Lone-gunman theorists have never been able to provide a plausible explanation for the wounding of James Tague. The Warren Commission tried to ignore Tague's wounding but were eventually forced to acknowledge it. For those who might be interested, I have posted a new article on the subject titled "The Wounding of James Tague Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory of the JFK Assassination." Here is the URL:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/tague2.pdf (https://miketgriffith.com/files/tague2.pdf)
Lone-gunman theorists have never been able to provide a plausible explanation for the wounding of James Tague. The Warren Commission tried to ignore Tague's wounding but were eventually forced to acknowledge it. For those who might be interested, I have posted a new article on the subject titled "The Wounding of James Tague Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory of the JFK Assassination." Here is the URL:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/tague2.pdf (https://miketgriffith.com/files/tague2.pdf)
Lone-gunman theorists have never been able to provide a plausible explanation for the wounding of James Tague. The Warren Commission tried to ignore Tague's wounding but were eventually forced to acknowledge it. For those who might be interested, I have posted a new article on the subject titled "The Wounding of James Tague Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory of the JFK Assassination." Here is the URL:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/tague2.pdf (https://miketgriffith.com/files/tague2.pdf)
Lone-gunman theorists have never been able to provide a plausible explanation for the wounding of James Tague. The Warren Commission tried to ignore Tague's wounding but were eventually forced to acknowledge it. For those who might be interested, I have posted a new article on the subject titled "The Wounding of James Tague Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory of the JFK Assassination." Here is the URL:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/tague2.pdf (https://miketgriffith.com/files/tague2.pdf)
In addition, if the missile had been fired from the sixth-floor window, the bullet would have approached from the right rear and would have struck the head at a downward angle of around20 degrees. How would a fragment from such a bullet have traveled upward so as to clear both the roll bar and the windshield?
One struck the chrome piece above the windshield.
Actually I think that dent was on the chrome before the motorcade even began.
I doubt that it was. A Secret Service guy who named Gies thought that it might have been but wasn't sure.
It was quiet a big dent to miss. I mean they should have known or not that it was there before the motorcade.
If Tague was hit at all, it was by a fragment from the head shot.If Tague was hit at all? So what happened if he wasn't hit by anything? Cut himself shaving? A case of Stigmata perhaps?
Actually I think that dent was on the chrome before the motorcade even began.
Paul May - try not to be so biased about the case. It would do you good to put aside your petty grievances about the Kennedys and look at the merits of the case itself.
The people who saw the curb mark first, including Deputy Sheriff Walthers, said it clearly, "obviously" looked like a bullet strike.
The fanciful trajectory that has a bullet fragment exiting the skull at a high enough angle to clear the windshield and the roll bar makes it impossible for that fragment to then magically nosedive and somehow still have enough energy to chip the curb or to cut Tague's face.
If Tague was hit at all, it was by a fragment from the head shot. One fragment struck the windshield. One struck the chrome piece above the windshield. Another exited the limo over the top of the windshield and went on to strike Tague.
(https://i.imgur.com/z3HcZUk.png)
With the width and height of the curb estimated at 6 inches, the odds of a bullet hitting within a quarter of an inch from the edge varies from 4 to 6 percent, depending on the angle the bullet was travelling relative to the horizon, from 0 to 90 degrees. A fairly remarkable coincidence. And coincidences make a skeptic suspicious.
In addition, if the missile had been fired from the sixth-floor window, the bullet would have
approached from the right rear and would have struck the head at a downward angle of around
20 degrees. How would a fragment from such a bullet have traveled upward so as to clear both
the roll bar and the windshield?
there is still the fact that the curb was visibly marked and that some concrete had been blasted out of the curb mark by the object that caused it
Dr. Tom Canning, the trajectory expert for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, told the committee that the windshield damage appeared to be too high to have been caused by a fragment from the headshot missile.
I agree that a mark on the edge is coincidental, but in this case I don’t discount anything ;)
Here is link that shows photos including one with the proper orientation of the curb.
https://emuseum.jfk.org/search/curb (https://emuseum.jfk.org/search/curb)
What I noticed in the pictures that show the mark before any “word done” like patching or cutting etc, do not appear to show the associated scratches. Later pictures do show scratches.
One other point suggesting a bullet is that I recall hearing the curb mark analysis mentioned lead with only a trace of antimony (but I have never seen a copy of an official analysis report). I was thinking lead wheel balancers used hardened lead with at least a few percent of antimony as a hardening agent.
Neither Mr. Tague nor Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walters, nor any other observer, were experts on what a bullet strike on concrete looks like and what a tire rim strike looks like.
How could a fragment go on to strike Mr. Tague? While only 40 % of the mass of the bullet was recovered in the two fragments found in the car, so the third fragment could have weighed up to 60% of the bullet mass. Even with only half or a third of the speed left, it could easily reach Mr. Tague.
This remains Joe Elliott’s favorite logical fallacy.
You could pick any spot that a bullet or fragment happened to strike and say that this particular spot has a much smaller chance of being hit than all the other spots. That doesn’t make it a “coincidence”.
Mr. Elliott: Thank you. Well stated. :)
A roulette wheel has 38 slots, 18 red, 18 black and 2 greens, labeled “0” and “00”. Following Iacoletti’s logic, you should always split you bets between “0” and “00”, because the ball will land in a green slot as often as it lands in a red or a black slot.
I agree that a mark on the edge is coincidental, but in this case I don’t discount anything ;)
Here is link that shows photos including one with the proper orientation of the curb.
https://emuseum.jfk.org/search/curb (https://emuseum.jfk.org/search/curb)
What I noticed in the pictures that show the mark before any “word done” like patching or cutting etc, do not appear to show the associated scratches. Later pictures do show scratches.
One other point suggesting a bullet is that I recall hearing the curb mark analysis mentioned lead with only a trace of antimony (but I have never seen a copy of an official analysis report). I was thinking lead wheel balancers used hardened lead with at least a few percent of antimony as a hardening agent.
