNMA10d6pP1E1SR38nfSgiagDwDF_4pYvLa1D1IOlFjM2UtM29imQkivg1fNN3CNpaXs45g3usGYLTbbCreV4oA3mc8lp9FWH6fCeICRJfOZa9PtARYLY8gNazallJWSLp3e_-pjH2NPJfVT_b-kcpj02z6kNRs2kwRCkzd4R95oDDvL9LL0eRv0gNmcOOg4una8d6Mo_R9i_mUAdT1dML0c4o6sW1Dq2xUI6cxpTlHQYrXo2w75E44qpgKj3nPjUhhKANnqD5dhgVqO0ChWSivYpNqM8-X8vCweZxBWVPXK0GnR8eBjG3eot7a8WeVWrtCb8zHIJDsewZBghG8pen5DFrdyZq6YAudu_166hMY7EoxOV77N7yboG7nW3LD-4kJEr36Rj4URgWx0wePQIXTsTFijXwS5OS3vp0q7mEPnq_CUw1FB6dhzg8VbE0aqJhe2v_Ys_w9fHU-SZUOI_94aBfTJirgpFH8g32RRUEDxXKxMFojrip7BDST0UgLwFpTsiAJ3j3FreIvAUdJvks4sBhHJdWpD8vwS7QWTUaCYpX10rl-64E5sgn_9eEMMyQx8NLu78vPrVIGTV90j1QkBumbZLxNYR6Dq43zpLik=w887-h590-no?authuser=0)
-
I had a couple of thoughts after looking at the MythBusters video and the DeRonja-Holland report posted earlier.
Myth Busters ricochet video. Regarding the pavement strikes.
In the Myth Busters testing (as well as the Haag tests), in real time the pavement strike’s flying debris can visually be seen but then dissipates very fast. It looks to be visually dissipated in a fraction of a second. For example, in the Myth Busters 32deg angle test at time 2:20, if I look right at the impact spot, I can see it happen, but it’s just a very brief explosion with a small puff of smoke off the pavement.
Perhaps this might help explain why only a few people reported seeing a pavement strike in Dealey Plaza. You can easily hear the shot, but if you were not looking close to where it struck, you might miss seeing it entirely. For example, if you were looking at JFK and it hit near your line of sight to JFK you might see it (this might explain the Faye Chism dynamic). If you were focused on Jackie or somewhere else, it might be much harder to see the pavement strike in the periphery of your field of vision.
Just one other observation is that the copper jacketed bullets were only at about Mach 1, but in this test they still fragmented and deformed, independent of the tested shooting angles of incidence and rebound.
DeRonja-Holland report.
If indeed their final hypothesis is accurately depicted in their photograph Figure 20 in that study, then I wanted to comment on why so many I’ve heard saying the missed shot happened because of a mast deflection, may be wrong.
This may have been discussed before, but I thought it was worth noting that their proposed bullet trajectory could just be called a trajectory that would minimally miss the limo if the mast didn't get in the way (but it's not the smallest miss). On the cropped version here there is a magenta colored line from their mast strike point (a white dot) to a circle representing the President’s head as the target. That line length represents an associated aim angle of missing the target. The other line to the lower right at about 4 o’clock is a different angle of limo miss that is a smaller angle of miss depicted by its smaller line length (as measured in pixels) on the photo.
In their final scenario, it appears the real reason for the Presidential and limo miss is simply an error in aiming, not a mast deflection. In their hypothesis the mast just happened to get in the way of the bullet path for that scenario. If the mast was not even there, this shot would still miss the President and the limo by overshooting the limo, and it would miss by a larger margin than a minimum limo miss to the lower right. The mast now becomes their mechanism for disappearance of the bullet. The other smaller limo minimum miss to the lower right would have the bullet striking the pavement with disintegration or possibly some fragment ricochet as the mechanism for the bullet disappearance.
Net, an early missed shot would not need to be predicated on the mast. It could have been as simple as just poor target tracking with associated aim error and could occur at any time around there. Only 15-20 ft further down the road would have had the limo and the President totally in the clear, past the mast and before the tree branches.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/U8Mas0r141vf0oHxAf-6J9e5YoPvD7I_MDiHuyPLU-oYLo5II1aJt48o80xdLQpaTXdSAM9b09K2Q0B380ntatPzuUJXK7S_gWmAvIVy6Z2MEtNMA10d6pP1E1SR38nfSgiagDwDF_4pYvLa1D1IOlFjM2UtM29imQkivg1fNN3CNpaXs45g3usGYLTbbCreV4oA3mc8lp9FWH6fCeICRJfOZa9PtARYLY8gNazallJWSLp3e_-pjH2NPJfVT_b-kcpj02z6kNRs2kwRCkzd4R95oDDvL9LL0eRv0gNmcOOg4una8d6Mo_R9i_mUAdT1dML0c4o6sW1Dq2xUI6cxpTlHQYrXo2w75E44qpgKj3nPjUhhKANnqD5dhgVqO0ChWSivYpNqM8-X8vCweZxBWVPXK0GnR8eBjG3eot7a8WeVWrtCb8zHIJDsewZBghG8pen5DFrdyZq6YAudu_166hMY7EoxOV77N7yboG7nW3LD-4kJEr36Rj4URgWx0wePQIXTsTFijXwS5OS3vp0q7mEPnq_CUw1FB6dhzg8VbE0aqJhe2v_Ys_w9fHU-SZUOI_94aBfTJirgpFH8g32RRUEDxXKxMFojrip7BDST0UgLwFpTsiAJ3j3FreIvAUdJvks4sBhHJdWpD8vwS7QWTUaCYpX10rl-64E5sgn_9eEMMyQx8NLu78vPrVIGTV90j1QkBumbZLxNYR6Dq43zpLik=w887-h590-no?authuser=0)
Good points, Brian. My further thoughts include: The viewpoints of the Chisms elevation-wise was such that the street level at around the z133 area was about the same as their eye-levels. In other words, due to the slope of the hill, they were standing about 5 feet or so below the street level in the z133 area. Therefore they would be able to see the full height of the plume of asphalt against a potentially lighter background. And that would make it more visible than it might be for someone looking at a downward angle with more asphalt as the background. Also, Royce Skelton would be at a similar elevation, but slightly above the Chisms, so that he could see over their heads to the street area at the z133 area. And he should have been able to also see the height of the plume with a potentially lighter background behind it.
-
Charles, I like your idea that the view angle based on position and elevation relative to the limo may have played a factor in how easily a pavement strike was able to be viewed. Like you said, having a lighter background as viewed would likely help to see any small dark debris and pulverized pavement “smoke” that popped up. Also, if a shot did hit fairly close to the limo, the limo dark/deep blue color as a background probably wouldn't help visibility matters any.
Separately, if the Holland picture I attached in my last post does not show or if it goes away, it is probably due to me trying to attach it from Google drive or Google photo. I’m not sure how reliable that method will be.
-
Charles, I like your idea that the view angle based on position and elevation relative to the limo may have played a factor in how easily a pavement strike was able to be viewed. Like you said, having a lighter background as viewed would likely help to see any small dark debris and pulverized pavement “smoke” that popped up. Also, if a shot did hit fairly close to the limo, the limo dark/deep blue color as a background probably wouldn't help visibility matters any.
