Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: The First Shot  (Read 127687 times)

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 952
Re: The First Shot
« Reply #1024 on: May 16, 2022, 02:22:09 PM »
Advertisement
I mentioned that Walthers had changed his tune by the time of his WC testimony.
But, according to Gun, Walthers himself described finding this bullet and Dudson also describes a police inspector (who can only have been Walthers) describing the same thing, the discovery of a bullet in the area being searched by various officers ( which can only be the area around the manhole cover).
Why Walthers changed his tune is unknown but the photos do appear to show him reaching down to the ground and picking something up.
This bullet strike would also be the favourite candidate for the fragment of bullet that chipped the kerb near Tague cutting his cheek. Notions of bullet fragments from the head shot doing this are completely unrealistic. The cut on Tague's cheek must be accounted for and a direct, fragmenting bullet strike to the concrete part of the manhole cover is, by far, the most realistic option.

You are questioning the integrity of the wrong person in this tale. Tague was as sleazy as it gets. The only person who mentions blood on Tague's cheek is Tague. If you have ever seen the texture of the cement of the overpass structure, there is another alternative explanation because by Tague's own account he pressed himself up against it.

On the flip side. If the story was true and based on other discussions on this board, the chain of custody of this supposed bullet would be an issue. The story of the reporter is what seems far fetched.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The First Shot
« Reply #1024 on: May 16, 2022, 02:22:09 PM »


Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3086
Re: The First Shot
« Reply #1025 on: May 17, 2022, 01:03:40 AM »
You are questioning the integrity of the wrong person in this tale. Tague was as sleazy as it gets. The only person who mentions blood on Tague's cheek is Tague. If you have ever seen the texture of the cement of the overpass structure, there is another alternative explanation because by Tague's own account he pressed himself up against it.

On the flip side. If the story was true and based on other discussions on this board, the chain of custody of this supposed bullet would be an issue. The story of the reporter is what seems far fetched.

The only person who mentions blood on Tague's cheek is Tague.

Although blood isn't mentioned, a cut is:

Mr. Belin: You talked to any other witnesses there?
Mr. HAYGOOD: Yes. There was another one came up who was located, at the time he stated, on the south side of Elm Street back toward the triple underpass. Back, well, it would be north of the underpass there, and said he had gotten hit by a piece of concrete or something, and he did have a slight cut on his right cheek, upper portion of his cheek just to the right of his nose.


"If you have ever seen the texture of the cement of the overpass structure, there is another alternative explanation because by Tague's own account he pressed himself up against it."

This seems a bit made up and is nothing to do with what Tague immediately reported to both Haygood and Walthers.

On the flip side. If the story was true and based on other discussions on this board, the chain of custody of this supposed bullet would be an issue.

Considering the bullet seemed to go missing with the Secret Service/FBI agent that nobody from the Secret Service or the FBI could identify, there's not much of a chain of custody.

The story of the reporter is what seems far fetched.

There are two separate, independent reports from two journalists that the discovery of a bullet was made by the men searching the area photographed by Allen and Murray who appear to actually capture the moment Walthers picks something off the ground.
Both Dodson and Gun are completely credible witnesses.
There is absolutely nothing far-fetched about what either of them reports.

Obviously, the discovery of a bullet near the manhole cover blows the two shot theory completely out of the water so I understand why you're not a fan of these credible reports accompanied by photos.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2022, 01:05:09 AM by Dan O'meara »

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 952
Re: The First Shot
« Reply #1026 on: May 17, 2022, 02:11:06 PM »
The only person who mentions blood on Tague's cheek is Tague.

Although blood isn't mentioned, a cut is:

Mr. Belin: You talked to any other witnesses there?
Mr. HAYGOOD: Yes. There was another one came up who was located, at the time he stated, on the south side of Elm Street back toward the triple underpass. Back, well, it would be north of the underpass there, and said he had gotten hit by a piece of concrete or something, and he did have a slight cut on his right cheek, upper portion of his cheek just to the right of his nose.


"If you have ever seen the texture of the cement of the overpass structure, there is another alternative explanation because by Tague's own account he pressed himself up against it."

This seems a bit made up and is nothing to do with what Tague immediately reported to both Haygood and Walthers.

On the flip side. If the story was true and based on other discussions on this board, the chain of custody of this supposed bullet would be an issue.

Considering the bullet seemed to go missing with the Secret Service/FBI agent that nobody from the Secret Service or the FBI could identify, there's not much of a chain of custody.

The story of the reporter is what seems far fetched.