Neither are you, but that doesn’t prevent you from just decreeing that scratches look exactly like they were caused by an unknown tire rim.
How could a fragment go on to strike Mr. Tague?
Uh, you’re kinda forgetting about the fragments left in Kennedy’s head.
James T. Tague, a twenty-seven-year-old Dallas automobile salesman, was standing near the concrete abutment of the triple underpass, about 260 feet downhill from the President's position. As Tague was straining to get a glimpse of the President, he heard a "cannon type sound" and looked around to try to identify it. When he heard subsequent gunfire, he ducked behind a concrete post. . . .
A few minutes later, Tague recalled that just when the shooting broke out he had felt a sting on his cheek, which he had forgotten in the excitement. He mentioned this to a nearby deputy sheriff who confirmed that Tague, indeed, had blood on his cheek. Tague reached up and found a few drops of blood.
The officer asked where he had been standing. Tague led him to the spot. They inspected the concrete curbing along the street and discovered a fresh mark they believed had been made by a bullet. It was 23 feet, 4 inches east of the abutment of the triple underpass.
A patrolman immediately radioed that a man had been "possibly hit by a ricochet from the bullet off the concrete." Soon the press was there to make news photographs, including close-ups showing where the bullet had hit the concrete, leaving a distinct pockmark. Such a picture appeared in newspapers that weekend.
All this information was available to the FBI, which had been ordered by President Johnson to lead the investigation. Two weeks later, when the Warren Commission received the FBI's five-volume report on its investigation, there was not a word about the Tague incident.
Although some parts of the report—a damning indictment of Lee Harvey Oswald—were leaked to the press immediately, no one had reason to suspect that the Tague curbstone shot had been completely ignored. It was reasonable to assume that the Tague shot would be covered in the 372-page document. (That report, Commission Document 1, was not released to the public until 1965.)
The official indifference to the Tague curb shot is instantly puzzling, even suspicious. One would expect the investigators to be interested in any shot fired in Dealey Plaza at that time. . . .
As desperate as the FBI was for evidence to shore up its lone-assassin theory, its apparent decision to ignore that the shot hit the curbing was perplexing to say the least. And since the FBI was the Warren Commission's chief investigative arm, the commission had no other direct, formal source for the information. (There are indications, however, that the Warren Commission members knew of the shot months before they finally gave it their attention. Initial accounts of it are included in the transcripts of the police radio broadcasts made by the Dallas police for the commission). . . .
On July 23, more than a month after the Warren Commission was supposed to have finished its investigation, James Tague was at last deposed. The account he gave was unwavering as he related just what he had heard and felt and then seen when he examined the curb with the deputy sheriff and others. There was not a hint of contradiction or uncertainty in his basic points.
Tague's account was fully supported by a second witness deposed by Liebeler that day, Deputy Sheriff Eddy Walthers, one of the officers who inspected the curb just after the shooting. Walthers noted that he had been in the sheriff's office for nine years and testified: "It was a fresh ricochet mark. I have seen them and I noticed it for the next two or three days as it got grayer and grayer and grayer as it aged." That aging process, of course, would do nothing to fill the obvious indentation that can be seen in the original photographs of the bullet mark.
The truly astounding aspect of Tague's testimony occurred when Commission Counsel Liebeler stated, "Now I understand that you went back there subsequently and took some pictures of the area, isn't that right?"
Perplexed and believing that no one knew he had done this, Tague asked Liebeler to repeat his question. Liebeler repeated the question, and when Tague answered affirmatively, Liebeler added, "With a motion picture camera?"
"Yes," Tague replied. "I didn't know anybody knew about that."
Liebeler did not respond. Clearly, though, Liebeler's knowledge had to represent information given to him by some investigatory agency—presumably the FBI. (In any event, some years later Tague discovered that his movie had vanished from his home.) (Reasonable Doubt, pp. 131-135)
Tague's account was fully supported by a second witness deposed by Liebeler that day, Deputy Sheriff Eddy Walthers, one of the officers who inspected the curb just after the shooting. Walthers noted that he had been in the sheriff's office for nine years and testified: "It was a fresh ricochet mark. I have seen them and I noticed it for the next two or three days as it got grayer and grayer and grayer as it aged." That aging process, of course, would do nothing to fill the obvious indentation that can be seen in the original photographs of the bullet mark.
The fanciful trajectory that has a bullet fragment exiting the skull at a high enough angle to clear the windshield and the roll bar makes it impossible for that fragment to then magically nosedive and somehow still have enough energy to chip the curb or to cut Tague's face.
James Altgens, who was very close to the shooting and was about 15 feet away from JFK when Z313 hit, stated that he was most positive that no more shots were fired after Z313.
He's a lot more than 15 feet away from the President's head at Z312/313. And maybe 30 feet away from Mrs. Kennedy's car door.
Well, we know that thousands of cars drove by that curb every day.
None of this is strong evidence that the tire rim strike hypothesis is wrong and the bullet strike hypothesis is correct.
Of the hundreds of witnesses there, I think you would be hard put to find a single witness who overestimated their distance from the President at the time he was killed.
Question:
Can anyone name one such witness?
The only one I can think of is Oswald, who said he was in the lunch room, and not by a window overlooking Elm Street.
How exactly do “we know” this?
So in true LN fashion, your speculation that you have no evidence for wins by default unless somebody can prove you wrong.
Of the hundreds of witnesses there, I think you would be hard put to find a single witness who overestimated their distance from the President at the time he was killed.
Question:
Can anyone name one such witness?
The only one I can think of is Oswald, who said he was in the lunch room, and not by a window overlooking Elm Street.
Jean Hill used to hand out cards calling herself the “closest witness”. The other five occupants in the limousine, the four motorcycle officers just behind the limousine, the seven occupants of the ‘Queen Mary’ following right behind the limousine. Plus, her friend, Mary Moorman who was closer and standing right next to her. Jean Hill was no more the closest witness than she crossed the street immediately after the shots, without getting run over, in pursuit of Jack Ruby up the Grassy Knoll.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/3a/71/2eavagB5_o.jpg)Ike Altgens' livelihood depended on him knowing distances, especially in 1940, when he started taking pictures with fairly primitive - by today's standards - cameras. If he miscalculated, the picture would not be in focus.