Separately, if the Holland picture I attached in my last post does not show or if it goes away, it is probably due to me trying to attach it from Google drive or Google photo. I’m not sure how reliable that method will be.
Yes, the myth busters demonstration is a good visual confirmation of the light background and low angle making a big difference. The side views are much easier to see than the ones with the asphalt for the background.
I haven’t seen the Holland image show up in your earlier post. I think that I have a good idea of the concept you described. But an image almost always helps.
-
Thanks for letting me know the picture didn't display. Sorry about the inconvenience.
I was hoping to use my Google Drive as the source. I'll try one more time and if that doesn't work I will look at another place to store pictures to share.
(https://drive.google.com/uc?id=10_51YR3g6ujVBNBJiXF42s9rvCVO31Y-)
I tried to insert the picture just above this sentence.
If it doesn't show, this following link is to the picture.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10_51YR3g6ujVBNBJiXF42s9rvCVO31Y-/view?usp=sharing
-
Thanks for letting me know the picture didn't display. Sorry about the inconvenience.
I was hoping to use my Google Drive as the source. I'll try one more time and if that doesn't work I will look at another place to store pictures to share.
(https://drive.google.com/uc?id=10_51YR3g6ujVBNBJiXF42s9rvCVO31Y-)
I tried to insert the picture just above this sentence.
If it doesn't show, this following link is to the picture.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10_51YR3g6ujVBNBJiXF42s9rvCVO31Y-/view?usp=sharing
It works, thanks! Yes that is what I had pictured in my mind based on your description alone.
-
It’s kind of hard to imagine that this could be related to the first shot, but depending on its evaluation it might warrant further investigation.
In the Miller photo, a small blotch appears on the limo door next to the keyhole by Kellerman. Visually it appears positioned above the apparent reflected interface between the ground and the sky, so the sky appears to be in its background and it's not associated with the ground.
What comes to mind as possible sources of that mark might be:
- A mark on the limo surface itself
- A reflection of some object nearby in the air
- An anomaly in the photo’s developing or printing, locally at that spot
(https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1HGUKqsn419gOiGcQU9a45glRrO3ma2NX)
Any thoughts? Are there other obvious explanations besides these?
This is the cleanest version of the photo I have which was originally printed in The Saturday Evening Post, issue date 12/4/63.
-
It’s kind of hard to imagine that this could be related to the first shot, but depending on its evaluation it might warrant further investigation.
In the Miller photo, a small blotch appears on the limo door next to the keyhole by Kellerman. Visually it appears positioned above the apparent reflected interface between the ground and the sky, so the sky appears to be in its background and it's not associated with the ground.
What comes to mind as possible sources of that mark might be:
- A mark on the limo surface itself
- A reflection of some object nearby in the air
- An anomaly in the photo’s developing or printing, locally at that spot
(https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1HGUKqsn419gOiGcQU9a45glRrO3ma2NX)
Any thoughts? Are there other obvious explanations besides these?
This is the cleanest version of the photo I have which was originally printed in The Saturday Evening Post, issue date 12/4/63.
Wow, that’s interesting! Will definitely be investigating. It appears to be large enough to warrant the attention of the folks who looked at the limo in Washington. However, I suppose it could have been debris that fell off or washed off.
-
Wow, that’s interesting! Will definitely be investigating. It appears to be large enough to warrant the attention of the folks who looked at the limo in Washington. However, I suppose it could have been debris that fell off or washed off.
Don't see it on some other versions of that same picture. I wonder if it is just an anomaly of that particular copy? There are several clear photos of that area before the assassination and nothing in that area.
-
Richard you are right in that not all the Miller pictures show this detail. I think those are later copies that lost resolution as this one seems to match the early one published in the following Post magazine on Dec 14. The other pictures I have seen also don’t show that vertical blur in the middle of the door just behind it. The resolution of this picture appears just good enough to show that vertical blur which I believe is actually the antenna of an accompanying motorcycle cop. And to your point, when ruling out reflections from people near the limo, in all the higher resolution photos I have of the limo from Love field to before arriving in Dealey Plaza, I didn't see a sign of an abrasion or mark around that spot.
Charles also hit the nail on the head regarding Washington. I can see a mark in the Washington garage in the better FBI and Secret service photos. In fact in a high resolution picture at Parkland I copied from Robin Unger I also see it. It just seems interesting that it appears to show up after Dealey Plaza but not before.
-
Richard you are right in that not all the Miller pictures show this detail. I think those are later copies that lost resolution as this one seems to match the early one published in the following Post magazine on Dec 14. The other pictures I have seen also don’t show that vertical blur in the middle of the door just behind it. The resolution of this picture appears just good enough to show that vertical blur which I believe is actually the antenna of an accompanying motorcycle cop. And to your point, when ruling out reflections from people near the limo, in all the higher resolution photos I have of the limo from Love field to before arriving in Dealey Plaza, I didn't see a sign of an abrasion or mark around that spot.
Charles also hit the nail on the head regarding Washington. I can see a mark in the Washington garage in the better FBI and Secret service photos. In fact in a high resolution picture at Parkland I copied from Robin Unger I also see it. It just seems interesting that it appears to show up after Dealey Plaza but not before.
Yes, it seems clear that it wasn't present before the assassination. Given that some copies of that same photo don't show the damage that leaves the aftermath photos to confirm if it is an anomaly or possible product of the assassination. Can you post the FBI/Secret Service pictures that you reference? Thanks.
-
Richard you are right in that not all the Miller pictures show this detail. I think those are later copies that lost resolution as this one seems to match the early one published in the following Post magazine on Dec 14. The other pictures I have seen also don’t show that vertical blur in the middle of the door just behind it. The resolution of this picture appears just good enough to show that vertical blur which I believe is actually the antenna of an accompanying motorcycle cop. And to your point, when ruling out reflections from people near the limo, in all the higher resolution photos I have of the limo from Love field to before arriving in Dealey Plaza, I didn't see a sign of an abrasion or mark around that spot.
Charles also hit the nail on the head regarding Washington. I can see a mark in the Washington garage in the better FBI and Secret service photos. In fact in a high resolution picture at Parkland I copied from Robin Unger I also see it. It just seems interesting that it appears to show up after Dealey Plaza but not before.
This is getting more and more intriguing…. Thumb1:
-
It always seemed bizarre to me that they continued to use that car after the assassination. You have to wonder what LBJ thought sitting in the same seat where his predecessor had been murdered. I think even RFK rode in the car.
-
It always seemed bizarre to me that they continued to use that car after the assassination. You have to wonder what LBJ thought sitting in the same seat where his predecessor had been murdered. I think even RFK rode in the car.
The car should have been preserved for history. LBJ wasn’t smart enough to realize this. Like the war in Vietnam, he wasn’t smart enough to avoid the tragedy that it evolved into under his watch. Reading a book by Clint Hill titled “Five Presidents,” Clint relates that the Secret Service had limited resources and that it would have taken several years to design and build another limo to replace it. It seems obvious to me (in hindsight) that LBJ should still have done what ever was necessary to preserve the limo.
