JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on August 21, 2026, 06:10:24 PM
-
The Warren Commission (WC) and the FBI tried to ignore the wounding of James Tague. Tague was standing about 450 feet from the Texas School Book Depository during the shooting. A bullet or large fragment struck the curb on Main Street about 20 feet from where he was standing. Moments after the shooting, a police officer noticed that Tague was bleeding from his right cheek. Tague had either been struck by a piece of concrete that had been sent flying from the curb scar, or by a fragment from the missile that hit the curb, or by a fragment that struck him before it hit anything else.
The curb scar was deep enough that Tague assumed he could have been cut by a chip of concrete from it. He recalled that when the shooting started he had felt a sting on his cheek. Later, he described the mark on the curb as it appeared when he saw it:
There was a mark. Quite obviously, it was a bullet, and it was very fresh. (WCR, p. 116)
Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers, who saw the mark soon after the shooting, agreed that it had been caused by a bullet. Patrolman Clyde Haygood, who radioed in the incident at around 12:40, said Tague might have been hit “by a ricochet from the bullet off the concrete” (WCR, p. 116). In a 1966 filmed interview, Tague unequivocally said the curb mark was the result of a bullet striking the curb.
WC apologists have been unable to provide a plausible, credible explanation for the Tague wounding.
Gerald Posner's theory to explain the Tague incident is the most fanciful of all the attempts to explain it. Posner theorizes that the scar on the curb was caused by a lead fragment from a bullet that allegedly struck a limb of the oak tree, in spite of the fact that the tree whose limb the bullet supposedly hit was at least 400 feet from the curb. Additionally, according to Posner, this was the first shot, but Tague said it was the second shot that hit the curb and caused the wound on his face.
Moreover, Posner theorizes that the lead core separated from its copper jacketing after the alleged tree-branch collision and then traveled in a straight line to the curb, missing everything in between. However, after separating from the jacket and then flying over 400 feet, it is extremely doubtful the lead core would have been able to hit the curb with enough force to cause a concrete chip or metal fragment to reach Tague with enough speed to visibly cut his face, nor is it at all likely that such a lead fragment would have had enough force to fly straight to Tague's face and then cut it.
To make matters worse, Posner says the tree-branch-collision bullet also sent a sizable fragment downward, and that this fragment was the missile that five witnesses saw hit the pavement behind the limo early in the shooting.
Those who are familiar with FMJ bullet behavior will see other problems with Posner's theory, assuming for the sake of argument that the bullet was an FMJ bullet fired from the sixth-floor window. Ballistics tests show that an FMJ bullet fired from the sixth-floor window would have easily penetrated several inches into an oak limb and would not have had its jacket and core separated by the collision. Typically, an FMJ bullet will penetrate at least 2 inches into oak wood when fired from around 100 feet away (the oak tree was 60-100 feet from the sixth-floor window, depending on which limb one assumes was hit).
If the bullet merely grazed a tree limb, this certainly would not have caused the jacket to separate from the lead core, nor would it have caused the bullet to lose two sizable fragments.
The WC's theory to explain the Tague wounding is only slightly less implausible than Posner's fairy tale. The WC theorized that a fragment from the head shot hit the curb and/or wounded Tague's face -- never mind the fact that the fragment would have exited the righthand side of the skull, whereas Tague was standing to the left of the limo; and never mind the fact that the fragment would have had to clear the limo's windshield and roll bar and then dive downward while still retaining enough velocity to cause the required damage.
It is no wonder that WC staffers and the FBI did their level best to ignore the Tague wounding. Indeed, when the WC finally got around to asking the FBI to look into the matter, the Dallas FBI office replied that they could not find the curb scar, and suggested it had been wiped away by street cleaners!
The lone-gunman theory's inability to explain the Tague wounding is one of many proofs that it is implausible and untenable.
"The Wounding of James Tague Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory of the JFK Assassination"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QGE1Se8HuF99CToouKhKW0OSRprmspwX/view
-
The Warren Commission (WC) and the FBI tried to ignore the wounding of James Tague. Tague was standing about 450 feet from the Texas School Book Depository during the shooting. A bullet or large fragment struck the curb on Main Street about 20 feet from where he was standing. Moments after the shooting, a police officer noticed that Tague was bleeding from his right cheek. Tague had either been struck by a piece of concrete that had been sent flying from the curb scar, or by a fragment from the missile that hit the curb, or by a fragment that struck him before it hit anything else.
Probably but not certainly.
The curb scar was deep enough that Tague assumed he could have been cut by a chip of concrete from it. He recalled that when the shooting started he had felt a sting on his cheek. Later, he described the mark on the curb as it appeared when he saw it:
There was a mark. Quite obviously, it was a bullet, and it was very fresh. (WCR, p. 116)
Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers, who saw the mark soon after the shooting, agreed that it had been caused by a bullet. Patrolman Clyde Haygood, who radioed in the incident at around 12:40, said Tague might have been hit “by a ricochet from the bullet off the concrete” (WCR, p. 116). In a 1966 filmed interview, Tague unequivocally said the curb mark was the result of a bullet striking the curb.
WC apologists have been unable to provide a plausible, credible explanation for the Tague wounding.
Not so. There is not positive proof of what caused Tague's injury. The most likely cause would a ricochet from the first shot miss or a fragment from the head shot. I have gone back and forth as to which one is the more likely explanation. There are arguments for and against both scenarios but nothing that settles the question.
Gerald Posner's theory to explain the Tague incident is the most fanciful of all the attempts to explain it. Posner theorizes that the scar on the curb was caused by a lead fragment from a bullet that allegedly struck a limb of the oak tree, in spite of the fact that the tree whose limb the bullet supposedly hit was at least 400 feet from the curb. Additionally, according to Posner, this was the first shot, but Tague said it was the second shot that hit the curb and caused the wound on his face.
Tague was wrong. The second shot was CE399 and that whole bullet, except for a few flakes of lead, was found at Parkland. The curb near Tague could have been struck by a first shot ricochet or a fragment of the headshot. There is no evidence that proves or disproves either possibility.
Moreover, Posner theorizes that the lead core separated from its copper jacketing after the alleged tree-branch collision and then traveled in a straight line to the curb, missing everything in between. However, after separating from the jacket and then flying over 400 feet, it is extremely doubtful the lead core would have been able to hit the curb with enough force to cause a concrete chip or metal fragment to reach Tague with enough speed to visibly cut his face, nor is it at all likely that such a lead fragment would have had enough force to fly straight to Tague's face and then cut it.
You are offering an unproven hypothesis based on your assumption. Not very compelling.
To make matters worse, Posner says the tree-branch-collision bullet also sent a sizable fragment downward, and that this fragment was the missile that five witnesses saw hit the pavement behind the limo early in the shooting.
Another unproven hypothesis based on an assumption. You are not alone in that regard.
Those who are familiar with FMJ bullet behavior will see other problems with Posner's theory, assuming for the sake of argument that the bullet was an FMJ bullet fired from the sixth-floor window. Ballistics tests show that an FMJ bullet fired from the sixth-floor window would have easily penetrated several inches into an oak limb and would not have had its jacket and core separated by the collision. Typically, an FMJ bullet will penetrate at least 2 inches into oak wood when fired from around 100 feet away (the oak tree was 60-100 feet from the sixth-floor window, depending on which limb one assumes was hit).
Your argument assumes the bullet behaved in a typical manner. An atypical behavior remains a possibility.
If the bullet merely grazed a tree limb, this certainly would not have caused the jacket to separate from the lead core, nor would it have caused the bullet to lose two sizable fragments.
Another of your unproven hypotheses.
The WC's theory to explain the Tague wounding is only slightly less implausible than Posner's fairy tale. The WC theorized that a fragment from the head shot hit the curb and/or wounded Tague's face -- never mind the fact that the fragment would have exited the righthand side of the skull, whereas Tague was standing to the left of the limo; and never mind the fact that the fragment would have had to clear the limo's windshield and roll bar and then dive downward while still retaining enough velocity to cause the required damage.
The WC offered possibilities but did not reach conclusions for the same reasons I have identified. There is no proof positive as to what caused Tague's injury. This was the WC's final word on the Tague injury:
"The wide range of possibilities and the existence of conflicting testimony, when coupled with the impossibility of scientific verification, precludes a conclusive finding by the Commission as to which shot missed."
The above was the only sensible position to take on the matter. It is not necessary to prove exactly how Tague was injured. It was enough to recognize the various possibilities.
It is no wonder that WC staffers and the FBI did their level best to ignore the Tague wounding. Indeed, when the WC finally got around to asking the FBI to look into the matter, the Dallas FBI office replied that they could not find the curb scar, and suggested it had been wiped away by street cleaners!
It is simply not true that the WC ignored the Tague injury. The fact that they could come to no definitive conclusion doesn't mean they ignored it. They discussed the possibilities thoroughly on pages 116-117 of the WCR.
The lone-gunman theory's inability to explain the Tague wounding is one of many proofs that it is implausible and untenable.
"The Wounding of James Tague Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory of the JFK Assassination"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QGE1Se8HuF99CToouKhKW0OSRprmspwX/view
It is duly noted that MTG does not offer an alternative explanation for the Tague injury. He knows that any alternative would have the same problems as the WC's attempt to explain the injury. It would have the same ambiguities, the same lack of definitive proof that the WC faced in dealing with the matter. This is standard practice for the CT crowd. They give us their objections to the WCR but fail to apply those same objections to any alternative theory they might present. Since the rarely offer any alternative theories to the one presented by the WCR, they don't need to face those same problems.
In short, the injury to Tague does not refute the Lone Gunman Theory as MTG has claimed. Plausible explanations do exist that are consistent with a lone gunman even if they are unproveable.
-
MTG--
Thanks for posting.
Verily, the Tague shot is a puzzler.
I suppose it is possible that a bullet fractured somewhere, and then part of it struck the curb near Tague, and another part struck Tague in the directly in face. But such a small fragment would be likely to lose momentum before it struck Tague.
The LNT-SBT is the contortion necessary to explain all the JFK-JBC wounds, given the Tague shot.
The FBI found only lead on the Tague curb, somewhat indicating it was a lead core strike. However, at that time the FBI was under tremendous pressure to support the LNT.
I agree, the prospect a ricochet, and only a soft lead core, striking the Tague curb with enough force to spray up concrete and cause a cut on Tague's face...is a long shot.
Another possibility is the bullet that struck the curb near Tague was not jacketed. That would indicate a shot from a handgun, possibly just a straight shot that missed.
While most 11.22 witnesses heard three shots, in the "bang....bang-bang" cadence, this does not rule out inaudible shots (silencers) or simultaneous shots.
I have no confidence in any explanation of the Tague shot.
-
Probably but not certainly.
Not so. There is not positive proof of what caused Tague's injury. The most likely cause would a ricochet from the first shot miss or a fragment from the head shot. I have gone back and forth as to which one is the more likely explanation. There are arguments for and against both scenarios but nothing that settles the question.
Tague was wrong. The second shot was CE399 and that whole bullet, except for a few flakes of lead, was found at Parkland. The curb near Tague could have been struck by a first shot ricochet or a fragment of the headshot. There is no evidence that proves or disproves either possibility.
You are offering an unproven hypothesis based on your assumption. Not very compelling.
Another unproven hypothesis based on an assumption. You are not alone in that regard.
Your argument assumes the bullet behaved in a typical manner. An atypical behavior remains a possibility.
Another of your unproven hypotheses.
The WC offered possibilities but did not reach conclusions for the same reasons I have identified. There is no proof positive as to what caused Tague's injury. This was the WC's final word on the Tague injury:
"The wide range of possibilities and the existence of conflicting testimony, when coupled with the impossibility of scientific verification, precludes a conclusive finding by the Commission as to which shot missed."
The above was the only sensible position to take on the matter. It is not necessary to prove exactly how Tague was injured. It was enough to recognize the various possibilities.
It is simply not true that the WC ignored the Tague injury. The fact that they could come to no definitive conclusion doesn't mean they ignored it. They discussed the possibilities thoroughly on pages 116-117 of the WCR.
It is duly noted that MTG does not offer an alternative explanation for the Tague injury. He knows that any alternative would have the same problems as the WC's attempt to explain the injury. It would have the same ambiguities, the same lack of definitive proof that the WC faced in dealing with the matter. This is standard practice for the CT crowd. They give us their objections to the WCR but fail to apply those same objections to any alternative theory they might present. Since the rarely offer any alternative theories to the one presented by the WCR, they don't need to face those same problems.
In short, the injury to Tague does not refute the Lone Gunman Theory as MTG has claimed. Plausible explanations do exist that are consistent with a lone gunman even if they are unproveable.
Your arguments here range from uninformed to lazy to erroneous to misleading. What are the "plausible explanations" for the Tague curb chip and Tague wounding that preserve the lone-gunman theory? The least ridiculous pro-lone-gunman explanation is the WC's silly theory that has a fragment from the head shot somehow flying over the windshield and the roll bar and then diving downward and veering leftward (since Tague was to the left of the limo) yet miraculously somehow still retaining enough velocity to blast out a piece of concrete from the curb and send the piece streaking toward Tague with enough force to cut his face.
Something cut Tague's cheek during the shooting, because moments after the shooting a police officer noticed that Tague had a bleeding cut on his right cheek. Plus, the first two police officers who saw the curb scar recognized it as having been caused by a bullet, and Tague saw immediately that the curb scar was deep enough to have sent a chip of concrete that was large enough to cut his face. So it is comical for you to claim that, gee, we really don't know what caused Tague's injury. Yeah, we do.