I've seen this claim a few times. Based on Altgens' WC testimony.
"This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet
from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the
west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car."
He's a lot more than 15 feet away from the President's head at Z312/313. And maybe 30 feet away from Mrs. Kennedy's car door.
Ike Altgens' livelihood depended on him knowing distances, especially in 1940, when he started taking pictures with fairly primitive - by today's standards - cameras. If he miscalculated, the picture would not be in focus.
So, I would tend to trust his judgement regarding distances more than most, if not all, of the people in Dealey Plaza.
Yet, he is not 15ft away.
Perhaps there's something you're missing. : )
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/maps/dealey/culter-plat-comp-auto-may70.png) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) (Note: The 40-Foot Scale Should Read 80-Foot) "Altgens at Z-346" is Cutler's positioning of Algtens in the Zapruder film |
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z300-z349/z346.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z350-z399/z351.jpg) |
What does getting all anal about how far Altgens was from the limo really have to do with Tague's injury?
Frame 346 - Is that Altgens camera case sitting on the grass behind him?
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/pojfkwhiteslides10031.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/rickerby1.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Couch/20160719-214238.JPG) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/0373.jpg) |
Yes. Altgens left his camera case there while he was across the street.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/pojfkwhiteslides10031.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/rickerby1.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Couch/20160719-214238.JPG) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/0373.jpg)
I thought it might have been a womans handbag. And was wondering why she left it there.Ike Altgens testimony is quite informative. Have you ever read it?
Ike Altgens testimony is quite informative. Have you ever read it?Read it a while ago. Just forgot.
He mentions his " gadget bag".
Altgens says he was "about 15 feet" from Kennedy's Limo and the Limo was about 21 feet long so by using Jerry's graphic the measurement from Altgens to Kennedy's Limo is about 18-19 feet.So, Altgens was about 18 to 19 feet from the limo, because the limo was 21 feet long. Okay, I guess.
Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.
(https://i.postimg.cc/K82rRrs1/Jerrys-Altgen.jpg)
Credit Jerry Organ
JohnM
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
(Note: The 40-Foot Scale Should Read 80-Foot)
"Altgens at Z-346" is Cutler's positioning of Algtens in the Zapruder film
Altgens is oblique to the limousine's line-of-travel, which increases by a few feet his distance from the car. At Z-346, I estimate (based on Cutler's map) that Altgens is about 22 feet from Mrs. Kennedy's car door. The car seems to pass closest to Altgens in the Z350s.
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z300-z349/z346.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z350-z399/z351.jpg)
Under the stressful circumstances (and given that the car did pass very near to Altgens) Altgens' estimate is within reason. But it's an estimate that's not possible.
So, Altgens was about 18 to 19 feet from the limo, because the limo was 21 feet long. Okay, I guess.
Except, how wide is Elm St.? Was that factored into the calculation? Exactly how?
Since this really isn't that important, well except for anal retentive nitpickers, in the end I took Jerry's approximation from Altgens to Jackie's door/Kennedy's head to be about 30 feet so I divided his overall measurement into 3 pieces and hence the overall proportional distance is about 18-19 feet. If you really want to figure it out exactly to an inch then be my guest and forever more you can be the hero of this insignificant factoid. Thumb1:Thanks, Mr Fallacious Arguments
(https://i.postimg.cc/9XKYPtSX/Jerrys-Altgen.jpg)
JohnM
(Altgens was on the grass, so there's 2 to 3 ft. to add.)
Don't wan tot seem picky but Altgen wasn't standing 2 to 3 ft back from the curb. His left foot is standing on the curb.
LBJ and Russell September 9,1964:
RUSSELL: No, no, They're trying to prove that the same bullet that hit Kennedy first was the one that hit Connally,
went through him and through his hand, his bone and into his leg... I couldn't hear all the evidence and cross-examine
all of 'em. But I did read the record...I was the only fellow there that...suggested any change whatever in what the
staff got up. This staff business always scares me. I like to put my own views down. But we got you a pretty good report.
LBJ: Well, what difference does it make which bullet got Connally?
RUSSELL: Well, it don't make much difference. But they said that...the commission believes that the same bullet that
hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well I don't believe it.
LBJ: I don't either
RUSSELL: And so I couldn't sign it. And I said that Governor Connally testified directly to the contrary and I'm not
gonna approve of that. So I finally made 'em say there was a difference in the commission, in that part of 'em believed
that that wasn't so. And 'course if a fellow was accurate enough to hit Kennedy right in the neck on one shot and knock
his head off in the next one-and he's leaning up against his wife's head-and not even wound her-why, he didn't miss
completely with that third shot. But according to their theory, he not only missed the whole automobile, but he missed
the the street! Well, a man that's a good enough shot to put two bullets right into Kennedy, he didn't miss that whole
automobile.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=4271&relPageId=27
He didn't miss that whole automobile.
Probably not.
Third shot impact z350ish
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/tague/tague-hit-z312-projection.jpg)
Has anyone said the fragment had to go over the rollbar?
Remember, these are fragments. They are not aerodynamically sound. They are unevenly shaped. They could have gone over the roll bar like a boomerang and hit Tague.Correct.
Altgens looks pretty perpendicular to the limo about z349, and also, since the limo - by design- is in the middle of Elm St. , i.e. one lane's width, and standard lane width is 12 feet, ...we seem to be back to that 15 ft. (Altgens was on the grass, so there's 2 to 3 ft. to add.)
Except, how wide is Elm St.?Back of curb to back of curb? 37 ft or 41 ft [typical 3 lane Dallas city street widths]--- So Jerry O is real close there.
The Warren Commission stated "The width of each concrete roadway through the Plaza is 40 feet."His testimony is pretty simple.