-
Richard,
I'm not sure I can post the pictures I've found in the format I would like, so I decided to drop them in a pdf with the photos aligned in time. Hopefully this will display and additionally allow some direct zooming in on your screen.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tsj1RnCbMm5rbo_JtdcAc7RY-M8jVttT/view?usp=sharing
I dug around and found versions of the photos that do not readily show the mark, and aligned beside versions of the ones that do. It appears to me to be a function of the resolution and lighting of the photos. If its a mark, I think this would suggest a very shallow surface mark that needs good lighting to visually bring out.
I'm not totally sure on the source of the last couple of sets. I think the last set, with the jump seats moved may be from the FBI or Secret Service. I'm pretty sure the next to last set are FBI versions. One of those appears to perhaps have an inspector with a lab coat in the front seat. I wonder if this could be Frazier looking at the windshield.
-
Richard,
I'm not sure I can post the pictures I've found in the format I would like, so I decided to drop them in a pdf with the photos aligned in time. Hopefully this will display and additionally allow some direct zooming in on your screen.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tsj1RnCbMm5rbo_JtdcAc7RY-M8jVttT/view?usp=sharing
I dug around and found versions of the photos that do not readily show the mark, and aligned beside versions of the ones that do. It appears to me to be a function of the resolution and lighting of the photos. If its a mark, I think this would suggest a very shallow surface mark that needs good lighting to visually bring out.
I'm not totally sure on the source of the last couple of sets. I think the last set, with the jump seats moved may be from the FBI or Secret Service. I'm pretty sure the next to last set are FBI versions. One of those appears to perhaps have an inspector with a lab coat in the front seat. I wonder if this could be Frazier looking at the windshield.
Great work! This does appear to be something that should have interested the investigators. Wow!
-
We have all seen the Murray photo of the detectives looking at the concrete surrounding manhole cover on the south side of Elm Street. They were investigating what appeared to be a mark left by a bullet that grazed the concrete. This area is inline with the position of James Tague who was grazed on the cheek by a piece of this bullet or a piece of the concrete curb adjacent to him. That curb was apparently also hit by a part of the bullet, which apparently skipped from the manhole area to that curb.
Except Tague said that he wasn't hit by the first shot.
-
Great work! This does appear to be something that should have interested the investigators. Wow!
For reference, look at this photo of the car as it sat at Parkland:
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=58&pos=70)
-
For reference, look at this photo of the car as it sat at Parkland:
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=58&pos=70)
Yes, thanks Mitch. Brian shows that image twice in his pdf. One version is at a higher resolution than the other one.
-
Except Tague said that he wasn't hit by the first shot.
Tague has said a lot of inconsistent things. I believe that he really doesn’t know which shot it was. Therefore, I personally am not going to rule out the first shot based on Tague’s guesses. And it really doesn’t matter to me whether or not you want to believe whatever the “story du jour” from Tague.
FYI:
Tague testified he heard three shots and “guesses” and “believes” the bullet that struck the curb was the second one (7 H 555)
-
Tague has said a lot of inconsistent things. I believe that he really doesn’t know which shot it was. Therefore, I personally am not going to rule out the first shot based on Tague’s guesses. And it really doesn’t matter to me whether or not you want to believe whatever the “story du jour” from Tague.
FYI:
Tague testified he heard three shots and “guesses” and “believes” the bullet that struck the curb was the second one (7 H 555)
I always wondered if he was even wounded during the assassination or made this story up on the fly. He admitted having some preexisting facial injury. He tried to peddle some film footage of a race car crash to a reporter. Not exactly a guy who missed an opportunity to make a buck.
-
Arguing where the first shot hit the road is like arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin. The first shot struck JFK, according to the evidence.
Also, the MythBusters video shows that a 1200 fps 115 grain jacketed bullet from a handgun is not going to hit asphalt without leaving a trace. So it is obvious that a 2000 fp 170 grain jacketed bullet, with more than four times the energy of the Mythbuster's bullet, will leave a noticeable divot in the pavement. Does anyone seriously think the FBI could not find such a mark in the pavement if it really existed?
-
I always wondered if he was even wounded during the assassination or made this story up on the fly. He admitted having some preexisting facial injury. He tried to peddle some film footage of a race car crash to a reporter. Not exactly a guy who missed an opportunity to make a buck.
No wondering necessary if one looks things up
Soon after the shots, Detective Buddy Walthers noticed specks of blood on Tague's right cheek. Tague also had a small left facial scab from a cut, which occurred a week before the assassination.
Cite: Wiki
And he thought 'firecracker' at the first shot
-
No wondering necessary if one looks things up
Soon after the shots, Detective Buddy Walthers noticed specks of blood on Tague's right cheek. Tague also had a small left facial scab from a cut, which occurred a week before the assassination.
Cite: Wiki
And he thought 'firecracker' at the first shot
That is his story. It is odd that Tague just happens to have a preexisting cut to his face. Photos taken afterward apparently often confuse that wound for the alleged wound during the assassination. Why would he allow anyone to take photos of the preexisting wound that has nothing to do with the assassination? He ducked behind the overpass when the shooting began. Maybe he caused this wound while doing that and thought it was related to the assassination. It just seems extremely unlikely - but not impossible - that a bullet fragment fired at the JFK car ends up wounding Tague given his position at the time. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it just seems unlikely that no one along the parade route was hit by a bullet fragment but Tague standing a couple streets over is wounded. Is there any confirmation from Buddy Walthers that he saw the blood? There were apparently pictures taken of the wound but I've also never seen them.
-
That is his story. It is odd that Tague just happens to have a preexisting cut to his face. Photos taken afterward apparently often confuse that wound for the alleged wound during the assassination. Why would he allow anyone to take photos of the preexisting wound that has nothing to do with the assassination? He ducked behind the overpass when the shooting began. Maybe he caused this wound while doing that and thought it was related to the assassination. It just seems extremely unlikely - but not impossible - that a bullet fragment fired at the JFK car ends up wounding Tague given his position at the time. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it just seems unlikely that no one along the parade route was hit by a bullet fragment but Tague standing a couple streets over is wounded. Is there any confirmation from Buddy Walthers that he saw the blood? There were apparently pictures taken of the wound but I've also never seen them.
At least 2 fragments struck the windshield and frame. If another fragment had gone an inch higher than the one that struck the windshield frame, it is not difficult to see that it would have gone toward where Tague was standing. Tague was standing roughly in line with the car and the SN at z270-313. A fragment on a slight upward trajectory would have gone up before falling to the ground. Tague's evidence is corroborated by the curb mark and the subsequent analysis showing that it contained lead and antimony. The fragment could have struck the street at a low angle and bounced off the street striking the curb and then deflecting upward. Or it could have struck just the curb.
Every event has a low a priori probability - until it occurs.
-
At least 2 fragments struck the windshield and frame. If another fragment had gone an inch higher than the one that struck the windshield frame, it is not difficult to see that it would have gone toward where Tague was standing. Tague was standing roughly in line with the car and the SN at z270-313. A fragment on a slight upward trajectory would have gone up before falling to the ground. Tague's evidence is corroborated by the curb mark and the subsequent analysis showing that it contained lead and antimony. The fragment could have struck the street at a low angle and bounced off the street striking the curb and then deflecting upward. Or it could have struck just the curb.
Every event has a low a priori probability - until it occurs.