To all but the brainwashed, it is obvious that a projectile from a bullet or propelled by a bullet caused Tague's injury -- that is the only rational, logical, scientifically credible explanation, but you can't admit it because your theory has no bullet that could have done this.
You don't even have a halfway credible explanation for the curb scar and Tague's wounding.
The closest projectile you have would have come from a bullet that was over 200 feet away and that had just finished plowing through a human skull and would have exited from the right side of the skull (but Tague was to the left of the limo), and this fragment would have then had to clear both the limo's windshield and roll bar and then magically dive downward and leftward like a guided missile while somehow, someway, in defiance of the laws of physics, still retaining enough velocity to do the required damage. This is one of the theories that you call "plausible"!
And, pray tell, how could your alleged lone headshot bullet have produced a fragment large enough and with enough velocity to gouge the curb and/or cut Tague's face over 200 feet away, when this same bullet would have had to leave a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment in the rear outer table of the skull, leave several tiny fragments near the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment (including the McDonnel fragment), leave a 3 x 1 mm fragment and a 7 x 2 mm fragment just above the right orbit at the opposite end of the skull, leave all the fragments contained in the high fragment trail, and also leave two large fragments inside the limo near the driver's seat?! Deep down, although you'll never admit it, you can't really believe this wild tale.
The next closest projectile you have was a bullet that was over 400 feet away that supposedly magically shed its copper jacket after merely hitting an oak tree limb (when in fact FMJ bullets will easily penetrate several inches into oak wood), and then, even more magically, supposedly sent one fragment downward to strike the pavement behind the limo and sent another fragment directly to the curb over 400 feet away, missing everything in between. Never mind that even an FMJ bullet traveling at a low velocity would not have behaved in this manner after striking an oak tree limb.
Again, it is no wonder the WC and the FBI ignored the Tague incident as long as they dared, until so many reports about it appeared in the press that they could no longer pretend it didn't happen.
The Tague incident proves there had to have been more than three shots fired and thus automatically refutes the lone-gunman theory. I bet you didn't even read my linked article on the subject.
A bullet fired from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building could have barely missed JFK and gone on to hit the curb near Tague. A number of witnesses thought gunfire came from the Dal-Tex Building; there is photographic evidence that suggests a shot was fired from a lower floor of that building, as Harold Weisberg documented; and a Mafia man, Eugene Hale Brading, was arrested coming out of the building shortly after the assassination because he seemed to be acting suspiciously.
Oh, Tague was wrong about which shot caused his wound?! Yeah, you bet. Tague said he'd already heard one shot before he felt something sting his face, but, nah, you say he was "mistaken." Right, of course. And then you fall back on the single-bullet theory (SBT) to justify your rejection of Tague's account, even though you know -- but won't admit -- that the SBT is refuted (1) by the hard physical evidence of the rear JFK clothing holes and of JFK's tie, (2) by Willis Slide 5 and Croft 3 and the Zapruder film, (3) by Connally himself, and (4) by the fact that we now know that at the end of the autopsy the autopsy doctors had established for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point based on direct observation of the probing done with the chest organs removed, including the observation of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, proving beyond any doubt that the back wound had no exit point -- which of course explains why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point (and Lt. Richard Lipsey confirmed that even after the autopsy, after Sibert and O'Neill had departed, the autopsy doctors were certain the back wound had no exit point).
-
Your arguments here range from uninformed to lazy to erroneous to misleading. What are the "plausible explanations" for the Tague curb chip and Tague wounding that preserve the lone-gunman theory? The least ridiculous pro-lone-gunman explanation is the WC's silly theory.
Something cut Tague's cheek during the shooting; the first two police officers who saw the curb scar recognized it as having been caused by a bullet; and Tague saw immediately that the curb scar was deep enough to have sent a chip of concrete that was large enough to cut his face, so it is comical for you to claim that, gee, we really don't know what caused Tague's injury. Yeah, we do.
To all but the brainwashed, it is obvious that a projectile from a bullet or propelled by a bullet caused Tague's injury -- that is the only rational, scientifically credible explanation, but you can't admit it because your theory has no bullet that could have done this.
You don't even have a halfway credible explanation for the curb scar and Tague's wounding.
The closest projectile you have would have come from a bullet that was over 200 feet away and that had just finished plowing through a human skull, and this fragment would have had to clear both the limo's windshield and roll bar and then magically dive downward and leftward like a guided missile while somehow, someway, in defiance of the laws of physics, still retaining enough velocity to do the required damage.
The next closest projectile you have was a bullet that was over 400 feet away that supposedly magically shed its copper jacket after merely hitting an oak tree limb (when in fact FMJ bullets will easily penetrate several inches into oak wood), and then, even more magically, supposedly sent one fragment downward to strike the pavement behind the limo and sent another fragment directly to the curb over 400 feet away, missing everything in between. Never mind that even an FMJ bullet traveling at a low velocity would not have behaved in this manner after striking an oak tree's limb.
Again, it is no wonder the WC and the FBI ignored the Tague incident as long as they dared, until so many reports about it appeared in the press that they could no longer pretend it didn't happen.
The Tague incident proves there had to have been more than three shots fired and thus automatically refutes the lone-gunman theory. I bet you didn't even read my linked article on the subject.
A bullet fired from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building could have barely missed JFK and gone on to hit the curb near Tague. A number of witnesses thought gunfire came from the Dal-Tex Building; there is photographic evidence that suggests a shot was fired from a lower floor of that building, as Harold Weisberg documented; and a Mafia man, Eugene Hale Brading, was arrested coming out of the building shortly after the assassination because he seemed to be acting suspiciously.
And with your, "....bullet fired from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex building...." in mind, what about SA Hickey's AR-15?
-
Your arguments here range from uninformed to lazy to erroneous to misleading. What are the "plausible explanations" for the Tague curb chip and Tague wounding that preserve the lone-gunman theory?
I just told you, I could crush a Grape ooooh yummy yummy. It could have been a ricochet from the first shot miss or a fragment from the head shot. Neither is provable and either is possible. Now why don't you give us a plausible explanation for Tague's wound that wasn't from a shot fired by Oswald.
The least ridiculous pro-lone-gunman explanation is the WC's silly theory that has a fragment from the head shot somehow flying over the windshield and the roll bar and then diving downward and veering leftward (since Tague was to the left of the limo) yet miraculously somehow still retaining enough velocity to blast out a piece of concrete from the curb and send the piece streaking toward Tague with enough force to cut his face.
Since you can't give us a plausible alternative to either of the ones I provided, we don't have a least ridiculous explanation from you. We don't have an explanation from you at all.
Something cut Tague's cheek during the shooting, because moments after the shooting a police officer noticed that Tague had a bleeding cut on his right cheek. Plus, the first two police officers who saw the curb scar recognized it as having been caused by a bullet, and Tague saw immediately that the curb scar was deep enough to have sent a chip of concrete that was large enough to cut his face. So it is comical for you to claim that, gee, we really don't know what caused Tague's injury. Yeah, we do.
To all but the brainwashed, it is obvious that a projectile from a bullet or propelled by a bullet caused Tague's injury -- that is the only rational, logical, scientifically credible explanation, but you can't admit it because your theory has no bullet that could have done this.
You don't even have a halfway credible explanation for the curb scar and Tague's wounding.
You don't have an explanation at all.
The closest projectile you have would have come from a bullet that was over 200 feet away and that had just finished plowing through a human skull and would have exited from the right side of the skull (but Tague was to the left of the limo), and this fragment would have then had to clear both the limo's windshield and roll bar and then magically dive downward and leftward like a guided missile while somehow, someway, in defiance of the laws of physics, still retaining enough velocity to do the required damage. This is one of the theories that you call "plausible"!
It's more plausible than anything you have offered.
The next closest projectile you have was a bullet that was over 400 feet away that supposedly magically shed its copper jacket after merely hitting an oak tree limb (when in fact FMJ bullets will easily penetrate several inches into oak wood), and then, even more magically, supposedly sent one fragment downward to strike the pavement behind the limo and sent another fragment directly to the curb over 400 feet away, missing everything in between. Never mind that even an FMJ bullet traveling at a low velocity would not have behaved in this manner after striking an oak tree limb.
Who said it hit the oak tree. That's Posner's theory, not mine. I don't know what Oswald's missed shot first struck. It could have hit the pavement. next to the limo. Some have theorized it hit the traffic bar. I can't prove nor disprove any of the possibilities, only recognize that they exist.
Again, it is no wonder the WC and the FBI ignored the Tague incident as long as they dared, until so many reports about it appeared in the press that they could no longer pretend it didn't happen.
Now you resort back to lying your a** off. The WC did not ignore the Tague wound. It dealt with it on page 116.
The Tague incident proves there had to have been more than three shots fired and thus automatically refutes the lone-gunman theory. I bet you didn't even read my linked article on the subject.
You have to be really stupid to think that. It is completely illogical. There are a number of possible explanations for Tague's wound that can neither be proven nor disproven. That's why the WC did not reach a definitive conclusion about it. Proof of more than three shots would require that you prove Tague's wound was caused by a bullet fired from a rifle other than Oswald's. Not only have you failed to do that, you haven't even proposed an alternative. That would require you to present a hypothesis that you would need to support with evidence. We both know you are incapable of doing that.
A bullet fired from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building could have barely missed JFK and gone on to hit the curb near Tague. A number of witnesses thought gunfire came from the Dal-Tex Building; there is photographic evidence that suggests a shot was fired from a lower floor of that building, as Harold Weisberg documented; and a Mafia man, Eugene Hale Brading, was arrested coming out of the building shortly after the assassination because he seemed to be acting suspiciously.
You have provided zero evidence that a shot was fired from the Dal-Tex building. Tell us what this photographic evidence is of a shot from the Dal-Tex. Suggestions are not evidence.
Oh, Tague was wrong about which shot caused his wound?! Yeah, you bet. Tague said he'd already heard one shot before he felt something sting his face, but, nah, you say he was "mistaken." Right, of course. And then you fall back on the single-bullet theory (SBT) to justify your rejection of Tague's account, even though you know -- but won't admit -- that the SBT is refuted (1) by the hard physical evidence of the rear JFK clothing holes and of JFK's tie, (2) by Willis Slide 5 and Croft 3 and the Zapruder film, (3) by Connally himself, and (4) by the fact that we now know that at the end of the autopsy the autopsy doctors had established for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point based on direct observation of the probing done with the chest organs removed, including the observation of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, proving beyond any doubt that the back wound had no exit point -- which of course explains why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point (and Lt. Richard Lipsey confirmed that even after the autopsy, after Sibert and O'Neill had departed, the autopsy doctors were certain the back wound had no exit point).
Neither you nor anybody else has ever refuted the SBT. It remains the only plausible explanation for JFK's non-fatal wounds and all of JBC's wounds. If there was a plausible alternative to it, somebody would have come up with one by now. Andrew Mason has come up with a ridiculous alternative but at least he has tried. You won't even do that because you know you would get destroyed as soon as you did.
-
I just told you, I could crush a Grape ooooh yummy yummy. It could have been a ricochet from the first shot miss or a fragment from the head shot. Neither is provable and either is possible. Now why don't you give us a plausible explanation for Tague's wound that wasn't from a shot fired by Oswald.
Since you can't give us a plausible alternative to either of the ones I provided, we don't have a least ridiculous explanation. We don't have an explanation from you at all.
You don't have an explanation at all.
It's more plausible than anything you have offered.
Who said it hit the oak tree. That's Posner's theory, not mine. I don't know what Oswald's missed shot first struck. It could have hit the pavement. next to the limo. Some have theorized it hit the traffic bar. I can't prove nor disprove any of the possibilities, only recognize that they exist.
Now you resort back to lying your Bahookie off. The WC did not ignore the Tague wound. It dealt with it on page 116.
You have to be really stupid to think that. It is completely illogical. There are a number of possible explanations for Tague's wound that can neither be proven nor disproven. That's why the WC did nor reach a definitive conclusion about it. Proof of more than threes shots would require that you prove Tague's wound was caused by a bullet fired from a rifle other than Oswald's. Not only have you failed to do that, you haven't even proposed an alternative. That would require you to present a hypothesis that you would need to support with evidence. We both know you are incapable of doing that.
You have provided zero evidence that a shot was fired from the Dal-Tex building. Tell us what this photographic evidence is of a shot from the Dal-Tex. Suggestions are not evidence.
Neither you nor anybody else has ever refuted the SBT. It remains the only plausible explanation for JFK's non-fatal wounds and all of JBC's wounds. If there was a plausible alternative to it, somebody would have come up with one by now. Andrew Mason has come up with a ridiculous alternative but at least he has tried. You won't even do that because you know you get destroyed as soon as you did.
Hand waved away by a *know-it-all* that can only respond with insults.
-
Here's a good, succinct article on the Tague wounding written in 2013 by NBC journalist Jeff Smith and published on the local NBC Dallas-Fort Worth website:
"Spectator's Minor Injury Changes JFK Assassination Explanation"
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/minor-injury-changed-jfk-assassination-history/2066552/
Smith wrote the article after interviewing Tague in Dealey Plaza. Here's the bulk of the article's content:
Tague was standing under the triple underpass on the west side of Dealey Plaza when the motorcade turned onto Elm Street, in front of the Texas School Book Depository. That's when a sharp noise pierced through the cheering crowds.
"Somebody threw a firecracker. And then I thought what kind of an idiot would be throwing a firecracker with the president driving by," Tague said.
Of course, it wasn't a firecracker -- it was an assassin's bullet.