(https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/dealeyplaza/king-dealey-plaza-01.jpg)
If the lanes on Elm Street were evenly placed apart, each lane is about 13 feet wide (add to that about 5- or 6-inches width for each of the two road stripes). 13' x 3 = 39' (plus approx 1' for width of both stripes). 40' total.
The car is 78.6" wide. If centered in the center road lane, the car would be 38.7" from each road stripe. Altgens was at least 13 feet (the width of a road lane) from the center lane's east stripe. It is not clear to me that he is actually standing on the curb, but instead is a bit back.
If Altgens was right at the curb, the closest Altgens got to the rear door as it passed him was about 16.8' to 17'.
"This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet
from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the
west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car."
Altgens was roughly 15 feet from the car during the moments following the head shot. It is incorrect to claim he was 15 feet from JFK when the head shot occurred.
Well, it sounds like Deputy Sheriff Walthers was as big an expert on bullet strikes on concrete as any who looked at the curb. Although not, so far as I know, an expert on tire rim strikes on curbs.
But he didn’t mention any missing chips from the curb. Just as the photographs do not show any missing chip, or any large enough to be visible, Deputy Sheriff Walters did not observe this either. So the best witness saw no chip missing from the curb. Only a mark.
His opinion seems to have been based on the freshness of the mark. He knows from experience that they become noticeably grayer and grayer after two or three days.
Well, we know that thousands of cars drove by that curb every day. Most of them did not strike a curb, but most bullets, would not strike a curb either. And there were not thousands of bullets fired.
None of this is strong evidence that the tire rim strike hypothesis is wrong and the bullet strike hypothesis is correct.
His testimony is pretty simple.
We have already established his professional experience with estimating distance.
You have confirmed that 15 ft is pretty darn close. ( Thanks.)
He states that he was 15 ft from the president " at the time he was shot in the head".
Perhaps there's something I missed?
Or are you and Organ and Mytton missing something?
Seeing the emperor's new clothes yet again I see.
Walthers mentioned that he had seen bullet strikes on curbs before. Also, the mark was deep enough, had enough substance missing, that Walthers assumed it could have been the source of the fragment that stung Tague and cut his face. And, the first photos did in fact show material missing from the mark--it was not just a smudge.
The lone-gunman theory cannot plausible, believably get a bullet or bullet fragment near the Tague curb scar or Tague himself. That's why the WC tried to ignore it for as long as they could.
He's off by 100% or more if his 15 ft distance is applied to the moment of the head shot.
Altgens' statement that he was 15 ft from the president "at the time he was shot in the head" is ballpark-correct only if "at the time" includes the Z350s.
Statements like "James Altgens, who was very close to the shooting and was about 15 feet away from JFK when Z313 hit" need context and shouldn't be taken literally, if anyone did.
And, since there were two head shots, that kind of doubles the odds.
How are we to take Altgens' testimony, if not "literally"?
Figuratively?
Metaphorically?
Two head shots? Besides Kennedy, who else was shot in the head?
JohnM
Read the testimony of Silbert and O'Neill.
" It was in the hairline."
How does their testimony trump the official autopsy that includes supporting photographs and x-rays?Have you read their testimony?
JohnM
Have you read their testimony?
Are you aware their 302's were not included in the Warren Report, and only discovered in 1966?
"It was in the hairline."
I'm sure a smart guy like you can figure it out.
I'll ask again, how does their observations trump an official autopsy with supporting photos and x-rays?
JohnM
I'll ask again, how does their observations trump an official autopsy with supporting photos and x-rays?Have you read their observations?
JohnM
How does their testimony trump the official autopsy that includes supporting photographs and x-rays?JohnM
Did you write this reply in the 1970s and just forget to hit Post until today? You know we have hard scientific evidence that the skull x-rays have been altered, right? Have you heard about the optical density analyses that have been done on the x-rays?
Walthers mentioned that he had seen bullet strikes on curbs before. Also, the mark was deep enough, had enough substance missing, that Walthers assumed it could have been the source of the fragment that stung Tague and cut his face. And, the first photos did in fact show material missing from the mark--it was not just a smudge.
The autopsy photos and X-Rays were confirmed as authentic by the HSCA's 21 member panel of photographic analysis experts and by the HSCA Medical panel. The photos were authenticated by the photographer who took them and the X-Rays were authenticated by the radiologist responsible for them as well as by the technician who took them.
Ebersole testified that the X-Rays in the National Archives are the ones that he supervised the taking of just prior to the start of the autopsy on Kennedy. He positively identified them. As Jerrol Custer noted "the technician takes the X-Rays. The Radiologist reads the X-Rays. Plain and simple." Custer believed that the X-Rays were genuine. He was shown three X-Rays of the skull during his ARRB testimony and he confirmed that he had taken them. Those X-Rays were (1),(2),and (3) in the list below.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md13/html/Image01.htm
That document is from 1966. The x-rays and pictures and the number of each could have been faked by 1966.
That document is from 1966. The x-rays and pictures and the number of each could have been faked by 1966.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md13/html/Image00.htm
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md13/html/Image10.htm
Regardless, 3 important photos are not included in the Archives.
The photo of the inside of the chest cavity. It could/would have shown the path and direction of the bullet that struck JFK in the
back.
The photos of the bullet wound in JFK's skull located slightly above and slightly to the right of the EOP. The autopsy doctors asked they
be taken of the inside and outside of the skull, with the brain removed and the scalp refracted.
The location of both wounds were changed after the autopsy.
Gerald Ford changed the description of the location of the back wound in the final draft of the WCR; from JFK's back to the back of the base
of JFK's neck. It raised the entrance above the alleged exit in the front of the throat. Makes a shot from 60 feet up on 6th floor SE corner
TSBD more palatable/believable.
The Clark Panel found a trail of metal particles across the top of JFK's skull when the autopsy materials were re-examined in the late
sixties. They concluded the autopsy doctors missed the rear entrance wound in JFK's skull by 4 inches. They changed it's official location
from the EOP to the cowlick.