I don't find the curb mark all that compelling. I bet you could find a hundred similar marks along the curbs of any city street. Are there photos of the wound? It is curious that several authors apparently mistake the preexisting face wound with the alleged wound received as part of the assassination. I'm not saying this couldn't happen. Just that it seems odd absent some more specific information that I haven't seen (but may exist) to prove the basic facts. In history, there is a lot of repeating information that, at its source, turns out to be questionable. I don't think it impacts either the LN or CTer perspective as to whether Tague was wounded by a fragment.
-
Tague has said a lot of inconsistent things. I believe that he really doesn’t know which shot it was. Therefore, I personally am not going to rule out the first shot based on Tague’s guesses. And it really doesn’t matter to me whether or not you want to believe whatever the “story du jour” from Tague.
Another stunning example of "witnesses are only right when they support what I already believe happened, and unreliable when they don't".
-
The contrarian "mind" is an astounding thing to behold. I specifically noted that whether Tague was wounded makes no difference to the LN vs CTer debate. And the contrarian suggests that I have only questioned this witness because it supports my view that Oswald was the assassin. Huh? Of course, Tague being wounded is part of the "official" narrative that contrarians so mightily struggle against. Making it all the more astounding that questioning Tague's story is somehow promoting that narrative.
-
I don't find the curb mark all that compelling. I bet you could find a hundred similar marks along the curbs of any city street. Are there photos of the wound? It is curious that several authors apparently mistake the preexisting face wound with the alleged wound received as part of the assassination. I'm not saying this couldn't happen. Just that it seems odd absent some more specific information that I haven't seen (but may exist) to prove the basic facts. In history, there is a lot of repeating information that, at its source, turns out to be questionable. I don't think it impacts either the LN or CTer perspective as to whether Tague was wounded by a fragment.
Apparently the DPD was convinced that Tague was possibly wounded. Page 17 of Tague’s book “Truth Withheld” show a partial transcript of the DPD radio transmissions at 12:37pm. Referenced as Warren Report, pg. 463, Vol. X:
.
.
.
22. I have one guy that was possibly hit by a rickashay (sic) from the bullet off the concrete and another one seen the President slump.
Disp. 10-4
.
.
.
-
Another stunning example of "witnesses are only right when they support what I already believe happened, and unreliable when they don't".
The witness testified under oath that he didn’t know which shot to associate with his getting stung.
And here you imply that he actually knows that it wasn’t the first shot:
Except Tague said that he wasn't hit by the first shot.
If Tague actually said that, it is at odds with his sworn testimony. You can believe whatever you wish. I really couldn’t care less.
-
Another stunning example of "witnesses are only right when they support what I already believe happened, and unreliable when they don't".
I agree. Tague was not inconsistent in his evidence. He recalled 3 distinct shots and he recalled that he felt something strike his face on one of the shots. He was able to accurately determine which shot struck him. He never changed his evidence on that. When first asked the question as to which of the three shots struck him, he said he did not know. However, when questioned further he was able to provide a clear answer: he knew he heard a shot before he felt something and he knew he heard a shot after he was hit. So while he did not consciously relate the feeling of being hit to the second shot at the time, his memory of when he was not struck left him with an unambiguous conclusion that he was struck on the second shot.
Anyone who speculates that the bleeding face cut was pre-existing, that the mark on the curb (described by all who saw it as being fresh) was pre-existing and that there were probably a whole lot of other similar marks on curbs in Dallas, is basing conclusions on speculation, not the evidence.
-
I agree. Tague was not inconsistent in his evidence. He recalled 3 distinct shots and he recalled that he felt something strike his face on one of the shots. He was able to accurately determine which shot struck him. He never changed his evidence on that. When first asked the question as to which of the three shots struck him, he said he did not know. However, when questioned further he was able to provide a clear answer: he knew he heard a shot before he felt something and he knew he heard a shot after he was hit. So while he did not consciously relate the feeling of being hit to the second shot at the time, his memory of when he was not struck left him with an unambiguous conclusion that he was struck on the second shot.
Anyone who speculates that the bleeding face cut was pre-existing, that the mark on the curb (described by all who saw it as being fresh) was pre-existing and that there were probably a whole lot of other similar marks on curbs in Dallas, is basing conclusions on speculation, not the evidence.
he knew he heard a shot before he felt something and he knew he heard a shot after he was hit.
You are flat out wrong. In his testimony he was never asked if he heard a shot before he felt something. And he never said that he knew anything about which shot hit him. He did say that he couldn't tell him definitely. And he said that he would guess it was either the second or third shot. When he finally says he believes he heard shots after he was hit, it is not the same as saying he knew this. So, your claim that Tague knew those things is not supported by what he actually said. Here is a pertinent part of his Warren Commission testimony:
Now you yourself, as I understand it, did not see the President hit?
Mr. TAGUE I did not ; no.
Mr. LIEBELEB. How long after did you feel yourself get hit by anything?
Mr. TAGUE. I felt it at the time, but I didn’t associate, didn’t make any connnection, and ignored it. And after this happened, or maybe the second or third
shot, I couldn’t tell you definitely-I made no connection. I looked around
wondering what was going on, and I recall this. We got to talking, and I recall
that something had stinged me, and then the deputy sheriff looked up and said,
“You have blood there on your cheek.” That is when we walked back down
there.
Mr. LIEBELER Do you have any idea which bullet might have made that mark?
Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn’t say
definitely on which one.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in
the face?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot
afterwards.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear three shots?
Mr. TAGUE. I heard three shots; yes sir. And I did notice the time on the
Hertz clock. It was 12 29.
Mr. LIEBELER. That was about the time that you felt yourself struck?
Mr. TAGUE. I just glanced. I mean I just stopped, got out of my car, and here
came the motorcade. I just happened upon the scene.
There is absolutely nothing definite about which shot hit him included in that testimony. Therefore, one cannot definitely rule out the possibility that it was the first shot.
Edit: Also, I believe that he changed his mind later on and said he believed it to be the third shot. I think that is his story that he used in his book. But I would have to look for that to verify. However, I am sure that he has said at one time or another that he believed it was the third shot. THATS being inconsistent.
-
The witness testified under oath that he didn’t know which shot to associate with his getting stung.
And here you imply that he actually knows that it wasn’t the first shot:
If Tague actually said that, it is at odds with his sworn testimony. You can believe whatever you wish. I really couldn’t care less.
Tague initially volunteered that it was either the second or third shot, he didn't know which. But when questioned further he did recall that there was a shot after he was hit, so he concluded that he was hit on the second shot. It is difficult to interpret that other than a statement that he was not hit on the first shot.
-
Tague initially volunteered that it was either the second or third shot, he didn't know which. But when questioned further he did recall that there was a shot after he was hit, so he concluded that he was hit on the second shot. It is difficult to interpret that other than a statement that he was not hit on the first shot.
Tague initially volunteered that it was either the second or third shot, he didn’t know which.
Correction, he volunteered a guess, just a guess. He had had months to consider what he had witnessed before he testified to the Warren Commission. Do you really believe that he hadn’t been asked which shot hit him before that point in time? Do you really believe that was the first time he thought whether or not he heard any shots after he was stung? Do you really believe that it all suddenly came back to him after Liebeler asked that question? Hell no, that makes no sense whatsoever. The first thing Tague said when this line of questioning began was he couldn’t say definitely because he made no connection. This wasn’t like they were asking shortly after it happened. He had had time to consider everything and to anticipate this question. His answer was most definitely that he didn’t know. How the hell do you think someone can make no connection but somehow, some mysterious way rule out the first shot? Please explain how that could possibly work!!!