"I'm standing there still in disbelief over somebody throwing a firecracker, and then, 'Crack! Crack!' Two rifle shots, not a second apart, and something stings me in the face."
What stung Tague was a fragment from a bullet that struck the nearby curb.
"It could've been a mixture of a little bit of lead and concrete," Tague said. "I was sprayed. Debris hit me in the face. Broke the skin in maybe three or four places. A drop of blood in each place. Nothing serious."
But it's arguably the most important "minor injury" in American history, and here's why: Just two weeks after the assassination, the FBI finished its investigation and concluded Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots. Two of those shots hit Kennedy and one hit Connally. The Warren Commission was prepared to reach the same conclusion months later.
But when commissioners read the local newspaper reports proving the curb shot, they realized that one of the three shots missed the motorcade entirely.
"I didn't know I was changing history. I just knew it was probably important that there was a missed shot," Tague said.
The 27-year-old filed an affidavit about what happened.
"All of a sudden the Warren Commission had a big problem. They had to rewrite the report."
That spawned the infamous "single bullet theory" or the "magic bullet theory," the contested conclusion that just one bullet caused significant injuries to both Kennedy and Connally.
"It changed history. If that policeman had not ran up to me, if I had just gotten back in my car and gone home, and forgot all about it, history would've been different," Tague said.
Tague understands his role in history. But even now, 50 years later, he struggles with what happened.
The Tague wounding was not the only reason Arlen Specter had to concoct the fanciful single-bullet theory (SBT), but it was one of two major reasons. The other reason was that Specter and other WC staffers realized there was a serious timing problem caused by Gov. John Connally's wounding as seen in the Zapruder film.
The WC said the first hit occurred between Z210 and Z225. However, they had to account for the dramatic drop of Connally's right shoulder, the puffing of his cheeks, and the pained expression on his face in Z238-242, which clearly indicated Connally was hit by a separate bullet after JFK was first hit, just as Connally insisted was the case. Even assuming JFK was hit at Z210 and Connally was hit two to four frames before Z238, that would still only allow 24 frames between the hit on JFK and the hit on Connally, or only 1.3 seconds -- far, far too little time for the alleged murder weapon to have fired two shots. This vexing timing problem was the other major reason that drove Specter to conjure up the SBT.
-
Tague's injury didn't change anything. It's likely the WC would have arrived at the SBT without it. The Secret Service recreations showed that at the moment JFK was first struck, JBC was directly in line to be hit by the bullet exiting JFK's throat. It would have taken a magic bullet to miss hitting JBC.
The WC considered the possibilities and could not reach a conclusion as to which stray shot had caused Tague's injury. What they did opine is that the mark on the curb contained lead and antimony indicating it was unlikely a whole FMJ bullet had struck the curb. That would mean it could have been the first missed shot that ricocheted and continued down range to strike the curb in front of Tague or it could have been a fragment from the head shot. I lean toward the first explanation but it cannot be proven conclusively that it was a fragment from the first shot that caused Tague's injury.
MTG has proposed a missed shot fired from the Dal-Tex building could have struck the curb near Tague but has offered no evidence of any shot fired from the Dal-Tex or any location other than the TSBD sniper's nest. He demands that the LNs prove every last detail of the shooting but doesn't apply the same standard to his own hypotheses. He offers theories completely devoid of supporting evidence.
His motto seems to be, "One rule for me, another for thee".
-
Hand waved away by a *know-it-all* that can only respond with insults.
Yes, exactly. He pretends to be a know-it-all but he actually knows very little and has repeatedly embarrassed himself with stunning gaffes.
For example, a few weeks ago Corbett started a thread aimed at my quoting of Dr. Vincent DiMaio on the established forensic fact that FMJ bullets will never shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when striking skull bone and that FMJ bullets are ruled out when x-rays show dozens of tiny fragments. Incredibly, Corbett said DiMaio was talking about FMJ handgun bullets and not FMJ rifle bullets, even though DiMaio specified twice in the quote that he was talking about FMJ rifle bullets.
Sometimes it literally seems like Corbett can't understand English. You just have to wonder how in the world he could have missed the fact that DiMaio specified, twice, that he was talking about FMJ rifle bullets. I had presented that quote to Corbett at least six times, and then he started a thread about my use of the quote and proceeded to make the hilarious blunder of claiming that DiMaio wasn't talking about FMJ rifle bullets but rather FMJ handgun bullets and that therefore I was misrepresenting DiMaio!
Corbett's responses in this thread are just more examples of his usual pitiful, uninformed, and dogmatic blundering and posturing. In his uneducated mind, the SBT is still the only plausible explanation for JFK and Connally's non-fatal wounds, yet our exchanges on the powerful evidence that refutes the SBT prove he has no rational, credible explanation for that evidence.
In his uneducated mind, the WC's comical theory that a fragment from the head shot caused Tague's wounding is "plausible," but then he turns around and hedges his bets by saying, gee, we don't really know what caused Tague's wound. Well, uh, yeah we do: a projectile from a bullet or propelled by a bullet cut Tague's face.
He responds with abject nonsense and evasion when asked to explain the fact that the closest projectile he can offer to explain Tague's wounding have would have come from a bullet (1) that was over 200 feet away, (2) had just finished plowing through a human skull, and (3) would have exited from the righthand side of the skull (whereas Tague was to the left of the limo), not to mention the fact that this fragment would have then had to clear both the limo's windshield and roll bar and then magically dive downward and leftward like a guided missile while somehow, someway, in defiance of the laws of physics, still retaining enough velocity to do the required damage.
And, one wonders who this alleged lone headshot bullet have produced a fragment large enough and with enough velocity to gouge the curb and/or cut Tague's face over 200 feet away, when this same bullet would have had to leave a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment in the rear outer table of the skull, leave several tiny fragments near the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment (including the McDonnel fragment), leave a 3 x 1 mm fragment and a 7 x 2 mm fragment just above the right orbit at the opposite end of the skull, leave all the fragments contained in the high fragment trail, and also leave two large fragments inside the limo near the driver's seat.
I mean, yikes, even Gerald Posner and Jim Moore don't buy the WC's ridiculous theory.
There's another problem: the sample smears taken from the Tague curb scar contained no copper. Uh oh, that's a big problem, because Oswald's alleged ammo was copper-jacketed FMJ ammo. This is why Posner floats the unscientific fairy tale that when Oswald allegedly fired his first shot from the sixth-floor window, the bullet hit a branch of the oak tree on Elm Street, that this collision supposedly caused the copper jacket to separate from its lead core. Then, so Posner's tale goes, this lead core split into two large fragments, with one fragment flying downward and striking the pavement behind the limo and with the other fragment streaking in a straight line over 400 feet to hit the curb near Tague, somehow weaving through the rest of the tree limbs before continuing its mythical journey to the curb.
Anyone who has done any reading on the behavior of FMJ bullets knows that an FMJ bullet is not going to shed its copper jacket from its lead core merely from hitting an oak limb. That's just not going to happen. FMJ bullets will penetrate 2 to 7 inches into oak wood when fired from less than 200 feet away. If the bullet hits an edge of the limb, it will remove a chip from the edge and continue on its journey with no more than moderate deformation. Such collisions will certainly not cause the jacket to separate from the core.
It is comical that Posner would even propose such a theory and then turn around and defend the SBT, which says that an FMJ bullet ripped through seven layers of skin, smashed 4 inches of rib bone, and shattered a distal radius bone, yet emerged with its jacket and lead core still firmly attached, with minimal deformation, and even with its lands and grooves intact.
-
Yes, exactly. He pretends to be a know-it-all but he actually knows very little and has repeatedly embarrassed himself with stunning gaffes.
For example, a few weeks ago Corbett started a thread aimed at my quoting of Dr. Vincent DiMaio on the established forensic fact that FMJ bullets will never shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when striking skull bone and that FMJ bullets are ruled out when x-rays show dozens of tiny fragments. Incredibly, Corbett said DiMaio was talking about FMJ handgun bullets and not FMJ rifle bullets, even though DiMaio specified twice in the quote that he was talking about FMJ rifle bullets.
DiMaio never showed a case of what happens when an FMJ Carcano bullet strikes a skull which is the only thing that is relevant to the JFK assassination. It's silly to think such a bullet is going to behave like an FMJ .38 special round or an FMJ .30-06 round.
Sometimes it literally seems like Corbett can't understand English. You just have to wonder how in the world he could have missed the fact that DiMaio specified, twice, that he was talking about FMJ rifle bullets. I had presented that quote to Corbett at least six times, and then he started a thread about my use of the quote and proceeded to make the hilarious blunder of claiming that DiMaio wasn't talking about FMJ rifle bullets but rather FMJ handgun bullets and that therefore I was misrepresenting DiMaio!
Corbett's responses in this thread are just more examples of his usual pitiful, uninformed, and dogmatic blundering and posturing. In his uneducated mind, the SBT is still the only plausible explanation for JFK and Connally's non-fatal wounds, yet our exchanges on the powerful evidence that refutes the SBT prove he has no rational, credible explanation for that evidence.
Anyone who posts the nonsense you have over the years is the last person who should be talking about other people's "pitiful, uninformed, and dogmatic blundering and posturing". You seem to fancy yourself as an intellectual when in reality you are just another assclown pontificating on a wide range of fields in which you have no expertise.
In his uneducated mind, the WC's comical theory that a fragment from the head shot caused Tague's wounding is "plausible," but then he turns around and hedges his bets by saying, gee, we don't really know what caused Tague's wound. Well, uh, yeah we do: a projectile from a bullet or propelled by a bullet cut Tague's face.
Here is where you resort to simply lying about the facts. The WC never theorized what caused Tague's injury. They simply identified possibilities. Without definitive proof as to which shot caused Tague's injury, they took the responsible position of not ruling anything in or out. You have arbitrarily claimed that it would not be possible for a fragment to exit JFK's skull, arc over the windshield and then down to strike the curb near Tague. You provide no data to support that assumption. You provide no data to support your assumption that such a fragment could not have caused the chip in the concrete curb. To prove your assumption, you would need to calculate the maximum velocity a fragment could have left JFK's skull at and still struck the curb near Tague. Then you would have to determine the minimum velocity such a fragment could have had and still caused the chip. If that maximum exit velocity from the skull is less than the minimum velocity needed to cause the chip, you would have your proof but you have provided neither. You have simply made that assumption, just as you have assumed that a ricochet from the missed shot could not have caused the chip in the curb near Tague. You have done so without any evidence as to what or where that missed shot first struck.
He responds with abject nonsense and evasion when asked to explain the fact that the closest projectile he can offer to explain Tague's wounding have would have come from a bullet (1) that was over 200 feet away, (2) had just finished plowing through a human skull, and (3) would have exited from the righthand side of the skull (whereas Tague was to the left of the limo), not to mention the fact that this fragment would have then had to clear both the limo's windshield and roll bar and then magically dive downward and leftward like a guided missile while somehow, someway, in defiance of the laws of physics, still retaining enough velocity to do the required damage.
You are the one arguing that it would not be possible for such a fragment to have caused the chip in the curb that injured Tague. The burden of proof for that argument is on you. I have not claimed that is what happened and in absence of empirical evidence to the contrary, I simply recognize that as a possibility. I also acknowledge the possibility that it was a ricochet from the first shot which caused Tague's injury. Without knowing what that shot first struck, I can only consider possibilities, and those possibilities do not rule out that shot could have caused Tague's injury.
In short, you are the one who has argued that Tague's injury is proof of a fourth shot that came from a firearm other than Oswald's rifle. The burden of proof for that argument is on you. You have not even attempted to offer such proof. You have simply taken the coward's way out and simply assumed what you cannot prove. Assumptions do not make for compelling arguments.
And, one wonders who this alleged lone headshot bullet have produced a fragment large enough and with enough velocity to gouge the curb and/or cut Tague's face over 200 feet away, when this same bullet would have had to leave a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment in the rear outer table of the skull, leave several tiny fragments near the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment (including the McDonnel fragment), leave a 3 x 1 mm fragment and a 7 x 2 mm fragment just above the right orbit at the opposite end of the skull, leave all the fragments contained in the high fragment trail, and also leave two large fragments inside the limo near the driver's seat.
This is where MTG pretends he is an expert on wound ballistics.
I mean, yikes, even Gerald Posner and Jim Moore don't buy the WC's ridiculous theory.
That's some duo you have cited. Jim Moore offered one of the silliest LN theories ever presented. Posner lied about what the WC concluded, pushing the myth that the WC concluded Oswald fired his three shots in 5.6 seconds or less.
There's another problem: the sample smears taken from the Tague curb scar contained no copper. Uh oh, that's a big problem, because Oswald's alleged ammo was copper-jacketed FMJ ammo. This is why Posner floats the unscientific fairy tale that when Oswald allegedly fired his first shot from the sixth-floor window, the bullet hit a branch of the oak tree on Elm Street, that this collision supposedly caused the copper jacket to separate from its lead core. Then, so Posner's tale goes, this lead core split into two large fragments, with one fragment flying downward and striking the pavement behind the limo and with the other fragment streaking in a straight line over 400 feet to hit the curb near Tague, somehow weaving through the rest of the tree limbs before continuing its mythical journey to the curb.
Posner's first shot theory might or might not be true. There is no definitive proof as to what the first shot first hit or where it went after that. In absence of such proof, the best anyone can do is recognize possibilities. Posner has identified a possibility without actually proving his theory. It remains an open question as to which shot injured Tague. The only one we can rule out is CE399.