So, you have "experts", who keep debating over two different entry points in the skull, and a third back/back of neck wound.
Seems like we're talking about three wounds.
And there were three empty shells.
What does that tell you?
Regardless, 3 important photos are not included in the Archives.
The photo of the inside of the chest cavity. It could/would have shown the path and direction of the bullet that struck JFK in the
back.
The photos of the bullet wound in JFK's skull located slightly above and slightly to the right of the EOP. The autopsy doctors asked they
be taken of the inside and outside of the skull, with the brain removed and the scalp refracted.
The location of both wounds were changed after the autopsy.
Gerald Ford changed the description of the location of the back wound in the final draft of the WCR; from JFK's back to the back of the base
of JFK's neck. It raised the entrance above the alleged exit in the front of the throat. Makes a shot from 60 feet up on 6th floor SE corner
TSBD more palatable/believable.
The Clark Panel found a trail of metal particles across the top of JFK's skull when the autopsy materials were re-examined in the late
sixties. They concluded the autopsy doctors missed the rear entrance wound in JFK's skull by 4 inches. They changed it's official location
from the EOP to the cowlick.
Is that based on Finck saying years later words to the effect that "I thought we had taken that picture" and "It would be nice to have such a picture"?
Ironic having Finck ordering up or wishing there were photographs since he has such a mixed opinion of them by 1996:
"Dr. Finck, if I could ask you to look just once more to see if you can see any evidence in
this photograph of where the bullet entry wound was in the head of President Kennedy,
if you can see any evidence of that in this photograph?
"It is very difficult to do with preciseness in a photograph. I examined the wounds themselves.
To look at a photograph is not like the examination of the wound itself."
Where in the autopsy report does it say the back wound was at T1 or lower, or entered the back itself? The autopsy report situated the wound above the scapula at the base of the back of the neck.
"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above
the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and
the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck."
It is that location that Ford honored when he made changes that would better reflect what the autopsy report said.
(https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ford_files/image001.gif)
One could take "above the shoulder" to mean the shoulder line. In being true to the autopsy report, it could be said that Ford was actually lowering the wound location from how it was worded in the Report's draft.
Ford changed the wording because it needed to be, not because he wanted a false narrative to frame young Oswald.
The trail would be high if the bullet enter near the cowlick. And along the top right side of the brain is where there is brain missing. The area near the EOP is intact and has no metallic fragments.
The Clark Panel didn't "change" the head wound location just out of the blue. It was their examination of the autopsy materials that showed no skull wound slightly above the EOP and a wound that was almost four inches above the EOP.
It's interesting how critics first denounced the Bethesda pathologists and autopsy ("unworthy of a Bowery b.u.m" Weisberg), but contend they must have seen the skull entry wound and the EOP on a reflected scalp. Never mind that such an opportunity would have afford a measured distance between the EOP and wound. And that should a scene would very likely been recorded in a photograph. Neither happened.
"Finally, regarding JFK?s still-controversial skull wound, In formerly secret testimony taken 24 years ago, Dr. Finck described to the Select Committee how he had photographed the beveling in JFK?s skull bone to prove that the low wound in occipital bone was an entrance wound. In the following exchange, Dr. Finck was being asked by the Select Committee?s forensic consultants whether the official images were those Dr. Finck had claimed were missing."
Charles Petty, MD: "If I understand you correctly, Dr. Finck, you wanted particularly to have a photograph made of the external aspect of the skull from the back to show that there was no cratering to the outside of the skull."
Finck: "Absolutely."
Petty: "Did you ever see such a photograph?"
Finck: "I don't think so and I brought with me memorandum referring to the examination of photographs in 1967... and as I can recall I never saw pictures of the outer aspect of the wound of entry in the back of the head and inner aspect in the skull in order to show a crater although I was there asking for these photographs. I don't remember seeing those photographs."
Petty: ?All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the scalp off of the bone in order to show this??
Finck: ?Yes.?
Petty: ?Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia (sic - meant ?fossa?)??
Finck: ?I don?t remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside ? the skull had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.?[156]
--------------------
Here is the Attorney General, in a taped phone call, telling LBJ they don't have the photo of JFK's right lung.
The one Humes testified was taken.
http://www.jfklancer.com/Clark.LBJ.html
Date: 1-21-67 12:00 Noon
Time: 7 mins 25 secs at the end of a 8 mins 31 secs conversation
Phone Conversation between Acting Attorney General Ramsey Clark and President Lyndon Johnson
Re: Autopsy Photos
-snip-
"That is, there may be a photo missing. Dr. Humes, Commander and Naval doctor, testified before the Warren Commission that this one photo made of the highest portion of the right lung."
-snip-
"It could be contended that that photo could show the course and direction the bullet that entered the lower part of the neck and exited the front part."
-snip-
"We are left with one specific problem. Dr. Humes did testify before the Warren Commission there was such a photo [that]
we don't have."
-snip-
"Finally, regarding JFK?s still-controversial skull wound, In formerly secret testimony taken 24 years ago, Dr. Finck described to the Select Committee how he had photographed the beveling in JFK?s skull bone to prove that the low wound in occipital bone was an entrance wound. In the following exchange, Dr. Finck was being asked by the Select Committee?s forensic consultants whether the official images were those Dr. Finck had claimed were missing."
Charles Petty, MD: "If I understand you correctly, Dr. Finck, you wanted particularly to have a photograph made of the external aspect of the skull from the back to show that there was no cratering to the outside of the skull."
Finck: "Absolutely."
Petty: "Did you ever see such a photograph?"
Finck: "I don't think so and I brought with me memorandum referring to the examination of photographs in 1967... and as I can recall I never saw pictures of the outer aspect of the wound of entry in the back of the head and inner aspect in the skull in order to show a crater although I was there asking for these photographs. I don't remember seeing those photographs."
Petty: ?All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the scalp off of the bone in order to show this??