Edit: Also, he testified to the Warren Commission that he believed he heard shot(s) after he was hit. Years later, in his book he writes “I can now safely say and with confidence that it was the third shot that missed.” So, I have to ask you Mr. Andrew Mason, how you can honestly say that: “he knew he heard a shot before he felt something and he knew he heard a shot after he was hit.”???
Tague himself only appears to offer that, from his position, the sound of the first shot sounded like a firecracker and the other two shots had the crack of a rifle shot. So it appears to me that his reason for discounting the possibility for a first shot hitting the curb near him is that he didn’t think it was a rifle shot. I have seen no other explanation from Tague to explain why he believes it wasn’t the first shot. He obviously doesn’t know which shot hit him. But some how, some mysterious way, he knows it wasn’t the first shot??? As Mr Spock used to say, that isn’t logical.
-
I agree. Tague was not inconsistent in his evidence. He recalled 3 distinct shots and he recalled that he felt something strike his face on one of the shots. He was able to accurately determine which shot struck him. He never changed his evidence on that. When first asked the question as to which of the three shots struck him, he said he did not know. However, when questioned further he was able to provide a clear answer: he knew he heard a shot before he felt something and he knew he heard a shot after he was hit. So while he did not consciously relate the feeling of being hit to the second shot at the time, his memory of when he was not struck left him with an unambiguous conclusion that he was struck on the second shot.
Anyone who speculates that the bleeding face cut was pre-existing, that the mark on the curb (described by all who saw it as being fresh) was pre-existing and that there were probably a whole lot of other similar marks on curbs in Dallas, is basing conclusions on speculation, not the evidence.
The facts are that Tague had a preexisting cut to his face. Many authors have mistakenly suggested this was the wound he received during the assassination. Photos were taken of the preexisting cut. He ducked behind an overpass during the shooting. He only discovered the bleeding on his cheek afterward. It doesn't take much "speculation" to suggest that most city street curbs have marks or chips. You can simply walk down almost any city block in America and confirm in five seconds. Tague's "evidence" is that he heard some shots, ducked behind the overpass, and a few minutes later discovered his cheek was bleeding. He attributes the wound to the shooting. He looks around and sees a mark on the curb and speculates that might be where a bullet struck. Because he had a preexisting facial injury he may have just reopened the wound when he ducked behind the overpass or the injury occurred by scratching his face on the overpass pillar. I'm not saying that he wasn't struck as a result of the shooting. It is entirely possible, but I'm amazed that this is accepted as a fact without any question.
-
Tague initially volunteered that it was either the second or third shot, he didn’t know which.
Correction, he volunteered a guess, just a guess. He had had months to consider what he had witnessed before he testified to the Warren Commission. Do you really believe that he hadn’t been asked which shot hit him before that point in time? Do you really believe that was the first time he thought whether or not he heard any shots after he was stung? Do you really believe that it all suddenly came back to him after Liebeler asked that question? Hell no, that makes no sense whatsoever. The first thing Tague said when this line of questioning began was he couldn’t say definitely because he made no connection. This wasn’t like they were asking shortly after it happened. He had had time to consider everything and to anticipate this question. His answer was most definitely that he didn’t know. How the hell do you think someone can make no connection but somehow, some mysterious way rule out the first shot? Please explain how that could possibly work!!!
Edit: Also, he testified to the Warren Commission that he believed he heard shot(s) after he was hit. Years later, in his book he writes “I can now safely say and with confidence that it was the third shot that missed.” So, I have to ask you Mr. Andrew Mason, how you can honestly say that: “he knew he heard a shot before he felt something and he knew he heard a shot after he was hit.”???
Tague himself only appears to offer that, from his position, the sound of the first shot sounded like a firecracker and the other two shots had the crack of a rifle shot. So it appears to me that his reason for discounting the possibility for a first shot hitting the curb near him is that he didn’t think it was a rifle shot. I have seen no other explanation from Tague to explain why he believes it wasn’t the first shot. He obviously doesn’t know which shot hit him. But some how, some mysterious way, he knows it wasn’t the first shot??? As Mr Spock used to say, that isn’t logical.
Now you are saying something different. You are questioning the reliability of what he said rather than what he said.
I agree that one witness can be wrong. So you look for corroboration.
Obviously, the shot on which a fragment struck him was not the shot that fired CE399. So the first question is: which of the shots was CE399? It must have been the shot that struck JFK in the neck because it certainly wasn't the head shot bullet. There were over 20 witnesses who said it was the first shot - that JFK reacted immediately by moving left, grabbing his chest, ducking - etc. Definitely not by smiling and waving. No one said that. Also, the shot pattern observed by the vast majority of witnesses who recalled the pattern with the last two closer together and in rapid succession (plus possibly dozens of others who were not asked but described the first shot and then two more without commenting on the spacing) leaves only one possibility: that the first shot did not miss (ie. that the witnesses who saw JFK react to the first shot were correct). So if CE399 was the first shot, that leaves the second or third shot as the only possibilities.
Greer also provides evidence that is consistent with the second shot fragmenting. Greer recalled sensing a "concussion" effect from the second shot. I don't think that means he felt a head injury. So he heard or felt an impact somehow. That was the only shot on which he noted that kind of event. Keep in mind that his right ear was about 12 inches from the damage to the top windshield frame, so it would be surprising if he had not heard that impact. That fits with another fragment going a bit higher over the windshield and eventually striking the curb near Tague.
And Tague's recollection fits with the physical evidence of multiple fragments traveling high on the windshield and Greer's evidence that he felt a concussion on the second shot.
-
Now you are saying something different. You are questioning the reliability of what he said rather than what he said.
I agree that one witness can be wrong. So you look for corroboration.
Obviously, the shot on which a fragment struck him was not the shot that fired CE399. So the first question is: which of the shots was CE399? It must have been the shot that struck JFK in the neck because it certainly wasn't the head shot bullet. There were over 20 witnesses who said it was the first shot - that JFK reacted immediately by moving left, grabbing his chest, ducking - etc. Definitely not by smiling and waving. No one said that. Also, the shot pattern observed by the vast majority of witnesses who recalled the pattern with the last two closer together and in rapid succession (plus possibly dozens of others who were not asked but described the first shot and then two more without commenting on the spacing) leaves only one possibility: that the first shot did not miss (ie. that the witnesses who saw JFK react to the first shot were correct). So if CE399 was the first shot, that leaves the second or third shot as the only possibilities.
Greer also provides evidence that is consistent with the second shot fragmenting. Greer recalled sensing a "concussion" effect from the second shot. I don't think that means he felt a head injury. So he heard or felt an impact somehow. That was the only shot on which he noted that kind of event. Keep in mind that his right ear was about 12 inches from the damage to the top windshield frame, so it would be surprising if he had not heard that impact. That fits with another fragment going a bit higher over the windshield and eventually striking the curb near Tague.
And Tague's recollection fits with the physical evidence of multiple fragments traveling high on the windshield and Greer's evidence that he felt a concussion on the second shot.
Okay, you’ve had your chance to explain why Tague’s wishy washy fickle statements should be a legitimate reason to completely rule out the first shot was responsible for his injury. And you’ve failed miserably because he obviously doesn’t know which shot hit him. Thank you.