Anyone who has done any reading on the behavior of FMJ bullets knows that an FMJ bullet is not going to shed its copper jacket from its lead core merely from hitting an oak limb. That's just not going to happen. FMJ bullets will penetrate 2 to 7 inches into oak wood when fired from less than 200 feet away. If the bullet hits an edge of the limb, it will remove a chip from the edge and continue on its journey with no more than moderate deformation. Such collisions will certainly not cause the jacket to separate from the core.
Do you have a source to back up your claim or did you just pull it out of your a**? That's a rhetorical question that pretty much answers itself. The bullet striking a tree limb is just one possibility. Others have postulated that it hit the pavement near the limo or struck the traffic light arm. I can't logically dismiss any of those possibilities.
It is comical that Posner would even propose such a theory and then turn around and defend the SBT, which says that an FMJ bullet ripped through seven layers of skin, smashed 4 inches of rib bone, and shattered a distal radius bone, yet emerged with its jacket and lead core still firmly attached, with minimal deformation, and even with its lands and grooves intact.
There is nothing about the SBT that defies the laws of physics. It has been shown experimentally that an FMJ Carcano bullet will yaw when exiting soft tissue. The flattening of CE399 at the base is indication it was the base of the bullet, not the nose, that struck bone. Whether that was rib bone or wrist bone is uncertain. Either or both is possible. Since lead from the bullet was deposited in JBC's wrist and the lead from CE399 was only exposed at the base, this is an indication the base of the bullet likely struck JBC's wrist.
-
There's another problem: the sample smears taken from the Tague curb scar contained no copper. Uh oh, that's a big problem, because Oswald's alleged ammo was copper-jacketed FMJ ammo. This is why Posner floats the unscientific fairy tale that when Oswald allegedly fired his first shot from the sixth-floor window, the bullet hit a branch of the oak tree on Elm Street, that this collision supposedly caused the copper jacket to separate from its lead core. Then, so Posner's tale goes, this lead core split into two large fragments, with one fragment flying downward and striking the pavement behind the limo and with the other fragment streaking in a straight line over 400 feet to hit the curb near Tague, somehow weaving through the rest of the tree limbs before continuing its mythical journey to the curb.
Anyone who has done any reading on the behavior of FMJ bullets knows that an FMJ bullet is not going to shed its copper jacket from its lead core merely from hitting an oak limb. That's just not going to happen. FMJ bullets will penetrate 2 to 7 inches into oak wood when fired from less than 200 feet away. If the bullet hits an edge of the limb, it will remove a chip from the edge and continue on its journey with no more than moderate deformation. Such collisions will certainly not cause the jacket to separate from the core.
It is comical that Posner would even propose such a theory and then turn around and defend the SBT, which says that an FMJ bullet ripped through seven layers of skin, smashed 4 inches of rib bone, and shattered a distal radius bone, yet emerged with its jacket and lead core still firmly attached, with minimal deformation, and even with its lands and grooves intact.
Although I agree with all of the above, one has to look at the evidence to determine which shot struck Tague and which shot struck the windshield. It was likely the same shot.
It wasn’t the first shot. Tague said that. 20+ witnesses said that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot. The Connallys, supported by Powers, Greer and Hickey, establish that the second shot struck JBC in the back/right armpit. Greer noted a “concussion” effect of something impacting in the car on the second shot. 40+ witnesses said the second shot was closer to the third shot than the first. Greer and Hickey provided testimony that support a second shot just before z280 fitting a second shot between z271 and z272.
And that is not inconsistent with Oswald firing all three shots.
-
Although I agree with all of the above, one has to look at the evidence to determine which shot struck Tague and which shot struck the windshield. It was likely the same shot.
It wasn’t the first shot. Tague said that. 20+ witnesses said that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot. The Connallys, supported by Powers, Greer and Hickey, establish that the second shot struck JBC in the back/right armpit. Greer noted a “concussion” effect of something impacting in the car on the second shot. 40+ witnesses said the second shot was closer to the third shot than the first. Greer and Hickey provided testimony that support a second shot just before z280 fitting a second shot between z271 and z272.
And that is not inconsistent with Oswald firing all three shots.
Typically, you cite no forensic evidence to support your beliefs. That's because it never does.
-
Typically, you cite no forensic evidence to support your beliefs. That's because it never does.
Forensic evidence is science based evidence that requires evidence from an expert provided to a court in which the expert opines on something on which they have particular knowledge. Often the opinions are with respect to something physical but not necessarily physical. Experts, for example could be used to establish that certain behaviours indicate that the accused was engaged in trafficking drugs, or smuggling people, or committing fraud.
In this case, a mathematician could provide an opinion on the probability of this kind of distribution of independent witness observations where the vast majority were completely wrong. That would be forensic evidence.
But I also point to forensic evidence in the form of medical opinions of JBC’s doctors that his torso was turned far to the right when hit so that it was almost parallel to the flight path of the bullet.
I could also point to expert lip readers who say that JBC is saying “oh, no, no” around z245-250.
So where is your forensic evidence? You are not an expert on interpreting human responses to gunshot sounds so your opinion on what you think is happening in the zfilm is not forensic evidence. The zfilm itself is not forensic evidence. It is simply evidence.
-
Forensic evidence is science based evidence that requires evidence from an expert provided to a court in which the expert opines on something on which they have particular knowledge.
Nonsense. Forensic evidence doesn't always require expert testimony to interpret. In some cases, expert witnesses are called to interpret what the forensic evidence for the jury. In other instances, the jury can be presented the evidence and allowed to use their own judgement as to what it represents. That was the case in the murder trial in which I was a juror. We had the medical examiner testify regarding the autopsy evidence and what it established regarding cause of death. We were also presented with the murder weapon and two recovered bullets. The only testimony was by the crime scene investigators who told us where the bullets were recovered from. He didn't attempt to tell us what those bullets indicated. We were able to determine that for ourselves. One bullet hadb bullet had been recovered from the wall and combined with the medical examiners testimony, we were able to determine that was the bullet that had passed through the midsection of the victim. The other bullet had been recovered from underneath the victim's head. It had gone through the victim's head, into the carpet and been stopped by the concrete floor underneath it. That was a lead bullet that had flattened out when it hit the concrete floor. We determined that was the fatal head shot which was fired as the victim was laying on the floor following the first shot.
In another case I sat on, we convicted a forger. While we heard testimony from a handwriting expert, we convicted the forger almost entirely on the handwriting sample which we compared tot he forged check. Even we as laymen could tell both signatures had been written by the same hand. The two were identical in every way. We didn't need the experts testimony to tell us that. I don't recall that we even deliberated about the expert testimony. We passed the checks and the handwriting sample and quickly agreed the guy was guilty.
Often the opinions are with respect to something physical but not necessarily physical. Experts, for example could be used to establish that certain behaviours indicate that the accused was engaged in trafficking drugs, or smuggling people, or committing fraud.
In this case, a mathematician could provide an opinion on the probability of this kind of distribution of independent witness observations where the vast majority were completely wrong. That would be forensic evidence.
BS. Mathematicians can't prove whether witnesses have accurately remembered an event.
But I also point to forensic evidence in the form of medical opinions of JBC’s doctors that his torso was turned far to the right when hit so that it was almost parallel to the flight path of the bullet.
Since you don't quote those doctors, we are left with your interpretation of what they said on that point.
I could also point to expert lip readers who say that JBC is saying “oh, no, no” around z245-250.
What the hell is that supposed to prove?
So where is your forensic evidence? You are not an expert on interpreting human responses to gunshot sounds so your opinion on what you think is happening in the zfilm is not forensic evidence. The zfilm itself is not forensic evidence. It is simply evidence.
We have the forensic evidence of the Z-film corroborating JBC's account that he turned in reaction to hearing the first shot which hit neither him nor JFK. He then tells us after turning and seeing nothing, he was just starting to turn to face the front when he felt the second shot hit him in the back. The Z-film shows us that both he and JFK reacted to being shot at the same instant when both of them suddenly flipped their arms upward at Z226 which was immediately followed by JBC twisting and dipping to his right. That footage also corroborates Glenn Bennett's report that he heard a shot before turning to see JFK hit by the second shot. This is a case where the witnesses are supported by the visual evidence of the Z-film. Nothing you imagine is supported by the Z-film or any other forensic evidence. On the contrary, the Z-film refutes your crazy beliefs.
-
It has occurred to me that in various recent threads, MTG has suggested shots being fired from all around Dealey Plaza. It seems to me he has postulated as many as six shots. Even if he doesn't want to accept it was Oswald firing from the sniper's nest, we have several eyewitnesses who saw a shooter at that location, 3 spent shells at that location, and the testimony of the TSBD employees who were right below that location who heard three shots being fired from directly above them. MTG has cited the HSCA acoustic evidence of a shooter firing from the GK. They postulated a missed shot although I believe MTG thinks that was the headshot. Either way, that brings us to four shots. In the past few weeks, he has claimed there was a bullet hole through the windshield which suggests a shooter from in front of the limo as it traveled down Elm St. He has been a little vague as to just where they shooter could have fired from. I'm not certain but I think his belief is that shot entered JFK's throat. I'm not sure where he thinks that shot ended up.
MTG's premise in starting this thread is that Tague's injury could not have been caused by any of the three shots from the TSBD. When pressed, he suggested Tague was injured by a shot fired from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex building, which sailed over JFK's head, over the limo, all the way down Elm St. to strike the curb in front of Tague standing between Main and Commerce streets. While Tague would have been roughly in line with such a shot, I wonder if MTG has considered how wild that shot would have been. Even if that shooter was firing from a second floor window, he still would have been ailing at a downward angle at JFK. It strains credulity to believe that a shot from the Dal-Tex would have been so much above the intended target that it not only would have missed JFK's head, it would have missed Connally, Kellerman, the dashboard and the windshield so that it could travel down Elm St., cross Main St. and hit the curb in front of Tague.
At a minimum, MTG is postulating six shots. Never mind that there are no eyewitnesses to a shooter from any location other than the TSBD. There is no forensic evidence of shots from any location other than the TSBD, such as a discarded weapon, spent shells, or recovered bullets. There is no medical evidence of any wounds suffered by either JFK or JBC that were not caused by shots fired from above and behind them. Since he has claimed the Dal-Tex shooter wildly missed his target, that would rule out that location unless he wants to claim that shooter fired more than one shot, which brings us up to seven or more shots. I forget. How many shots did most of the people in Dealey Plaza remember hearing?
-
There are two other problems with Posner's theory, as I explain in my article on the Tague wounding and in my chapter on the subject in A Comforting Lie.
One, Posner assumes that his tree-branch-collision bullet was fired between Z140 and Z166, since this is the timeframe in which five witnesses saw a bullet strike the pavement behind the limo. Now, before I continue, I should note that Posner deserves credit for at least acknowledging that a bullet did strike the pavement before Z166. Many WC apologists deny the pavement strike because they view it as too problematic for their version of the shooting, even though five witnesses saw it happen.
Anyway, to assume that an FMJ bullet fired from the sixth-floor window hit a branch of the intervening oak tree, we would have to believe that the supposed lone gunman completely missed, not only Kennedy, but the entire limousine, from an elevation of 60 feet and from a distance of less than 140 feet. Even the Warren Commission (WC), in a rare display of logic and common sense, admitted it was hard to believe the gunman would have been so severely off the mark with his first and closest shot:
On the other hand, the greatest cause for doubt that the first shot missed is the improbability that the same marksman who twice hit a moving target would be so inaccurate on the first and closest of his shots as to miss completely, not only the target, but the large automobile. (WCR, p. 111)
Two, in order for Posner's errant shot to have had any chance of fragmenting from hitting an oak tree limb, assuming for the sake of argument this is even possible, the missile would have had to strike far enough up the limb so the limb would not bend or snap when the bullet hit. This would have been a staggering, unbelievable miss if fired between Z140 and Z166 from the sixth-floor window. To hit a limb far enough up its structure during this timeframe, the limo, much less JFK, would not have even been in the gunman's field of aim when he pulled the trigger.
Furthermore, as mentioned in previous replies, a bullet that hit far enough up an oak limb that that the limb did not bend or snap would not have fragmented into several fragments but would have penetrated deep into the limb and would have remained substantially intact. Such a collision certainly would not have caused the copper jacket to separate from the lead core, but Posner must assume this happened because the smear taken from the curb scar contained no copper (WCR, p. 116).
Anyone can verify in sources on bullet behavior that an FMJ bullet will penetrate and not break apart when it hits oak wood. I asked Google AI what would happen if an FMJ bullet traveling at medium velocity hit a piece of oak wood. Google AI answered as follows, just as I knew it would:
When a medium-velocity FMJ (Full Metal Jacket) bullet strikes a piece of oak wood, it punches a deep, narrow hole through the dense grain while staying mostly intact.
Impact and Penetration
Deep entry: The bullet cuts cleanly into the wood instead of mushrooming or flattening out immediately.
Rapid deceleration: Oak is a hard, dense wood. It slows the bullet down much faster than soft pine or drywall.
Stopping power: If the oak board is thick (such as 4 to 6 inches), the bullet will likely lose all its energy and stop inside the wood. If the board is thin, the bullet will pass right through.
When I asked Google AI what would happen if an FMJ bullet traveling at low velocity hit a piece of oak wood, it once again answered just as I knew it would:
A low-velocity full metal jacket (FMJ) bullet will cleanly punch a round hole into oak wood and stop without breaking apart.
What Happens to the Bullet
Stays intact: The hard metal cover keeps the lead core from flattening.