Finck: ?Yes.?
Petty: ?Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia (sic - meant ?fossa?)??
Finck: ?I don?t remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside ? the skull had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.?[156]
~snip~
--------------------
Here is the Attorney General, in a taped phone call, telling LBJ they don't have the photo of JFK's right lung.
The one Humes testified was taken.
http://www.jfklancer.com/Clark.LBJ.html
Date: 1-21-67 12:00 Noon
Time: 7 mins 25 secs at the end of a 8 mins 31 secs conversation
Phone Conversation between Acting Attorney General Ramsey Clark and President Lyndon Johnson
Re: Autopsy Photos
-snip-
"That is, there may be a photo missing. Dr. Humes, Commander and Naval doctor, testified before the Warren Commission that this one photo made of the highest portion of the right lung."
-snip-
"It could be contended that that photo could show the course and direction the bullet that entered the lower part of the neck and exited the front part."
-snip-
"We are left with one specific problem. Dr. Humes did testify before the Warren Commission there was such a photo [that]
we don't have."
-snip-
-------------------------
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/shaw2.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0050a.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0056a.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0097b.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0107b.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0119a.jpg)
----------------------
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/EOPwound.png)
--------------------------
Q: Did you request that the photographer take any particular photographs to
assist you in your work? Dr. Finck, let me show you a portion of Exhibit 28,
page 6. I am going to draw your attention to a sentence in the first paragraph,
the sentence beginning with the word "I." Do you see that sentence, which I
will read for the record:
"I helped the Navy photographer to take photographs of the
occipital wound, external and internal aspects as well as the
wound in the back."
A: Now that I read this, I remember. But when you asked me the question before,
it's hard for me to answer. But now I see that I helped the Navy photographer to
take photographs of the occipital wound. So that's what happened.
Q: Do you now recall any suggestion that you made to the photographer in terms of
placement or angle of the shot or any such thing?
A: Angle of?
Q: Let me withdraw, let me withdraw the question. What I am interested in now is
whether you currently have a recollection of this event or whether you are just
confirming what has been written here?
A: I'm confirming what is written.
Q: But you have no independent recollection yourself?
A: That's too far back.
Finck prefers hands-on to photographs:
"It is very difficult to do with preciseness in a photograph. I examined the wounds .
themselves. To look at a photograph is not like the examination of the wound itself."
But here it's the opposite. Finck doesn't remember the hands-on ("I don't remember the difficulty involved") and promotes an imaginary photograph that supposedly shows the EOP bared, although no other doctor said there was such a photograph, there's no measurement between the supposedly-bared EOP and entry wound, and all three signed an inventory saying the autopsy photographs were complete and authentic.
They attempted some shots inside the open chest cavity and the skull with a smaller handheld consumer camera but the pictures didn't turn out. These were probably the pictures that Finck was present for. He couldn't remember the shots taken with the larger professional camera of the head with the brain inside; they were taken before he arrived.
Shortly after the shooting it was known that a bystander, James Tague, had been struck on the face by an apparent bullet fragment, and that a fresh bullet mark was found on the curb near the place where Tague had been standing. The Tague incident was reported to a deputy sheriff and his superior (7H 546-547), to Dallas Police Officer Haygood (WR 116) and the Dallas police at City Hall (7H 556). Although Tague went to City Hall and reported his experience, the police report on the assassination (CE 2003) does not include any affidavit from or any reference to Tague. . . .
It is indisputable that in a methodical, impartial investigation Tague would have been interviewed and the mark on the curb would have been examined at an early stage—certainly before conclusions were formulated about the number and the source of the shots. The evidence was known immediately to the Dallas police and sheriff's officers and almost certainly to the FBI as well, from the interview with Dillard if not from local police officers.
Yet the first overt indication of FBI interest in the curb came only on June 11, 1964, and the records do not specify what provoked action at that time. It may have been the communication from Martha Jo Stroud; that too has been withheld from the Exhibits and the date is not known. Whatever that date, it is perfectly clear from the documents that it was her communication that led the Commission on July 7, 1964, to request an FBI investigation of the curb, and it is entirely legitimate to wonder if the public would have learned anything whatever about this or the Tague matter in the absence of such an external stimulus.
The omission from the Exhibits of the FBI reports on interviews with Underwood and Dillard and the letter from Mrs. Stroud betrays a lack of candor on the Commission's part and perhaps an attempt to conceal its persistent inattention, and the FBI's, to vital evidence—evidence which irresistibly creates uncertainty about the actual number of shots.
If the Commission now concedes that the mark on the curb was made by a bullet, or a bullet fragment, it does so on the same undeviating assumption that the shots came exclusively from the Book Depository. To assume a priori that the mark was produced by a missile from that source, as both the Commission and the FBI did without even considering any other possibility, betrays the commitment to a hypothesis with which this evidence has little compatibility. Straining to force the evidence into harmony with preconceived conclusions, the Commission suggests two rather frail possibilities.
It suggests that a fragment from the bullet that hit the President's head might have produced the mark on the curb, ignoring the fact that two large fragments (equivalent respectively to one-fourth and one-eighth of the mass of the whole bullet) had dropped into the car without even penetrating the windshield or the relatively soft surfaces on which they were found. (WR 76-77, 557; 5H 66-74) If those fragments suffered such a dramatic loss of velocity upon impact and fragmentation, how could a different piece of the bullet retain sufficient momentum to travel "about 260 feet" farther, and to cut Tague's face and/or mark the curb? (Accessories After the Fact, pp. 5, 7, available online at https://archive.org/details/AccessoriesAfterTheFact)
Sylvia Meagher’s treatment of the Tague wounding in her classic work Accessories After the Fact is worth reading:
Something hit Tague in the face and hit his face hard enough to cause a bleeding cut. Tague was 260 feet from the limousine when the headshot occurred, and bullet fragments from the headshot stayed in the limo (where they were later found), so the idea that a fragment from the headshot magically cleared the roll bar and the windshield and then dived down and made it to Tague with enough velocity to cause Tague’s wound is absurd.