-
Okay, you’ve had your chance to explain why Tague’s wishy washy fickle statements should be a legitimate reason to completely rule out the first shot was responsible for his injury. And you’ve failed miserably because he obviously doesn’t know which shot hit him. Thank you.
If you have ever seen the cement bridge abutment pillars that make up the underpass, it provides an alternative as to how he really supposedly scrapped his cheek. They are a extremely rough pebbly cement and he was pressed up against the pillar, seeking cover, while the cars left for the hospital. All he eversaw was the tail end of the Secret Service car disappearing under the overpass.
Mr. Tague.
Well, I was standing there watching, and really I was watching to try to distinguish the President and his car. About this time I heard what sounded like a firecracker. Well, a very loud firecracker. It certainly didn't sound like a rifleshot. It was more of a loud cannon-type sound. I looked around to see who was throwing firecrackers or what was going on and I turned my head away from the motorcade and, of course, two more shots.
And I ducked behind the post when I realized somebody was shooting after the third shot. After the third shot, I ducked behind the bridge abutment and was there for a second, and I glanced out and Just as I looked out, the car following the President's car, the one with the Secret Service men, was just flying past at that time.
The only person who ever stated there was blood on Tague's cheek was Tague.
Mr. Walthers.
That's right--in this lane here and his car was just partially sticking out parked there and he came up to me and asked me, he said, "Are you looking to see where some bullets may have struck?" And I said, "Yes." He says, "I was standing over by the bank here, right there where my car is parked when those shots happened," and he said, "I don't know where they came from, or if they were shots, but something struck me on the face," and he said, "It didn't make any scratch or cut and it just was a sting," and so I had him show me right where he was standing and I started to search in that immediate area and found a place on the curb there in the Main Street lane there close to the underpass where a projectile had struck that curb.
-
Tague's book apparently contains photos taken on Nov. 23. But I've read that these photos are of preexisting wound to his left cheek. Not sure if anyone has the book. I can't find the pictures online. Are there any photos of his wound? His face appears in a William Allen photo of Charles Brehm but you can only see the left side clearly.
-
Tague's book apparently contains photos taken on Nov. 23. But I've read that these photos are of preexisting wound to his left cheek. Not sure if anyone has the book. I can't find the pictures online. Are there any photos of his wound? His face appears in a William Allen photo of Charles Brehm but you can only see the left side clearly.
I have a signed copy of Tague’s book “Truth Withheld”. I just flipped through it twice and didn’t find a photo that shows Tague’s wound. He shows a Frank Chancellare photo of him in the distance near the triple overpass. And, of course, he has a photo of the front page of the National Enquirer dated April 7, 1968. Headline reads: Exclusive, “Man wounded in assassination of JFK finally talks” under the headline it reads: A few minutes after the shooting, while blood was still streaming from the wound in my face, I showed police the mark on a curb where a bullet or bullet fragment hit near me.
Now you know that the National Enquirer always prints the truth….. ::)
-
Okay, you’ve had your chance to explain why Tague’s wishy washy fickle statements should be a legitimate reason to completely rule out the first shot was responsible for his injury. And you’ve failed miserably because he obviously doesn’t know which shot hit him. Thank you.
The point was that we don't have to take Tague's word that the first shot did not hit him. The evidence of at least 60 other people was that the first shot struck JFK in the neck. So unless you think that CE399 was the bullet that passed through JFK's head and the first shot that passed through JFK's neck fragmented, there is no way that Tague was hit by a fragment from the first shot.
-
I have a signed copy of Tague’s book “Truth Withheld”. I just flipped through it twice and didn’t find a photo that shows Tague’s wound. He shows a Frank Chancellare photo of him in the distance near the triple overpass. And, of course, he has a photo of the front page of the National Enquirer dated April 7, 1968. Headline reads: Exclusive, “Man wounded in assassination of JFK finally talks” under the headline it reads: A few minutes after the shooting, while blood was still streaming from the wound in my face, I showed police the mark on a curb where a bullet or bullet fragment hit near me.
Now you know that the National Enquirer always prints the truth….. ::)
Are there no pictures of Tague's wound? This is what it says on wiki:
"In Tague's Truth Withheld, he published pictures of the wound that were taken on November 23, 1963.[5]" JFK - L. Fletcher Prouty; Chapter 19, Page 300, Paragraph 3
-
The point was that we don't have to take Tague's word that the first shot did not hit him. The evidence of at least 60 other people was that the first shot struck JFK in the neck. So unless you think that CE399 was the bullet that passed through JFK's head and the first shot that passed through JFK's neck fragmented, there is no way that Tague was hit by a fragment from the first shot.
You can go argue your point with someone who thinks it is productive to argue the “he said, she said” crap. There is another ongoing thread that was started by someone else who appears to be of that mindset. This thread is about the physical evidence. I used the mark in the curb and Tague’s wound as physical evidence. Someone objected because he said Tague said it wasn’t the first shot. My argument is that Tague doesn’t know which shot hit him. You haven’t shown that Tague actually does know which shot hit him. If you come up with anything that indicates he does know based on his own memory, please let us know…
-
Are there no pictures of Tague's wound? This is what it says on wiki:
"In Tague's Truth Withheld, he published pictures of the wound that were taken on November 23, 1963.[5]" JFK - L. Fletcher Prouty; Chapter 19, Page 300, Paragraph 3
I have to assume that the reference is to L. Fletcher Prouty’s book. Tague’s book only has 193 numbered pages in it. But I will search through it again just in case I missed it. I will let you know one way or the other. Thanks.
-
I have to assume that the reference is to L. Fletcher Prouty’s book. Tague’s book only has 193 numbered pages in it. But I will search through it again just in case I missed it. I will let you know one way or the other. Thanks.
The text of the Prouty book is online. Remarkably it says the following:
"The Secret Service, the FBI, and the Warren Commission had to admit that one of the three
bullets fired by their “lone gunman” missed. This admission was forced upon them by the fact
that James Tague, a bystander, was struck on the cheek by a fragment of the bullet or by a bit of
the granite curbstone struck by that errant round. In either case, Tague was photographed with
blood running down his cheek by an alert news cameramen. He also photographed the curbstone
where Tague stood that day, and those photographs show the bullet strike on the stone."
If Prouty is referring to the William Allen photo that captures Tague standing in the background, it shows no such thing. In fact, the right side of his face is not visible. It shows only the left side (the preexisting wound side again). If it shows any blood (and I can't see any) then it would be from the preexisting cut. Prouty also indicates that the curb was removed on Nov. 23. I don't believe that happened until months later. Unless, I'm missing something this appears to be a case of misinformation being reported from one source to another until accepted as a fact.
-
The text of the Prouty book is online. Remarkably it says the following:
"The Secret Service, the FBI, and the Warren Commission had to admit that one of the three
bullets fired by their “lone gunman” missed. This admission was forced upon them by the fact
that James Tague, a bystander, was struck on the cheek by a fragment of the bullet or by a bit of
the granite curbstone struck by that errant round. In either case, Tague was photographed with
blood running down his cheek by an alert news cameramen. He also photographed the curbstone
where Tague stood that day, and those photographs show the bullet strike on the stone."