No expansion: The bullet keeps its original shape because the slow speed is not enough to deform the metal.
Slows down fast: The heavy resistance of the wood quickly robs the bullet of its forward motion.
Keep in mind that FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC that the alleged murder weapon was a rather low-velocity rifle (3 H 414), while some experts, using a different velocity scale, say the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle is a medium-velocity weapon. No one, but no one, says the rifle is a high-velocity weapon.
Posner obviously knew nothing about FMJ bullet behavior when he formulated his tree-branch-collision theory. He erroneously assumed that his supposed FMJ bullet would not only produce two large fragments but would shed its copper jacketing.
The WC's alternative explanation for the Tague wounding, aside from being hopelessly and intentionally vague, is even worse than its headshot-fragment theory: "or it might have been a product of the fragmentation of the missed shot upon hitting some other object in the area" (WCR, p. 117).
This is a lame, useless explanation. The WC claimed to have no idea where the alleged lone gunman's miss landed, rendering its "hitting some other object in the area" theory useless from the outset. The WC refused to acknowledge that a bullet dug into the grass near the manhole cover in the vicinity of the triple underpass (even though the strike was observed and reported by Officer J. W. Foster, and even though a photo of the hole in the grass was published the next day in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram). The WC also refused to acknowledge that a bullet hit the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street (even though it dug a 4.0 x 0.5-inch scar into the sidewalk, and even though two witnesses saw the scar before it was crudely patched). Thus, it is not surprising that the WC did not even speculate about where the supposed single assassin's errant shot landed.
And, of course, the WC could only float its specious explanations by dismissing the fact that Tague insisted the second shot was the one that caused his wound. The WC clearly leaned toward a first-shot miss, not a second-shot miss, which is why it could not accept Tague's clear, reasonable testimony, even though Tague, like several other witnesses, specified that the first shot he heard sounded different than the others, and even though he specified he heard the third shot after he felt something sting his face (7 H 552-555).
Unless the supposed lone gunman was legally blind, if his alleged second shot missed, it would have landed in the limo's passenger compartment, or on the limo's trunk or hood, or on the right side of the limo. The same would have been true if the alleged single shooter's first shot missed. If the supposed sixth-floor "sharpshooter" somehow managed to miss the entire huge limousine with his first and closest shot, it would have landed on the street or sidewalk in the vicinity of the limo, well over 300 feet from the Tague curb scar and with at least five witnesses standing between the impact point and the Tague curb scar/Tague himself.
The fact that the lone-gunman theory simply cannot explain the Tague wounding is the reason that Specter and the FBI tried so hard to ignore it. It should be noted that Specter never asked the Commission's wound-ballistics experts about the WCR's bogus theory that a fragment from the head shot could have caused Tague's wounding. Those experts would have told him that such a fragment would have had to exit from the right side of the skull (whereas Tague was standing to the left of the limo), that it would have had to clear the limo's roll bar and windshield, and that it most certainly would not have had enough velocity to veer over the roll bar, then dive downward and leftward, and then travel over 200 feet and hit the curb hard enough to scar it or hit Tague's face hard enough to cut it.
-
There are two other problems with Posner's theory, as I explain in my article on the Tague wounding and in my chapter on the subject in A Comforting Lie.
I really don't care about Posner. I've never been a disciple of his. Case Closed did make some contributions but it was never the definitive account of the assassination and paled in comparison to Bugliosi's definitive account of the assassination, which largely defended the WC's work.
One, Posner assumes that his tree-branch-collision bullet was fired between Z140 and Z166, since this is the timeframe in which five witnesses saw a bullet strike the pavement behind the limo. Now, before I continue, I should note that Posner deserves credit for at least acknowledging that a bullet did strike the pavement before Z166. Many WC apologists deny the pavement strike because they view it as too problematic for their version of the shooting, even though five witnesses saw it happen.
There is some evidence of a bullet strike on the pavement although it is not definitive. It is possible that shot ricocheted down Elm St and struck the curb near Tague but also not definitive. A bullet striking the pavement is not in any way problematic for the WC's findings.
Anyway, to assume that an FMJ bullet fired from the sixth-floor window hit a branch of the intervening oak tree, we would have to believe that the supposed lone gunman completely missed, not only Kennedy, but the entire limousine,
I try to refrain from making assumptions but I'm going to make an exception here. I am going to assume Oswald wasn't trying to shoot the limo and if that is the case, he didn't miss the limo. He missed his intended target.
from an elevation of 60 feet and from a distance of less than 140 feet. Even the Warren Commission (WC), in a rare display of logic and common sense, admitted it was hard to believe the gunman would have been so severely off the mark with his first and closest shot:
The WC offered a number of possibilities and pointed out the arguments for and against each one, while not indicating a preference for any of them. That was left to the reader of the report.
CTs always want to tell us how easy the first shot would have been while ignoring the obvious difficulties. Oswald would have been firing almost vertically at a target moving across his line of fire. To fire downward at such a steep angle would require him to raise up out of his firing position, whether that was sitting or kneeling, through window open little more than a foot, and the boxes he stacked by the window would have been of little use steadying the rifle. On top of that he would have been tracking his target as it was moving in an arc around the corner and his target was about to move under the tree which could well have forced him to rush the shot. None of these problems existed for the subsequent shots which were much easier.
On the other hand, the greatest cause for doubt that the first shot missed is the improbability that the same marksman who twice hit a moving target would be so inaccurate on the first and closest of his shots as to miss completely, not only the target, but the large automobile. (WCR, p. 111)
You exhibit your ignorance of marksmanship when you assume distance is the only thing that affects the degree of difficulty.
Two, in order for Posner's errant shot to have had any chance of fragmenting from hitting an oak tree limb, assuming for the sake of
argument this is even possible, the missile would have had to strike far enough up the limb so the limb would not bend or snap when the bullet hit. This would have been a staggering, unbelievable miss if fired between Z140 and Z166 from the sixth-floor window. To hit a limb far enough up its structure during this timeframe, the limo, much less JFK, would not have even been in the gunman's field of aim when he pulled the trigger.
It's Posner's theory so I'll leave it up to him to defend. I don't believe the bullet struck a tree branch because I believe Oswald fired the shot before the limo passed under the tree.
Furthermore, as mentioned in previous replies, a bullet that hit far enough up an oak limb that that the limb did not bend or snap would not have fragmented into several fragments but would have penetrated deep into the limb and would have remained substantially intact. Such a collision certainly would not have caused the copper jacket to separate from the lead core, but Posner must assume this happened because the smear taken from the curb scar contained no copper (WCR, p. 116).
Why do you assume the bullet striking the tree is the only plausible reason it missed the target. [/quote]
Anyone can verify in sources on bullet behavior that an FMJ bullet will penetrate and not break apart when it hits oak wood. I asked Google AI what would happen if an FMJ bullet traveling at medium velocity hit a piece of oak wood. Google AI answered as follows, just as I knew it would:[/quote]
Now tell us what might happen if the bullet hit the pavement directly or hit the traffic arm. Why do you only address one of several possibilities.
When a medium-velocity FMJ (Full Metal Jacket) bullet strikes a piece of oak wood, it punches a deep, narrow hole through the dense grain while staying mostly intact.
Impact and Penetration
Deep entry: The bullet cuts cleanly into the wood instead of mushrooming or flattening out immediately.
Rapid deceleration: Oak is a hard, dense wood. It slows the bullet down much faster than soft pine or drywall.
Stopping power: If the oak board is thick (such as 4 to 6 inches), the bullet will likely lose all its energy and stop inside the wood. If the board is thin, the bullet will pass right through.
When I asked Google AI what would happen if an FMJ bullet traveling at low velocity hit a piece of oak wood, it once again answered just as I knew it would:
You're getting your information from AI? There's a reliable source. Just yesterday AI told me JFK never appointed any Republicans to his cabinet. He appointed two. Robert McNamara and C. Douglas Dillon. Relying on AI is a crapshoot. It might or might not give you an accurate answer to any question. It searches all available information related to the question but is not very good and weighing that information for accuracy.
A low-velocity full metal jacket (FMJ) bullet will cleanly punch a round hole into oak wood and stop without breaking apart.
What Happens to the Bullet
Stays intact: The hard metal cover keeps the lead core from flattening.
No expansion: The bullet keeps its original shape because the slow speed is not enough to deform the metal.
Slows down fast: The heavy resistance of the wood quickly robs the bullet of its forward motion.
Keep in mind that FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC that the alleged murder weapon was a rather low-velocity rifle (3 H 414), while some experts, using a different velocity scale, say the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle is a medium-velocity weapon. No one, but no one, says the rifle is a high-velocity weapon.
Posner obviously knew nothing about FMJ bullet behavior
Looks like you two have found common ground.
when he formulated his tree-branch-collision theory. He erroneously assumed that his supposed FMJ bullet would not only produce two large fragments but would shed its copper jacketing.
The WC's alternative explanation for the Tague wounding, aside from being hopelessly and intentionally vague, is even worse than its headshot-fragment theory: "or it might have been a product of the fragmentation of the missed shot upon hitting some other object in the area" (WCR, p. 117).
This is a lame, useless explanation. The WC claimed to have no idea where the alleged lone gunman's miss landed, rendering its "hitting some other object in the area" theory useless from the outset. The WC refused to acknowledge that a bullet dug into the grass near the manhole cover in the vicinity of the triple underpass (even though the strike was observed and reported by Officer J. W. Foster, and even though a photo of the hole in the grass was published the next day in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram). The WC also refused to acknowledge that a bullet hit the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street (even though it dug a 4.0 x 0.5-inch scar into the sidewalk, and even though two witnesses saw the scar before it was crudely patched). Thus, it is not surprising that the WC did not even speculate about where the supposed single assassin's errant shot landed.
And, of course, the WC could only float its specious explanations by dismissing the fact that Tague insisted the second shot was the one that caused his wound. The WC clearly leaned toward a first-shot miss, not a second-shot miss, which is why it could not accept Tague's clear, reasonable testimony, even though Tague, like several other witnesses, specified that the first shot he heard sounded different than the others, and even though he specified he heard the third shot after he felt something sting his face (7 H 552-555).
Unless the supposed lone gunman was legally blind, if his alleged second shot missed, it would have landed in the limo's passenger compartment, or on the limo's trunk or hood, or on the right side of the limo. The same would have been true if the alleged single shooter's first shot missed. If the supposed sixth-floor "sharpshooter" somehow managed to miss the entire huge limousine with his first and closest shot, it would have landed on the street or sidewalk in the vicinity of the limo, well over 300 feet from the Tague curb scar and with at least five witnesses standing between the impact point and the Tague curb scar/Tague himself.
The fact that the lone-gunman theory simply cannot explain the Tague wounding is the reason that Specter and the FBI tried so hard to ignore it. It should be noted that Specter never asked the Commission's wound-ballistics experts about the WCR's bogus theory that a fragment from the head shot could have caused Tague's wounding. Those experts would have told him that such a fragment would have had to exit from the right side of the skull (whereas Tague was standing to the left of the limo), that it would have had to clear the limo's roll bar and windshield, and that it most certainly would not have had enough velocity to veer over the roll bar, then dive downward and leftward, and then travel over 200 feet and hit the curb hard enough to scar it or hit Tague's face hard enough to cut it.
By attacking Posner's scenario, you do what CTs have done for decades when attacking the SBT. Of the possible explanations, you focus on the least likely one. CTs for years claimed the WC concluded that Oswald's second shot missed which would have required all three shots to be fired in 5.6 seconds or less. Cronkite and Rather foolishly assisted in promoting this myth. The reality is the WC proposed several possible scenarios, all but one of which allowed Oswald 7 seconds OR MORE to fire his three shots.
Likewise, you choose to attack Posner's theory regarding the missed shot because you believe that has the most flaws in it. You don't even bother to address other plausible reasons for why Oswald's first shot missed and what it might have struck.
-
Nonsense. Forensic evidence doesn't always require expert testimony to interpret. In some cases, expert witnesses are called to interpret what the forensic evidence for the jury. In other instances, the jury can be presented the evidence and allowed to use their own judgement as to what it represents. That was the case in the murder trial in which I was a juror. We had the medical examiner testify regarding the autopsy evidence and what it established regarding cause of death. We were also presented with the murder weapon and two recovered bullets. The only testimony was by the crime scene investigators who told us where the bullets were recovered from. He didn't attempt to tell us what those bullets indicated.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QCqbmNN1/image.png)
BS. Mathematicians can't prove whether witnesses have accurately remembered an event.
I didn't say that. I said they could assign a mathematical probability to the distribution IF the witnesses were wrong.
Since you don't quote those doctors, we are left with your interpretation of what they said on that point. What the hell is that supposed to prove?
It is part of the Warren Commission documents (CD #326 (https://www.maryferrell.org/xdoc/10727)):
(https://i.postimg.cc/prD2173D/image.png)
We have the forensic evidence of the Z-film corroborating JBC's account that he turned in reaction to hearing the first shot which hit neither him nor JFK. He then tells us after turning and seeing nothing, he was just starting to turn to face the front when he felt the second shot hit him in the back. The Z-film shows us that both he and JFK reacted to being shot at the same instant when both of them suddenly flipped their arms upward at Z226 which was immediately followed by JBC twisting and dipping to his right. That footage also corroborates Glenn Bennett's report that he heard a shot before turning to see JFK hit by the second shot. This is a case where the witnesses are supported by the visual evidence of the Z-film. Nothing you imagine is supported by the Z-film or any other forensic evidence. On the contrary, the Z-film refutes your crazy beliefs.