Plus, Tague was hit before the headshot because he heard another shot after he was hit in the face.
WC apologists dismiss or ignore Tague’s recollection of hearing another shot after he was hit, and they markedly disagree among themselves about how to get a bullet fragment to Tague and/or the curb. Why? Because they are bound by the lone-gunman theory’s assumption that only three shots were fired, even though we have abundant evidence that more than three shots were fired.
Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza
https://miketgriffith.com/files/extrabullets.htm
Below is a surprisingly good 2013 local NBC news segment on the Tague wounding. It includes an interview with Tague done a few days before the segment aired.
As for the WC's nonsensical theory that a bullet fragment from the headshot caused Tague's wounding, even Gerald Posner and Jim Moore have enough sense to see how ludicrous that idea is. Unfortunately, Moore's theory is even worse, while Posner's requires a staggering first-shot miss and a bullet that fragments after hitting a tree limb and then makes its way through the other tree limbs and goes streaking toward Tague's location.
As for the WC's nonsensical theory that a bullet fragment from the headshot caused Tague's wounding, even Gerald Posner and Jim Moore have enough sense to see how ludicrous that idea is. Unfortunately, Moore's theory is even worse, while Posner's requires a staggering first-shot miss and a bullet that fragments after hitting a tree limb and then makes its way through the other tree limbs and goes streaking toward Tague's location.
For Mr. Griffith to find a hypothesis to be “nonsensical”, it does not require the relevant experts, ballistic experts, to find it nonsensical. Only himself. Based on his own armchair reasoning, not supported by real-world tests.
Gerald Posner and Jim Moore opinions on the Tague wounding are over 25 years old. Worse, neither were ballistic experts. In the past 25 years, LNers opinion has swung over to accepting the high probability of the Tague wound being caused by a fragment from the head wound. While laymen may find this hypothesis unlikely, ballistic experts, like Larry Sturdivan, Luke Haag and Michael Haag, who do real world experiments with rifles, find this hypothesis to be quite possible and the most likely explanation. Since the 1990’s, the opinion of these experts has persuaded most LNers that this hypothesis is true.
Forcing Mr. Griffith to reach back over 25 years to find prominent LNers, who were not ballistic experts, to make it appear that LNers opinion on this is sharply divided. It isn’t.
Look, it's so simple: The obvious conclusion is that a fourth shot was responsible for Tague's wounding.
Sorry, but the claim that bullet fragments from the head shot caused the dent in the chrome and the windshield damage, and that therefore another headshot fragment could have cleared the roll bar and the windshield to streak toward Tague, just doesn't work.
Dr. Tom Canning, the trajectory expert for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, told the committee that the windshield damage appeared to be too high to have been caused by a fragment from the headshot missile. So there's no way that a headshot fragment could have cleared the windshield to fly toward Tague.
If you accept the autopsy x-rays and photos and the Zapruder film as pristine and authentic, where in the world do you see an exit point in the skull that would even come close to allowing a fragment to fly at the necessary horizontal angle from the skull to fly toward Tague? Where? Where is it? And how can anyone posit such a theory given the position of JFK's head in the milliseconds during and just after the headshot? How?
If Canning did indeed say that, then , like you, he was working under the false assumption that the bullet would have traveled in a straight ine trajectory through the head.
(https://i.imgur.com/z3HcZUk.png)
Sorry, but the claim that bullet fragments from the head shot caused the dent in the chrome and the windshield damage, and that therefore another headshot fragment could have cleared the roll bar and the windshield to streak toward Tague, just doesn't work.
Dr. Tom Canning, the trajectory expert for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, told the committee that the windshield damage appeared to be too high to have been caused by a fragment from the headshot missile. So there's no way that a headshot fragment could have cleared the windshield to fly toward Tague.
If you accept the autopsy x-rays and photos and the Zapruder film as pristine and authentic, where in the world do you see an exit point in the skull that would even come close to allowing a fragment to fly at the necessary horizontal angle from the skull to fly toward Tague? Where? Where is it? And how can anyone posit such a theory given the position of JFK's head in the milliseconds during and just after the headshot? How?
And, for Pete's sake, if your headshot bullet came from the sixth-floor window, it entered the skull at a downward angle of about 20 degrees. So how would a fragment from that bullet exit the skull at an upward angle and with enough velocity to reach Tague with sufficient force to cut Tague or chip the curb? Again, as Dr. Canning noted, the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a headshot fragment, and that damage was below the windshield chrome.
Three other points:
* Tague could not have been wounded by a fragment from the headshot because he had already ducked under the triple underpass before the headshot occurred. Dr. Thomas notes that photos taken in Dealey Plaza during the shooting confirm Tague's recollection that he took refuge under the triple underpass. Tague also recalled that he heard a shot after he got under the underpass. As Dr. Thomas notes, "Quite obviously, if he heard a shot after he ducked under the bridge, then he could not have been wounded by the last shot" (Hear No Evil, p. 378).
* As part of the research for his book Reasonable Doubt, Rockefeller Foundation scholar Henry Hurt contracted an engineering firm to study the curb mark, and the firm confirmed Harold Weisberg's earlier finding that the mark had been patched (Reasonable Doubt, pp. 136-138). (Weisberg had determined this by getting access to the high-quality color photographs that the FBI's Shaneyfelt took of the curb section in May 1964, and then by gaining access to the curb section itself.)
* The FBI destroyed the small spectrographic plate that contained a scraping from the curb mark in the face of repeated FOIA attempts by Harold Weisberg to have the plate tested by independent experts. The plate was subjected to spectrographic testing by FBI crime lab chemist John Gallagher in 1964, but the FBI withheld the lab report from the WC. Instead, Hoover sent a letter to the commission that--supposedly--summarized the lab findings.