If Prouty is referring to the William Allen photo that captures Tague standing in the background, it shows no such thing. In fact, the right side of his face is not visible. It shows only the left side (the preexisting wound side again). If it shows any blood (and I can't see any) then it would be from the preexisting cut. Prouty also indicates that the curb was removed on Nov. 23. I don't believe that happened until months later. Unless, I'm missing something this appears to be a case of misinformation being reported from one source to another until accepted as a fact.
Thanks, i did complete a slow scan of the book looking at the page numbers to make sure I didn’t miss any photos. There is no photo of Tague with a bleeding wound on his face.
On page 165 there is a photo of the scar on the curb that is stated to be taken by Tom Dillard. So, it might be worth searching all of Dillard’s photos for one of Tague. However, it does seem to me that if there is one that Tague would have certainly published it in his book!?? Also, on page 168, it shows a photo looking back at the TSBD from the position of the scar on the curb that was taken on 8/5/64 by the FBI just before the curb section was cut from the street.
-
I found another witness who stated that he saw a short piece of material flying close to the ground at the time of the first shot. I wasn’t previously aware of Special Agent Warren W. Taylor’s report dated 11/29/63. He stated that he saw it out of the corner of his eye near the right rear of the Vice Presidential follow-up car. I believe that this report should be considered reliable due to the fact that he was a responsible trained observer and felt that his observation was important enough to include in his report.
-
I found another witness who stated that he saw a short piece of material flying close to the ground at the time of the first shot. I wasn’t previously aware of Special Agent Warren W. Taylor’s report dated 11/29/63. He stated that he saw it out of the corner of his eye near the right rear of the Vice Presidential follow-up car. I believe that this report should be considered reliable due to the fact that he was a responsible trained observer and felt that his observation was important enough to include in his report.
So when I post the evidence of 10 witnesses in the VP car and VP follow-up car [Reply #2] that blows your first shot miss nonsense out of the water it's "he said, she said" crap. And when these witnesses include two highway patrol officers and four Special Agents it's still "he said, she said" crap.
But when you post the evidence of a single agent it "should be considered reliable due to the fact that he was a responsible trained observer."
The irony being that one of the witnesses included in the 10 I quote is...you guessed it...Warren W Taylor. Thumb1:
-
So when I post the evidence of 10 witnesses in the VP car and VP follow-up car [Reply #2] that blows your first shot miss nonsense out of the water it's "he said, she said" crap. And when these witnesses include two highway patrol officers and four Special Agents it's still "he said, she said" crap.
But when you post the evidence of a single agent it "should be considered reliable due to the fact that he was a responsible trained observer."
The irony being that one of the witnesses included in the 10 I quote is...you guessed it...Warren W Taylor. Thumb1:
Why did you fail to mention that he saw something flying close to the ground that he associated with the first shot? That would have been relevant to a thread about physical evidence of a first shot miss. Is the reason that you excluded it because it doesn’t support your theory?
-
The Tague story is interesting when you look into it further. Some authors including Prouty cite the Allen photo as confirmation of Tague's wound. He even characterizes the picture as showing his bloody face. There is no blood shown in the photo and it depicts only the left side of Tague's face (not the side that he claimed was wounded during the assassination). In addition, Walthers testimony glosses over whether he observed a wound or blood on Tague's face. In fact, his recollection appears to be that Tague indicated that he felt a sting but that there was no cut. Tague claims he was at the DPD and saw Oswald after he was arrested. I wonder if there any photos or films that capture Tague (or even any confirmation that he was actually there)?
Mr. LIEBELER. Down at the point marked No. 9 of the exhibit we are talking about; is that right?
Mr. WALTHERS. That's right--in this lane here and his car was just partially sticking out parked there and he came up to me and asked me, he said, "Are you looking to see where some bullets may have struck?" And I said, "Yes." He says, "I was standing over by the bank here, right there where my car is parked when those shots happened," and he said, "I don't know where they came from, or if they were shots, but something struck me on the face," and he said, "It didn't make any scratch or cut and it just was a sting," and so I had him show me right where he was standing and I started to search in that immediate area and found a place on the curb there in the Main Street lane there close to the underpass where a projectile had struck that curb.
Mr. LIEBELER. Would you remember that man's name if I told you or if I reminded you of it?
Mr. WALTHERS. I'm sorry--I don't know if I would remember it or not.
Mr. LIEBELER. There is a man by the name of Jim Tague [spelling], T-a-g-u-e, who works as an automobile salesman.
Mr. WALTHERS. I remember he had a gray automobile---I remember that very well.
Mr. LIEBELER. I think it must have been Mr. Tague because he was in here this afternoon and he told me his car was parked right there at No. 9 and that's when I put the mark on the exhibit and he walked up there and talked to a deputy sheriff and he looked at the curb.
Mr. WALTHERS. Yes; this was pure ignorance on my part in not getting his name---I don't know---but I didn't.
Mr. LIEBELER. I think it is pretty clear it was Mr. Tague, because his testimony he gave today jibed with yours and it couldn't have been anybody else and he had a cut and some blood on his face.
Mr. WALTHERS. Well, at the time I wasn't interested in whether he was cut or what, I just said, "Where were you standing?" In an effort to prove there was some shots fired, and after seeing the way it struck the curb at an angle---which it came down on the curb---it was almost obvious that it either came from this building or this building [indicating] the angle it struck the curb at.
-
From the WC testimony of Clyde Haygood:
Mr. BELIN: You talked to any other witnesses there?
Mr. HAYGOOD: Yes. There was another one came up who was located, at the time he stated, on the south side of Elm Street back toward the triple underpass. Back, well, it would be north of the underpass there, and said he had gotten hit by a piece of concrete or something, and he did have a slight cut on his right cheek, upper portion of his cheek just to the right of his nose.
-
The Tague story is interesting when you look into it further. Some authors including Prouty cite the Allen photo as confirmation of Tague's wound. He even characterizes the picture as showing his bloody face. There is no blood shown in the photo and it depicts only the left side of Tague's face (not the side that he claimed was wounded during the assassination). In addition, Walthers testimony glosses over whether he observed a wound or blood on Tague's face. In fact, his recollection appears to be that Tague indicated that he felt a sting but that there was no cut. Tague claims he was at the DPD and saw Oswald after he was arrested. I wonder if there any photos or films that capture Tague (or even any confirmation that he was actually there)?
Mr. LIEBELER. Down at the point marked No. 9 of the exhibit we are talking about; is that right?
Mr. WALTHERS. That's right--in this lane here and his car was just partially sticking out parked there and he came up to me and asked me, he said, "Are you looking to see where some bullets may have struck?" And I said, "Yes." He says, "I was standing over by the bank here, right there where my car is parked when those shots happened," and he said, "I don't know where they came from, or if they were shots, but something struck me on the face," and he said, "It didn't make any scratch or cut and it just was a sting," and so I had him show me right where he was standing and I started to search in that immediate area and found a place on the curb there in the Main Street lane there close to the underpass where a projectile had struck that curb.
Mr. LIEBELER. Would you remember that man's name if I told you or if I reminded you of it?
Mr. WALTHERS. I'm sorry--I don't know if I would remember it or not.
Mr. LIEBELER. There is a man by the name of Jim Tague [spelling], T-a-g-u-e, who works as an automobile salesman.
Mr. WALTHERS. I remember he had a gray automobile---I remember that very well.