That may be how you define forensic evidence but the rest of the world would consider the Zfilm itself to be just physical or documentary evidence and treated like a document. Again, your interpretation of the zfilm is not evidence. An interpretation by a qualified expert having particular knowledge and expertise - for example, the physicist Luis Alvarez explaining how the rearward motion of JFK after z313 can be explained by the jet effect - would be considered forensic evidence.
-
Very hard to convince me a BULLET aiming for the president's head deflected off a leave (which by all accounts is not supposed to be strong enough to deflect a bullet).
Bullet hitting a curb and knocking a piece of rock/glass and hitting an onlooker? Plausible, i guess.
A bullet deflecting off a tree leave? total BS:
-
Very hard to convince me a BULLET aiming for the president's head deflected off a leave (which by all accounts is not supposed to be strong enough to deflect a bullet).
Bullet hitting a curb and knocking a piece of rock/glass and hitting an onlooker? Plausible, i guess.
A bullet deflecting off a tree leave? total BS:
The same goes for the SBT. Total BS: Not only do they get away with pushing these kook THEORIES, they get the National Media to provide a platform for the megaphoning of this baloney.
-
The same goes for the SBT. Total BS: Not only do they get away with pushing these kook THEORIES, they get the National Media to provide a platform for the megaphoning of this baloney.
I always find it amusing that the people who claim the SBT is BS: never explain why it is BS: or offer a viable alternative. Could it be because there is no viable alternative that explains JFK's non-fatal wounds and all of JBC's wounds.
-
There is that gouge on the Elm st manhole cover which would line up with a shot fired from the TSBD SE 6th floor window about 2.5 secs after Z313. But since there was no copper element found in the examination of the curb then the question would be if striking the manhole cover could have separated the copper jacket and lead core such that only a lead fragment hit the curb? IDK
This scenario would work if Z224 was the 1st shot , Z313 was the 2nd shot and then the 3rd shot was fired in about 2.5 sec after Z313 , which struck the manhole cover.
-
There was no shot fired after Z313.
-
I always find it amusing that the people who claim the SBT is BS: never explain why it is BS: or offer a viable alternative. Could it be because there is no viable alternative that explains JFK's non-fatal wounds and all of JBC's wounds.
Knott Lab and forensic science has declared the SBT, "Is Impossible". Follow the Science. Over the last 40 yrs, Knott Lab has been the Gold Standard when it comes to tracing bullet trajectories. Admitted as Evidence inside courtrooms across the USA.
-
Knott Lab and forensic science has declared the SBT, "Is Impossible". Follow the Science. Over the last 40 yrs, Knott Lab has been the Gold Standard when it comes to tracing bullet trajectories. Admitted as Evidence inside courtrooms across the USA.
I looked at the Knott Lab 3D animation and compared to Dale Myers' work, it is primitive, even though Myers did his animation 20 years earlier. It looked like Knott Lab was using 1980s technology. By Knott's own admission, their simulation was a work in progress. Mostly it show still frame from various perspectives and not ones that would demonstrate the path of the bullet in relation to JFK and JBC. In one view they showed JBC from various positions in front of JFK. They started with JBC directly in front of JFK, which is not where he was when the bullet struck, and gradually slid him to the left, showing where the bullet exiting JFK's throat would have struck JBC. When directly in front of JFK, it showed the bullet hitting JBC on the left side of his back. They then gradually slid JBC leftward showing where the bullet would have struck him in various positions. At one point, it showed the bullet striking JBC exactly where it did, just to the left of his right armpit. By the time they slid him to the far left, they showed the bullet hitting him in the right arm. Since they showed this animation from a side view, we cannot determine just where JBC was in relation to JFK at any point but it appeared to me when JBC was aligned to be struck by the bullet near his right armpit, it looked very close to the position he was actually in when the bullet struck, slightly to the left of JFK. In every position they placed him, their simulation showed the bullet would have hit somewhere from the left side of his back to his right arm. We know he wasn't hit in the left side of his back and we know he wasn't hit in the right arm. He was struck just to the left of his right armpit. Logic would dictate that whatever simulated position JBC was in to be struck by the bullet exiting JFK's throat, that must have been where he actually was at the time.
I'm all for following the science as long as it is good science. During Covid, we were told to follow the science and now we know Fauci was full of sh*t.
-
Very hard to convince me a BULLET aiming for the president's head deflected off a leave (which by all accounts is not supposed to be strong enough to deflect a bullet).
Bullet hitting a curb and knocking a piece of rock/glass and hitting an onlooker? Plausible, i guess.
A bullet deflecting off a tree leave? total BS:
Just to be accurate, Posner's theory is that the alleged lone gunman's first bullet hit a limb of the intervening oak tree -- not a leaf, but a limb. Then, so the theory goes, the bullet's jacket separated from the lead core, and the bullet then sent two large fragments streaking in different directions, one striking the pavement behind the limo and the other magically weaving through the other tree limbs and jetting straight to the Tague curb site over 400 feet away.
Yes, it is fairy-tale material to assume that a supposed "sharpshooter" aimed at JFK's head or upper back but was so wildly off the mark that the bullet hit one of the tree limbs, and even hit far enough up the limb so the limb didn't snap or bend. No sensible, rational, objective person is going to buy such an utterly absurd scenario.
Specter and the FBI recognized immediately that the Tague wounding wreaked havoc on their single-assassin theory, which is why they ignored it for as long as they dared. Indeed, as mentioned, when the WC finally asked the FBI to investigate the Tague incident, the Dallas FBI claimed they could not find the Tague curb scar and theorized that street cleaners had wiped it away!
-
I'm all for following the science as long as it is good science. During Covid, we were told to follow the science and now we know Fauci was full of sh*t.
You're full of beans.
Far-Right Libertarians are the worst.
-
Just to be accurate, Posner's theory is that the alleged lone gunman's first bullet hit a limb of the intervening oak tree -- not a leaf, but a limb. Then, so the theory goes, the bullet's jacket separated from the lead core, and the bullet then sent two large fragments streaking in different directions, one striking the pavement behind the limo and the other magically weaving through the other tree limbs and jetting straight to the Tague curb site over 400 feet away.
Yes, it is fairy-tale material to assume that a supposed "sharpshooter" aimed at JFK's head or upper back but was so wildly off the mark that the bullet hit one of the tree limbs, and even hit far enough up the limb so the limb didn't snap or bend. No sensible, rational, objective person is going to buy such an utterly absurd scenario.
Specter and the FBI recognized immediately that the Tague wounding wreaked havoc on their single-assassin theory, which is why they ignored it for as long as they dared. Indeed, as mentioned, when the WC finally asked the FBI to investigate the Tague incident, the Dallas FBI claimed they could not find the Tague curb scar and theorized that street cleaners had wiped it away!
Like most CTs, MTG ignores the obvious difficulties with the first shot that were not present for the subsequent shots. The first shot was by far the most difficult one and not at all surprising that Oswald would completely miss with it. He also pretends Posner's theory is the only viable one available to those who believe Oswald acted alone.
Nothing about the Tague injury calls into question the lone assassin scenario. There are plausible explanations for Tague's injury that are perfectly consistent with Oswald as the lone gunman.
-
Although I agree with all of the above, one has to look at the evidence to determine which shot struck Tague and which shot struck the windshield. It was likely the same shot.
The windshield was hit from the front. We have eight witnesses, including a doctor, two federal agents, and two police officers, who saw a hole in the windshield. Dr. Glanges saw the hole minutes after the shooting when she saw the limo outside Parkland Hospital. One of the police officers who saw the hole at Parkland even stuck a pencil through it.
In addition, the lone-gunman shooting scenario cannot explain the round dent in the chrome above the rearview mirror. The WC suggested the dent may have already been present before the shooting, but this idea was debunked decades ago with photographic evidence from the previous motorcades in Texas.
It wasn’t the first shot. Tague said that. 20+ witnesses said that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot. The Connallys, supported by Powers, Greer and Hickey, establish that the second shot struck JBC in the back/right armpit. Greer noted a “concussion” effect of something impacting in the car on the second shot. 40+ witnesses said the second shot was closer to the third shot than the first. Greer and Hickey provided testimony that support a second shot just before z280 fitting a second shot between z271 and z272.
It definitely wasn't the first shot.
And that is not inconsistent with Oswald firing all three shots.
Oswald didn't fire any shots. NAA testing of the paraffin cast of Oswald's right cheek shows he did not fire a rifle on 11/22/63. PSA/VSA analysis of Oswald's televised statements at the police station that he didn't shoot anyone indicate he was telling the truth.
And, there were more than three shots, as the Zapruder film alone proves to anyone who is willing to acknowledge what their eyes can plainly see.
"Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view)
The numerous witnesses who reported hearing shots from the grassy knoll and/or four or more shots were not dreaming.
-
The windshield was hit from the front.
BS:
We have eight witnesses, including a doctor, two federal agents, and two police officers, who saw a hole in the windshield.
You have 8 people who knew JFK had been shot, saw the defect in the windshield and understandably assumed he had been shot from the front through the windshield. None of them was able to examine the windshield closely. The Secret Service agents were able to examine the windshield closely and determine that the windshield had been struck from the inside and that the missile and not gone through the windshield.
Dr. Glanges saw the hole minutes after the shooting when she saw the limo outside Parkland Hospital.
What difference does it make when she saw it. Do you think that gave her a better look at it than the Secret Service agents who examined it that night in Washington DC?
One of the police officers who saw the hole at Parkland even stuck a pencil through it.
BS:
In addition, the lone-gunman shooting scenario cannot explain the round dent in the chrome above the rearview mirror. The WC suggested the dent may have already been present before the shooting, but this idea was debunked decades ago with photographic evidence from the previous motorcades in Texas.
The bullet that passed through JFK's head broke apart with some fragments leaving the limo and others striking inside the limo. One of those cracked the windshield and another likely caused the dent. Not hard to figure out.
It definitely wasn't the first shot.
Thank you for that, Captain Obvious.
Oswald didn't fire any shots.
BS: BS: BS: BS: BS:
NAA testing of the paraffin cast of Oswald's right cheek shows he did not fire a rifle on 11/22/63. PSA/VSA analysis of Oswald's televised statements at the police station that he didn't shoot anyone indicate he was telling the truth.
Paraffin tests don't prove anything. They produce both false positives and false negatives. An FBI agent fired Oswald's rifle and was administered the same paraffin test and he too tested negative. Either you are pretending you didn't know that or you really don't know that which makes you are really bad researcher.
PSA/VSA tests don't prove anything either. That is why they are not admissible in court. They are used in pretrial hearings to help judges decide whether a defendant is a flight risk or not but the judge has the discretion to disregard the results of the test and make the decision on his own. They do not and cannot prove guilt or innocence. Why would you even propose that they prove Oswald was innocent?
And, there were more than three shots, as the Zapruder film alone proves to anyone who is willing to acknowledge what their eyes can plainly see.
Just how does the Zapruder film prove more than three shots. We see visual evidence of JFK and JBC being struck at about Z222 and JFK obviously being shot in the head at Z313. Evidence of an earlier missed shot lies in combining JBC's statement with what we observe him do in the Z-film prior to being shot. We see him turn to look over his right shoulder just as he said he did upon hearing the first shot. While not proof positive, it is still highly probative. Beyond that, there is no visual evidence of any other gunshot.
"Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view)
The numerous witnesses who reported hearing shots from the grassy knoll and/or four or more shots were not dreaming.
Most witnesses remember hearing three shots. Some only remembered hearing two. Those who thought they heard four or more shots were a small minority.
There were numerous witnesses who said all the shots came from the GK and numerous others who said all the shots came from the TSBD. Do you think the latter group was dreaming? CTs never want to apply the same questions to their beliefs that they apply to the WC findings. Why is that.
The simple fact is both groups cannot be right. One or the other has to be wrong. The way to determine which group got it right is to look at other evidence. We had eyewitnesses who SAW a gunman on the 6th floor of the TSBD. No eyewitnesses to a GK shooter. Thress spent shells were found at the location where witnesses had seen the gunman. A rifle was found a short distance away that was positively matched to the shells that were found and also to the only two recovered bullets. No shells or weapon was found on the GK.
Every qualified medical examiner who has reviewed the medical evidence has agreed both JFK and JBC were shot from behind. There is no medical evidence of a shot from in front of or to the right of the victims. Even Dr. Cyril Wecht who believed there was a frontal shooter did not base that belief on medical evidence but on his interpretation of what the Z-film showed. As a film analyst he was no more qualified than you or me. Both of you are entitled to your opinion but those opinions are not evidence that any court would accept as valid.
-
Two follow-up points:
-- The FBI destroyed the spectrographic plate that contained the sample taken from the Tague curb scar, claiming it was destroyed in routine housecleaning to save space. We didn't learn about this destruction of evidence until Harold Weisberg filed a lawsuit to have the plate made available for independent testing. It says volumes that the FBI would destroy such a potentially historic, crucial piece of evidence, a piece of evidence that only occupied a few square inches of space.
-- Rockefeller Foundation fellow and investigative journalist Henry Hurt had the Tague curb section analyzed by a building materials scientist in 1983. The scientist, Jose T. Fernandez, the chief engineer of the firm Construction Environment, concluded the curb scar had probably been patched (Reasonable Doubt, pp. 376-377; Weisberg, Case Open, pp. 163-165).