Hoover said the smearing contained lead with a trace of antimony, which at the very least suggested the curb was struck by a bullet fragment. Weisberg sued to get a copy of the FBI lab report. When Weisberg finally received a copy of the lab report, he noticed it was suspiciously incomplete. So Weisberg then sued to be allowed to have the spectrographic plate analyzed by independent experts. After several Weisberg FOIA suits, the FBI announced that in "routine house-keeping" it had destroyed the plate.
Look, it's so simple: The obvious conclusion is that a fourth shot was responsible for Tague's wounding.
LOL
That's why Max Holland's theory makes the most sense, guys: The sniper in the sixth floor window took a shot at JFK when the limo had just come out of the Elm Street turn and was about even with the clustered black-and-white highway signs on the "island," as reported by Amos Euins and as intimated by Patricia Ann Donaldson-Lawrence in the National Geographic special "The Lost Bullet".
The bullet lost its copper jacket when it struck, at a shallow angle, the mast arm of the traffic light over the limo (from the sniper's POV) and ended up striking a curb about 20 feet from James Tague, who was standing down by The Triple Underpass, leaving a lead and antimony (but copper-less) smear on the curb.
D'oh
-- MWT ;)
| (http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/112216/004_LCH-3.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) A shot causing minimal damage to mast arm would not deflect much. | (http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/112216/008_MGH-2.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Amount of deflection needed to make Holland's theory work. |
(https://i.imgur.com/z3HcZUk.png)
Its difficult to see how the bullet could have deflected this much going through JFKs head.
Could he have been hit higher up in the head like the HSCA suggested? This would make it easier for the bullet fragments to exit the head at the front.
Its difficult to see how the bullet could have deflected this much going through JFKs head.
Could he have been hit higher up in the head like the HSCA suggested? This would make it easier for the bullet fragments to exit the head at the front.
LOLOdd, that the West survey shows three points where JFK was hit.
That's why Max Holland's theory makes the most sense, guys: The sniper in the sixth floor window took a shot at JFK when the limo had just come out of the Elm Street turn and was about even with the clustered black-and-white highway signs on the "island," as reported by Amos Euins and as intimated by Patricia Ann Donaldson-Lawrence in the National Geographic special "The Lost Bullet".
The bullet lost its copper jacket when it struck, at a shallow angle, the mast arm of the traffic light over the limo (from the sniper's POV) and ended up striking a curb about 20 feet from James Tague, who was standing down by The Triple Underpass, leaving a lead and antimony (but copper-less) smear on the curb.
D'oh
-- MWT ;)
Dear Joe,
A bullet fragment, or a bone fragment?
Regardless, how did it loop over the windshield (or penetrate it!) and manage to hit the curb with sufficient force to chip the concrete?
-- MWT ;)
Odd, that the West survey shows three points where JFK was hit.
Odd, that this survey remained sealed during WC hearings.
Odd, that the FBI misrepresented the West Survey in testimony to WC.
(http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/112216/004_LCH-3.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
A shot causing minimal damage to
mast arm would not deflect much.(http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/112216/008_MGH-2.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Amount of deflection needed to
make Holland's theory work.
If the bullet struck the mast arm "at a shallow angle", it wouldn't deflect significantly nor would the bullet disintegrate. Bullet fragmentation and the severe angle of deflection required to reach to Tague would result in visible damage to the mast arm.
"The surface examination and processing revealed no
obvious features that could be attributed to a bullet impact."
-- A Technical Investigation Pertaining to the
First Shot Fired in the JFK Assassination
(Holland & DeJonja, 2016)
The West Survey does NOT show three points where JFK was hit. You're probably looking at a Robert Cutler production.Well, actually, since the late Tom Purvis received and shared Mr. West's surveys, then no, I am not "probably looking at a Robert Cutler production".
The West Survey does NOT show three points where JFK was hit. You're probably looking at a Robert Cutler production.
Well, actually, since the late Tom Purvis received and shared Mr. West's surveys, then no, I am not "probably looking at a Robert Cutler production".
The last two shots were at 4+65 and 4 +95.
Surveys? I have the West Survey, dated May 31,1964. There are no markings on it indicating shots at 4+65 or 4+95. You are referring to an altered version of the West Survey. Perhaps one altered by Purvis himself.
Surveys? I have the West Survey, dated May 31,1964. There are no markings on it indicating shots at 4+65 or 4+95. You are referring to an altered version of the West Survey. Perhaps one altered by Purvis himself.CE 875
CE 875
A detective points to a chip in the curb. . . . A bullet strike from the rifle that took President Kennedy’s life apparently caused the hole. (Dallas Morning News, 11/23/1963, in Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, University Press of Kansas, 2015 edition, p. 118)
Scientific examination of the mark on the south curb of Main Street corroborated the opinions of Walthers and Tague that it was made by a bullet.
The absence of copper, according to the report, precluded the possibility that the “mark on the curbing section was made by an unmutilated military full metal-jacketed bullet.” The report left open the possibility that the mark had been made by a bullet fragment but was quick to declare that it “cannot be identified conclusively with any of the three shots fired.” What the FBI had earlier identified as a “nick” or “chip mark” on the curb was suddenly a “smear.” The more decisive language of the August 25 draft, relying on FBI lab results, which did not shrink from asserting that a bullet had hit the curb, was now revised. Citing the same FBI science, the Warren report resorted to inconclusive and fuzzy speculation about long-shot possibilities of a fragment from the headshot or a ricocheting missed shot that first hit some other object before it hit the curb.
As will be made apparent, the report’s flimsy reasoning and evasive and tortured construction were intended to salvage credibility for the single-bullet theory and to hide evidence of the presence of at least one other Dealey Plaza gunman. . . .
Reporting the complete results of the FBI's laboratory examination of the Tague curbstone would have destroyed the single-bullet theory and the Commission's solution to the assassination. If a bullet had scarred the curb, as the August 14 and the August 25 "Final Draft" had unequivocally stated, then at least one shot had come from somewhere other than the "sniper's nest," and Dallas was a conspiracy. (Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, University Press of Kansas, 2005, pp. 281-282, 285)