Mr. LIEBELER. I think it must have been Mr. Tague because he was in here this afternoon and he told me his car was parked right there at No. 9 and that's when I put the mark on the exhibit and he walked up there and talked to a deputy sheriff and he looked at the curb.
Mr. WALTHERS. Yes; this was pure ignorance on my part in not getting his name---I don't know---but I didn't.
Mr. LIEBELER. I think it is pretty clear it was Mr. Tague, because his testimony he gave today jibed with yours and it couldn't have been anybody else and he had a cut and some blood on his face.
Mr. WALTHERS. Well, at the time I wasn't interested in whether he was cut or what, I just said, "Where were you standing?" In an effort to prove there was some shots fired, and after seeing the way it struck the curb at an angle---which it came down on the curb---it was almost obvious that it either came from this building or this building [indicating] the angle it struck the curb at.
It is difficult to have a lot of confidence in what Tague says. In his book he states that Walthers told him that he had blood on his face. And then, subsequently, Tague put the palm of his hand on his face to feel and discovered there was a couple of drops of blood. If you have ever cut yourself shaving, you know how easily the face bleeds a lot of blood with just a very minor cut. So, I think any abrasion that Tague might have received from the shot had to have been very very minor for there to be only a couple of drops of blood.
That said, the Tom Dillard photo that is shown on page 165 of Tague’s book does appear to me to be a fresh chip out of the curb that could have been caused by a bullet or fragment of a bullet from the TSBD. Therefore I do consider it to be possible physical evidence of a missed shot. Tague’s wound would be another piece of physical evidence (if one believes it existed). We need to keep in mind that different people usually remember the same event somewhat differently. Walther’s lack of a memory of Tague’s wound is understandable given the circumstances and what we can only imagine was going through his mind at that point in time.
-
The contrarian "mind" is an astounding thing to behold. I specifically noted that whether Tague was wounded makes no difference to the LN vs CTer debate. And the contrarian suggests that I have only questioned this witness because it supports my view that Oswald was the assassin. Huh? Of course, Tague being wounded is part of the "official" narrative that contrarians so mightily struggle against. Making it all the more astounding that questioning Tague's story is somehow promoting that narrative.
But the narrative also requires that for Tague to have been wounded at all, it could not have been the second (magic bullet) shot.
-
There's no photo of Nick McDonald's allegedly "bloodied nose" either, but the LN-faithful don't seem to reserve any of their Tague skepticism for that..
-
No bloody nose needed
The scrape will do
(https://i.postimg.cc/1tNF5wVr/Nick-McD.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/T375VCrc/NICK-2.png)
-
But the narrative also requires that for Tague to have been wounded at all, it could not have been the second (magic bullet) shot.
No it doesn't. It just requires accepting that the first shot struck JFK. The entire WC was of that view.
-
No bloody nose needed
The scrape will do
Will do for what? McDonald himself said that was self-inflicted.
-
No bloody nose needed
The scrape will do
(https://i.postimg.cc/1tNF5wVr/Nick-McD.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/T375VCrc/NICK-2.png)
[/quote
There were also numerous witnesses to Oswald resisting arrest and/or involved in the actual struggle to subdue him. And, of course, whether McDonald had a bloody nose or not is not material to the event. Whereas the nature of Tague's injury (product of preexisting injury, bullet fragment, or overpass pillar) is the entire point in that situation.
-
Will do for what? McDonald himself said that was self-inflicted.
McDonald himself said that was self-inflicted.
_AKA known as he was trying to wrench the gun away from Oswald
-
There were also numerous witnesses to Oswald resisting arrest and/or involved in the actual struggle to subdue him. And, of course, whether McDonald had a bloody nose or not is not material to the event. Whereas the nature of Tague's injury (product of preexisting injury, bullet fragment, or overpass pillar) is the entire point in that situation.
Of course it's material. The alleged punch in the nose was his excuse for punching Oswald in the face (which there IS photo evidence of) and then "subduing" him.
-
That is his story. It is odd that Tague just happens to have a preexisting cut to his face. Photos taken afterward apparently often confuse that wound for the alleged wound during the assassination. Why would he allow anyone to take photos of the preexisting wound that has nothing to do with the assassination? He ducked behind the overpass when the shooting began. Maybe he caused this wound while doing that and thought it was related to the assassination. It just seems extremely unlikely - but not impossible - that a bullet fragment fired at the JFK car ends up wounding Tague given his position at the time. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it just seems unlikely that no one along the parade route was hit by a bullet fragment but Tague standing a couple streets over is wounded. Is there any confirmation from Buddy Walthers that he saw the blood? There were apparently pictures taken of the wound but I've also never seen them.
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes. There was another one came up who was located, at the time he stated, on the south side of Elm Street back toward the triple underpass. Back, well, it would be north of the underpass there, and said he had gotten hit by a piece of concrete or something, and he did have a slight cut on his right cheek, upper portion of his cheek just to the right of his nose.
Mr. BELIN. Would he have been to the front or to the back of the Presidential…
-
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes. There was another one came up who was located, at the time he stated, on the south side of Elm Street back toward the triple underpass. Back, well, it would be north of the underpass there, and said he had gotten hit by a piece of concrete or something, and he did have a slight cut on his right cheek, upper portion of his cheek just to the right of his nose.
Mr. BELIN. Would he have been to the front or to the back of the Presidential…
Given the three impact locations on the windshield, one of which was about as high as possible, it would be surprising if there were not some fragments that went over the top of the windshield. And then there is the evidence of the mark on the curb which was described as being a fresh mark. There was no damage to the curb - no concrete missing. It was just a mark that left traces of lead and antimony when it was analysed 8 months later. For Tague to imagine something that did not happen but have it fit with this evidence would be implausible. All this evidence fits with Tague being hit by a fragment from one of the shots - the second shot, according to Tague's WC testimony.
-
Given the three impact locations on the windshield, one of which was about as high as possible, it would be surprising if there were not some fragments that went over the top of the windshield. And then there is the evidence of the mark on the curb which was described as being a fresh mark. There was no damage to the curb - no concrete missing. It was just a mark that left traces of lead and antimony when it was analysed 8 months later. For Tague to imagine something that did not happen but have it fit with this evidence would be implausible. All this evidence fits with Tague being hit by a fragment from one of the shots - the second shot, according to Tague's WC testimony.
"All this evidence fits with Tague being hit by a fragment from one of the shots - the second shot, according to Tague's WC testimony."
Isn't your second shot the one that was supposed to exit JBC's chest while he was facing Zapruder?
How could a fragment from such a shot head towards Tague?
-
"All this evidence fits with Tague being hit by a fragment from one of the shots - the second shot, according to Tague's WC testimony."
Isn't your second shot the one that was supposed to exit JBC's chest while he was facing Zapruder?
How could a fragment from such a shot head towards Tague?
The deflection is off the wrist that is pressed against the chest. The bullet sent a spray of lead throughout the wrist wound after striking and shattering the radius well above the wrist joint.
No one has ever been able to explain how the bullet and its resulting fragments would not obey the laws of physics and deflect away from the point of contact. So if the bullet obeyed the laws of physics, it should have deflected up slightly. The fragments that struck the windshield were spread over an area of about 12" x 12" ranging from the upper edge down to below the mirror.