When Weisberg examined the curb section at the National Archives, he had no trouble seeing that the curb hole had in fact been patched:
When I examined that curbstone in the National Archives, it was very obvious that there had been a hole and that it had been patched. To a degree this is clear in the picture I had taken. The patch is much darker. Because the material used for the patch, which was a relatively small area, prevented the use of coarse aggregates, it is ever so much smoother to the touch as it is visible to the eye. (Case Open, p. 165)
Of course, everyone who saw the curb scar right after the shooting could see that it had enough substance missing from it that it could have produced a chip of concrete large enough to cut Tague's face.
I mention these things only because some WC apologists have claimed that the object that hit the curb barely grazed it and removed virtually no substance from it.
-
Two follow-up points:
-- The FBI destroyed the spectrographic plate that contained the sample taken from the Tague curb scar, claiming it was destroyed in routine housecleaning to save space. We didn't learn about this destruction of evidence until Harold Weisberg filed a lawsuit to have the plate made available for independent testing. It says volumes that the FBI would destroy such a potentially historic, crucial piece of evidence, a piece of evidence that only occupied a few square inches of space.
-- Rockefeller Foundation fellow and investigative journalist Henry Hurt had the Tague curb section analyzed by a building materials scientist in 1983. The scientist, Jose T. Fernandez, the chief engineer of the firm Construction Environment, concluded the curb scar had probably been patched (Reasonable Doubt, pp. 376-377; Weisberg, Case Open, pp. 163-165).
When Weisberg examined the curb section at the National Archives, he had no trouble seeing that the curb hole had in fact been patched:
When I examined that curbstone in the National Archives, it was very obvious that there had been a hole and that it had been patched. To a degree this is clear in the picture I had taken. The patch is much darker. Because the material used for the patch, which was a relatively small area, prevented the use of coarse aggregates, it is ever so much smoother to the touch as it is visible to the eye. (Case Open, p. 165)
Of course, everyone who saw the curb scar right after the shooting could see that it had enough substance missing from it that it could have produced a chip of concrete large enough to cut Tague's face.
I mention these things only because some WC apologists have claimed that the object that hit the curb barely grazed it and removed virtually no substance from it.
Behold... a second magic bullet!
-
Two follow-up points:
-- The FBI destroyed the spectrographic plate that contained the sample taken from the Tague curb scar, claiming it was destroyed in routine housecleaning to save space. We didn't learn about this destruction of evidence until Harold Weisberg filed a lawsuit to have the plate made available for independent testing. It says volumes that the FBI would destroy such a potentially historic, crucial piece of evidence, a piece of evidence that only occupied a few square inches of space.
-- Rockefeller Foundation fellow and investigative journalist Henry Hurt had the Tague curb section analyzed by a building materials scientist in 1983. The scientist, Jose T. Fernandez, the chief engineer of the firm Construction Environment, concluded the curb scar had probably been patched (Reasonable Doubt, pp. 376-377; Weisberg, Case Open, pp. 163-165).
When Weisberg examined the curb section at the National Archives, he had no trouble seeing that the curb hole had in fact been patched:
When I examined that curbstone in the National Archives, it was very obvious that there had been a hole and that it had been patched. To a degree this is clear in the picture I had taken. The patch is much darker. Because the material used for the patch, which was a relatively small area, prevented the use of coarse aggregates, it is ever so much smoother to the touch as it is visible to the eye. (Case Open, p. 165)
Of course, everyone who saw the curb scar right after the shooting could see that it had enough substance missing from it that it could have produced a chip of concrete large enough to cut Tague's face.
I mention these things only because some WC apologists have claimed that the object that hit the curb barely grazed it and removed virtually no substance from it.
You do love inventing strawman arguments to tear down. In 35 years of arguing about the JFKA in online forums, I have never come across any LN having made that argument. I suppose it's possible some LN postulated that, but it is hardly a widely held belief.
-
It is worth noting that the WC did not interview James Tague until July 23, 1964, when the Warren Report was already in draft form, and that the interview only happened because a week or so earlier Dallas reporter Tom Dillard had asked the U.S. Attorney for North Texas, Harold Sanders, a question about the Tague wounding during a public appearance, and Sanders had then sent a registered letter about the wounding, including a photo, to the WC's chief counsel, J. Lee Rankin.
This gives us a good idea of how determined the WC was to ignore the Tague wounding.
Also, understanding the state of the investigation up to that point helps us futher understand the WC's reluctance to interview Tague.
The FBI had already submitted its massive report on the assassination to the WC. The FBI report contradicted the final version of the Warren Report on some crucial subjects. This is undoubtedly why the WC, amazingly, did not include the FBI's report in its 26 supplemental volumes.
The FBI report rejected the single-bullet theory (SBT), said there were no missed shots, and said all three bullets hit Kennedy or Connally. The FBI report also said that JFK's back-wound bullet entered at a much steeper angle than the WC posited, an angle so steep that the bullet could not have exited JFK's throat, hence the FBI's rejection of the SBT.
To make matters worse for the WC, the Secret Service agreed with the FBI's shooting sequence! Both the FBI and Secret Service analyses ignored the Tague wounding.
Interestingly, when the conflicts between the Warren Report and the FBI report finally surfaced in 1966, none other than J. Edgar Hoover insisted the FBI's version was correct!
Of course, we now know that there was a third official version of the shooting, i.e.., the CIA analysis. Shortly after the assassination, CIA analysts studied the Zapruder film and concluded that the first shot did not come from the sixth-floor window and that more than one gunman was involved. The WC was probably not aware of the CIA analysis. The CIA's conclusions only came to light thanks to the ARRB in the late 1990s.
Anyway, the FBI and Secret Service analyses of the shooting help us understand why the WC was so determined to ignore the Tague wounding. If U.S. Attorney Sanders had not been asked about the wounding in a public appearance, and if Sanders had not then sent a registered letter and photo to Rankin, it is almost certain the WC never would have interviewed Tague.
For Arlen Specter, being forced to acknowledge the Tague wounding left him no choice but to go with the ridiculous SBT. As we now know, three of the seven members of the WC rejected the SBT, but the public did not know this until years later because Rankin refused to allow any mention of this substantial dissent to appear in the Warren Report.
Dr. Gerald McKnight, a professor of history at Hood College, discussed all of these facts in his 2005 book Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why.
-
Contrary to MTG's premise as stated in the title of this thread, the Tague wounding does nothing to refute the lone gunman theory. There is no definitive proof as to which shot caused Tague's wound and that uncertainty would exist whether or not there was one shooter. Adding a second shooter does not provide us with definitive answer as to how Tague's wound was caused. The same mystery would exist even if there had been a second shooter behind JFK so Tague's wound offers no light on the issue of whether Oswald was the lone gunman. There is ample evidence Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and there is zero evidence of another shooter in Dealey Plaza on that day.
-
Contrary to MTG's premise as stated in the title of this thread, the Tague wounding does nothing to refute the lone gunman theory. There is no definitive proof as to which shot caused Tague's wound and that uncertainty would exist whether or not there was one shooter. Adding a second shooter does not provide us with definitive answer as to how Tague's wound was caused. The same mystery would exist even if there had been a second shooter behind JFK so Tague's wound offers no light on the issue of whether Oswald was the lone gunman.
More backward logic and flimsy evasion from John "I Don't Need a Rational Explanation" Corbett. The Tague wounding most certainly does refute the lone-gunman theory because the theory has no bullet that could have caused the curb scar and the wounding, which proves that more than three shots were fired.
Not one of Oswald's alleged three bullets could have caused the curb scar and then cut Tague's cheek, so it does not really matter which one of Oswald's supposed three shots you float as the source of the Tague incident.
You are forced to resort to such silly, zany theories as the tale that a bullet fragment from the head shot exited the right parietal area of the skull and then magically acquired its own propulsion system to fly over the limo's roll bar and windshield, then veered leftward, streaked over 200 feet, and then somehow, someway, in violation of the laws of physics, still had enough velocity to hit the curb so hard as to blast out a chip of concrete from it and to blast out the chip with enough force that the chip streaked 15-20 feet and cut Tague's face.
This is the least-ridiculous, least-wacky theory you have to offer. The other theories your side has proposed are even worse, zanier, and more absurd.
This is why the WC and the FBI tried so very hard to ignore the Tague wounding.
There is ample evidence Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK
Only in your dreams. In the real world, the evidence against Oswald is riddled with contradictions, suspicious omissions, dubious chains of custody, and outright fraud, while there is considerable evidence that exonerates Oswald, starting with the strong evidence that he was not even on the sixth floor during the shooting, and the powerful evidence that the alleged shooting feat was far beyond his ability to perform.
and there is zero evidence of another shooter in Dealey Plaza on that day.
Again, only in your dreams. Dozens of witnesses in the plaza heard shots fired from the grassy knoll. Several witnesses saw gun smoke coming from a location behind the fence on the knoll, and we have hard photographic evidence that confirms their accounts. Several witnesses smelled the pungent odor of gunpowder on and near the knoll. Two witnesses saw a man running from the grassy knoll into the railroad yard seconds after the shots were fired. Dozens of witnesses, including numerous police officers, rushed up the grassy knoll because they believed shots came from there.
Moreover, scientific acoustical evidence from a Dallas police tape recorded in the plaza during the shooting proves that a shot was fired from the grassy knoll. Even the NRC/NAS panel that was formed to refute the acoustical evidence admitted there is a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern identified as grassy knoll gunfire by the HSCA acoustical experts is indeed gunfire from the knoll, and subsequent research shows the probability is over 99%. In addition, new testing done by BBN acoustical scientists from 2015-2018 has refuted the Decker-crosstalk claim and has confirmed the validity of the acoustical evidence.
-
More backward logic and flimsy evasion from John "I Don't Need a Rational Explanation" Corbett. The Tague wounding most certainly does refute the lone-gunman theory because the theory has no bullet that could have caused the curb scar and the wounding, which proves that more than three shots were fired.
That is just a lie. It is unknown where the first missed shot struck and where it went after that so that is a definite possibility. There is as much evidence for that being the shot that struck the curb near Tague as there is for a shot from a different weapon being the one that struck the curb near Tague which is to say there is no evidence at all for either possibility. All we have are possibilities. Another possibility, which I find slightly less likely, is a fragment from the head shot passed over the windshield and arced downward and struck the curb near Tague. We have evidence that there was a missed first shot and we have evidence that the head shot fragmented badly. What we don't have is definitive evidence as to which shot struck the curb near Tague and that is true for any theorized shot from a different weapon. The injury to Tague remains an open question and open questions do not prove nor disprove anything. Hence it doesn't refute the lone gunman theory.
Not one of Oswald's alleged three bullets could have caused the curb scar and then cut Tague's cheek, so it does not really matter which one of Oswald's supposed three shots you float as the source of the Tague incident.
You are forced to resort to such silly, zany theories as the tale that a bullet fragment from the head shot exited the right parietal area of the skull and then magically acquired its own propulsion system to fly over the limo's roll bar and windshield, then veered leftward, streaked over 200 feet, and then somehow, someway, in violation of the laws of physics, still had enough velocity to hit the curb so hard as to blast out a chip of concrete from it and to blast out the chip with enough force that the chip streaked 15-20 feet and cut Tague's face.
I have identified two possibilities. For the lone gunman scenario to be viable, possibilities are all that is necessary. You, on the other hand, have not provided evidence that the bullet that caused Tague's injury was fired by a second gunman. You haven't even proven there was a second gunman. You have simply assumed something you have not proven which is SOP for you.
This is the least-ridiculous, least-wacky theory you have to offer. The other theories your side has proposed are even worse, zanier, and more absurd.
You haven't even proposed a theory. You know you have no evidence of a second gunman and if you tried to present a theory, you know it would be shredded in a heartbeat because there simply is no evidence there was a second gunman. All you ever do is claim, without evidence, that the WC scenario is impossible. You assert what you cannot prove.
This is why the WC and the FBI tried so very hard to ignore the Tague wounding.
Only in your dreams. In the real world, the evidence against Oswald is riddled with contradictions, suspicious omissions, dubious chains of custody, and outright fraud, while there is considerable evidence that exonerates Oswald, starting with the strong evidence that he was not even on the sixth floor during the shooting, and the powerful evidence that the alleged shooting feat was far beyond his ability to perform.
This is the CT playbook in a nutshell. You present no positive evidence of a second gunman and can only make baseless claims that what the WC presented is impossible. If you think there is a better explanation for the body of evidence, then by all means present it to us so we can compare it to what the WC gave us. You realize there is nothing you can come up with that could stand the light of day so you simply resort to taking potshots at the WC's scenario. The WCR is the only plausible explanation that fits the body of evidence and you know it. That's why you have never presented an alternative explanation. The WCR wins by default.
Again, only in your dreams. Dozens of witnesses in the plaza heard shots fired from the grassy knoll.
Dozens of other witnesses said all the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. Which do you think is more likely, that one of the groups of witnesses was wrong about the source of the gunfire or that the GK earwitnesses couldn't hear the TSBD shots and the TSBD witnesses couldn't hear the shots from the GK?
Several witnesses saw gun smoke coming from a location behind the fence on the knoll,
They saw smoke . It is highly unlikely it was gun smoke because modern ammo emits very little smoke and it dissipates almost immediately. Maybe if your GK shooter fired a muzzle loader or a blunderbuss witnesses could have seen gun smoke.
and we have hard photographic evidence that confirms their accounts.
Now that's a new one. Tell us what this "hard photographic evidence" is that confirms these witnesses.
Several witnesses smelled the pungent odor of gunpowder on and near the knoll.
Some people on Elm St. smelled gunpowder residue. Do you think the shots were fired from Elm St.?
