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).
Recent Posts