Two witnesses saw a man running from the grassy knoll into the railroad yard seconds after the shots were fired. Dozens of witnesses, including numerous police officers, rushed up the grassy knoll because they believed shots came from there.
Let me guess. One of your witnesses was Ed Hoffman <chuckle>. Who's the other?
It's never been disputed that some witnesses thought the shots came from the GK and some people did rush their after the shots. None of them saw a gunman. Neither did Lee Bowers who what a perfect view of the area behind the picket fence from his perch in the railroad tower. I wonder why.
Moreover, scientific acoustical evidence from a Dallas police tape recorded in the plaza during the shooting proves that a shot was fired from the grassy knoll. Even the NRC/NAS panel that was formed to refute the acoustical evidence admitted there is a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern identified as grassy knoll gunfire by the HSCA acoustical experts is indeed gunfire from the knoll, and subsequent research shows the probability is over 99%. In addition, new testing done by BBN acoustical scientists from 2015-2018 has refuted the Decker-crosstalk claim and has confirmed the validity of the acoustical evidence.
You show your desperation when you continue to cling to that long ago debunked "acoustics evidence" which wasn't peer reviewed when accepted by the HSCA and didn't stand up to peer review afterward. It was junk science accepted without question by the HSCA.
You also don't seem to care that the same acoustic evidence you want to hang your hat on determined that the fatal headshot was fired from the TSBD sniper's nest. How do you resolve that inconvenient fact?
-
What reasons for a 2nd gunman having missed the limo to the left and the bullet striking the manhole cover?
1. His scope reticle was badly misaligned off its zero?
2. The rifle suppressor device caused some significant deviation in the bullet trajectory?
Doubtful a pro shooter would have had misaligned scope and faulty suppressor.
If a 2nd shooters mission was to shoot out the front left tire of the limo to cause Greer to slow down/stop then why did he wait until after 2 loud shots were fired? (Tague thought it was the 2nd or 3rd loud shot when the curb was hit)
And if the 2nd shooters purpose was to get a hit on JFK, then missing a shot that far off to the left of the limo Is much more of an anomaly than the TSBD shooter missing a 1st shot just to the right of the limo.
If this is a planned conspiracy, then one pro shooter is all that is needed IF he was allowed to
use a high quality good scope semi auto rifle.
Even if the master conspirator desired that Oswald should be the patsy and the pro
shooter was hired and told to use Oswald’s MC rifle, there is still NO reason why he would have missed so far left of the limo to have hit the manhole cover.
So far, I have been unable to think of a good reason why the manhole cover and the curb would have been hit by a 2nd shooter if he was a reasonably skilled shooter.
Of the solitary TSBD shooter options, an inadvertent unaimed shot preceding Z224 seems to be the only plausible alternative . However it does not fit with the 75% majority witness 1….2.3 pattern nor Tagues 2nd or 3rd shot having hit the curb.
No solution here it would seem. :-[
-
What reasons for a 2nd gunman having missed the limo to the left and the bullet striking the manhole cover?
1. His scope reticle was badly misaligned off its zero?
2. The rifle suppressor device caused some significant deviation in the bullet trajectory?
Doubtful a pro shooter would have had misaligned scope and faulty suppressor.
If a 2nd shooters mission was to shoot out the front left tire of the limo to cause Greer to slow down/stop then why did he wait until after 2 loud shots were fired? (Tague thought it was the 2nd or 3rd loud shot when the curb was hit)
And if the 2nd shooters purpose was to get a hit on JFK, then missing a shot that far off to the left of the limo Is much more of an anomaly than the TSBD shooter missing a 1st shot just to the right of the limo.
If this is a planned conspiracy, then one pro shooter is all that is needed IF he was allowed to
use a high quality good scope semi auto rifle.
Even if the master conspirator desired that Oswald should be the patsy and the pro
shooter was hired and told to use Oswald’s MC rifle, there is still NO reason why he would have missed so far left of the limo to have hit the manhole cover.
So far, I have been unable to think of a good reason why the manhole cover and the curb would have been hit by a 2nd shooter if he was a reasonably skilled shooter.
Of the solitary TSBD shooter options, an inadvertent unaimed shot preceding Z224 seems to be the only plausible alternative . However it does not fit with the 75% majority witness 1….2.3 pattern nor Tagues 2nd or 3rd shot having hit the curb.
No solution here it would seem. :-[
The correct solution doesn't have to conform to what every witness as said. That would be impossible.
-
The correct solution doesn't have to conform to what every witness as said. That would be impossible.
And the correct solution does not have to explain every aspect of the Tague wounding. One fact is crystal clear: the lone-gunman theory has no rational, credible way to explain the Tague incident. The least-absurd theory that you can offer is patently ridiculous and utterly unscientific.
In contrast, I can offer at least two plausible shooting locations from which a bullet could have barely missed JFK's head and then hit the Tague curb. Your only shooting location is the sixth-floor window, from which no bullet could have been fired that had even a remote chance of hitting the Tague curb and causing Tague's wound.
-
And the correct solution does not have to explain every aspect of the Tague wounding. One fact is crystal clear: the lone-gunman theory has no rational, credible way to explain the Tague incident. The least-absurd theory that you can offer is patently ridiculous and utterly unscientific.
This from a guy who has offered no alternative explanation for how the Tague injury occurred. Why don't you give us an alternative theory wo we can compare it to the possibilities that it was caused by one of Oswald's shots. As is the custom for most CTs, you set the bar very high for the LNs and very low for yourself. We are expected to prove every last detail with 100% certainty while you are allowed to speculate while providing no evidence.
In contrast, I can offer at least two plausible shooting locations from which a bullet could have barely missed JFK's head and then hit the Tague curb. Your only shooting location is the sixth-floor window, from which no bullet could have been fired that had even a remote chance of hitting the Tague curb and causing Tague's wound.
If you can, why don't you.
A number of plausible explanations have been offered for how a shot from Oswald's rifle could have continues down range and struck the curb near Tague. Posner has theorized the bullet hit a tree branch. I don't necessarily believe that but I can't logically refute it either. Others have suggested the bullet struck the traffic arm that the limo passed under. Again, not my theory but possible. I lean toward the first shot missing to the right of the limo, ricocheting off the pavement and continuing down range to toward Tague. I used a Google Earth view of Dealey Plaza and it shows a line from the sniper's nest to where Tague was standing passes through the right lane of Elm St. Still others believe that a lead fragment from the headshot passed over the windshield and continued down range toward Tague. Without knowing the exit velocity of those fragments, it's impossible to say whether or not that was possible.
Now let's see your explanations.
-
This from a guy who has offered no alternative explanation for how the Tague injury occurred. Why don't you give us an alternative theory wo we can compare it to the possibilities that it was caused by one of Oswald's shots. As is the custom for most CTs, you set the bar very high for the LNs and very low for yourself. We are expected to prove every last detail with 100% certainty while you are allowed to speculate while providing no evidence.
If you can, why don't you.
A number of plausible explanations have been offered for how a shot from Oswald's rifle could have continues down range and struck the curb near Tague. Posner has theorized the bullet hit a tree branch. I don't necessarily believe that but I can't logically refute it either. Others have suggested the bullet struck the traffic arm that the limo passed under. Again, not my theory but possible. I lean toward the first shot missing to the right of the limo, ricocheting off the pavement and continuing down range to toward Tague. I used a Google Earth view of Dealey Plaza and it shows a line from the sniper's nest to where Tague was standing passes through the right lane of Elm St. Still others believe that a lead fragment from the headshot passed over the windshield and continued down range toward Tague. Without knowing the exit velocity of those fragments, it's impossible to say whether or not that was possible.
Now let's see your explanations.
You are correct that a 1st shot before Z224 to the right of the JFK limo, could strike the manhole cover.
However it would have to be high above JFKs head. So that suggests an inadvertent unaimed shot fired as the TSBD shooter was in the act of adjusting the rifle on the boxes. It seems plausible enough to me but I’m having trouble dismissing the majority witness hearing the 1….2.3 pattern, and Tague seemly more inclined That it was 2nd or 3rd shot.
Seems to me improbable that an MC bullet would break apart after hitting the manhole cover such that a fragment of lead completely separated from the copper jacket and flew across to the curb, while the remainder of the bullet still in the copper jacket buried into the grass. Maybe an experiment is necessary to see if it could happen this way.
Similarly, if no copper trace element was found in the curb and only lead then does not that rule out a 1st missed shot before Z224? Unless…Maybe it hit the road and ricocheting? :-\ Hmm…possible but It would be almost the same result:a portion of lead separated completely from the copper jacket and flew to the curb, while the Rest of the bullet with copper went into the grass ( or where?)
But if it was the TSBD shooters MC bullet surely they should have found the builet if it buried in the grass. There is no reason not to document that if it was found (unless it was Not an MC bullet?)
So this leaves the Z313 shot breaking up such that a lead fragment separated completely and flew to hit the curb. However if it got over the windshield then as Andrew Mason noted ( if his math is correct)that the fragment would only be traveling approx 200 ft/ sec ( the parabolic arc physics equation).
So… the only other possibility is a Z313 a fragment that went just to the left side of Greers head such that the parabolic arc is flattened by not having to go over the windshield, thus the fragment velocity could be much greater, say more like 1000 ft/ sec which with be enough force of impact on the curb to explode some particles of concrete.
-
You are correct that a 1st shot before Z224 to the right of the JFK limo, could strike the manhole cover.
However it would have to be high above JFKs head. So that suggests an inadvertent unaimed shot fired as the TSBD shooter was in the act of adjusting the rifle on the boxes. It seems plausible enough to me but I’m having trouble dismissing the majority witness hearing the 1….2.3 pattern, and Tague seemly more inclined That it was 2nd or 3rd shot.
There is no evidence of a bullet strike on or near the manhole cover. That is a separate issue from the Tague injury. That could have been caused by a bullet hitting just to the right of the limo, ricocheting off the pavement, and continuing down range to strike the curb near Tague.
Seems to me improbable that an MC bullet would break apart after hitting the manhole cover such that a fragment of lead completely separated from the copper jacket and flew across to the curb, while the remainder of the bullet still in the copper jacket buried into the grass. Maybe an experiment is necessary to see if it could happen this way.
There is no evidence of a bullet strike in the grass. One assumptions and rumors. There isn't a single witness who said he/she saw a bullet taken out of the grass.
Similarly, if no copper trace element was found in the curb and only lead then does not that rule out a 1st missed shot before Z224? Unless…Maybe it hit the road and ricocheting? :-\ Hmm…possible but It would be almost the same result:a portion of lead separated completely from the copper jacket and flew to the curb, while the Rest of the bullet with copper went into the grass ( or where?)
Why are you hung up on a bullet in the grass. There is no evidence a bullet ever hit the grass. It's all hearsay.
But if it was the TSBD shooters MC bullet surely they should have found the builet if it buried in the grass. There is no reason not to document that if it was found (unless it was Not an MC bullet?)
There is no documented evidence of a bullet being recovered from the grass. It's a myth.
So this leaves the Z313 shot breaking up such that a lead fragment separated completely and flew to hit the curb. However if it got over the windshield then as Andrew Mason noted ( if his math is correct)that the fragment would only be traveling approx 200 ft/ sec ( the parabolic arc physics equation).
I haven't done the calculation so I can't say whether his is correct or not. To eliminate a fragment from the head shot as a possible cause of Tague's injury, you not only have to calculate what the exit velocity of the fragment from the head would have to be for it to arc down and strike the curb near Tague, you would have to determine what the minimum velocity would needed for it to chip the concrete and cause the chips to hit Tague. If the latter is greater than the former, that would eliminate a fragment from the headshot as the cause of Tague's injury.
So… the only other possibility is a Z313 a fragment that went just to the left side of Greers head such that the parabolic arc is flattened by not having to go over the windshield, thus the fragment velocity could be much greater, say more like 1000 ft/ sec which with be enough force of impact on the curb to explode some particles of concrete.
I haven't looked at the geometry for that possibility but just trying to visualize it from what I remember when there was a video camera on the 6th floor looking down Elm St., that seems unlikely to me. Going from JFK's head to the left of Greer seems like that would be too much of a diagonal to get anywhere near Tague.
-
There is no evidence of a bullet strike on or near the manhole cover.
There is no evidence a bullet ever hit the grass.
There is no documented evidence of a bullet being recovered from the grass.
Consistently repeating BS: doesn't make it true.
-
Consistently repeating BS: doesn't make it true.
No, but the fact that neither you nor MTG can produce a single eyewitness who saw a bullet removed from the grass along Elm St., despite being prodded to do so multiple times, is a pretty good indication no such bullet was ever found.
-
No, but the fact that neither you nor MTG can produce a single eyewitness who saw a bullet removed from the grass along Elm St., despite being prodded to do so multiple times, is a pretty good indication no such bullet was ever found.
more repeat. more BS:
-
more repeat. more BS:
More dodging the challenge to produce a single witness who supports your argument that a bullet was recovered from the grass along Elm St.
-
The bottom line on this whole James Tague angle is that not only is there no evidence his injury was caused by a shot from a second gunman, there is no credible evidence there was a second gunman.
-
It could have been a ricochet from the first shot miss or a fragment from the head shot. Neither is provable and either is possible. Now why don't you give us a plausible explanation for Tague's wound that wasn't from a shot fired by Oswald.
A direct strike by an intact bullet would have left noticeable damage to the curb. It also would have left copper residue on it. As it is, there was no visible damage to the curb at all and no copper residue on it. All that was on it was a lead smear and a trace of antimony.