There are two separate, independent reports from two journalists that the discovery of a bullet was made by the men searching the area photographed by Allen and Murray who appear to actually capture the moment Walthers picks something off the ground.
Both Dodson and Gun are completely credible witnesses.
There is absolutely nothing far-fetched about what either of them reports.

Obviously, the discovery of a bullet near the manhole cover blows the two shot theory completely out of the water so I understand why you're not a fan of these credible reports accompanied by photos.

What do you think Tague was doing "duck behind the post?"

Tague claims he was hit on the second shot, but his statement is he turned his head away from the motorcade for the second shot.

He hides behind the abuttment and does not see the motorcade leave except for the rear of the SS car.

Mr. Tague.
Well, I was standing there watching, and really I was watching to try to distinguish the President and his car. About this time I heard what sounded like a firecracker. Well, a very loud firecracker. It certainly didn't sound like a rifleshot. It was more of a loud cannon-type sound. I looked around to see who was throwing firecrackers or what was going on and I turned my head away from the motorcade and, of course, two more shots.
And I ducked behind the post when I realized somebody was shooting after the third shot. After the third shot, I ducked behind the bridge abutment and was there for a second, and I glanced out and Just as I looked out, the car following the President's car, the one with the Secret Service men, was just flying past at that time.

--------------------------------------

Mr. Walthers is adamant he never found a bullet.
No; me and Allan Sweatt 2 or 3 days after the assassination did go back down there and make a pretty diligent search in there all up where that bullet might have hit, thinking that maybe the bullet hit the cement and laid down on some of them beams but we looked all up there and everywhere and I never did find one. I never did in all of my life tell anybody I found a bullet other than where it hit.

This is the sum total of what you believe proves a third shot? This is just hearsay and supposition.

This appears to be nothing more than two extreme conspiracy reporters. 4 and 5 bullets recovered?

Dudman--- thinks a "fifth bullet" was found. alters is never mentioned so it is only a guess the inspector is Walters.

Gun--- has Walters finding a "fourth bullet" the day of the assassination.

Buddy Walters said he searched the area with Allan Sweat two days later and did not find anything.

These reporters in no way prove there was ever any more than two shots fired. In fact, it seems to be a little on the crazy side.  The evidence that is important as to how many shots were fired is the shell themselves.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The First Shot
« Reply #1026 on: May 17, 2022, 02:11:06 PM »


Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1332
    • SPMLaw
Re: The First Shot
« Reply #1027 on: May 17, 2022, 10:28:02 PM »
So to summarize your post there is no proof. Nothing new there.

It turns out overwhelming evidence is really no evidence at all, just your opinion. No evidence at all that there ever was a third shot. The video of the assassination only exhibits evidence of two shots. You have not proven otherwise or even created a question about the possible existence of a third shot. A shot at Z270+ is just a pipe dream. Belief in a third shot at all is just fantasy.


Again, and I cannot stress this enough, the report you believe to be overwhelming evidence was compiled by the HSCA who then dismissed it by stating the witnesses were influenced by the media into inflating the number of shots. The WC gave the same assessment of the witness statements.

The question of the possibility of there being a third shot totally relies on the statements of earwitnesses, influenced by the media, into inflating the number of shots. The large majority of eye witnesses stated there was just two shots.

The fact you cannot prove otherwise should be a clue, but with your history of promoting this nonsense, I am sure you will not come to reality.
Jack, I asked you to specify which universe you were operating in.  It is obviously not the one the rest of us are in.

Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1332
    • SPMLaw
Re: The First Shot
« Reply #1028 on: May 17, 2022, 10:32:48 PM »
Tague claims he was hit on the second shot, but his statement is he turned his head away from the motorcade for the second shot.
Which is, possibly, why he was struck on the right cheek.


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The First Shot
« Reply #1028 on: May 17, 2022, 10:32:48 PM »


Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 952
Re: The First Shot
« Reply #1029 on: May 19, 2022, 03:18:13 PM »
Jack, I asked you to specify which universe you were operating in.  It is obviously not the one the rest of us are in.

Obviously, there won't be any proof of a third shot coming, let alone "overwhelming evidence". In your universe there seems to be a lot of clowns. On the positive side, it appears you are their leader.

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 952
Re: The First Shot
« Reply #1030 on: May 19, 2022, 03:26:11 PM »
Which is, possibly, why he was struck on the right cheek.

Your time would be better spent on the "overwhelming evidence" of a third shot. Even Tague's statement does not support your bizarre theory. Interesting, he has a second shot head shot.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The First Shot
« Reply #1030 on: May 19, 2022, 03:26:11 PM »


Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1332
    • SPMLaw
Re: The First Shot
« Reply #1031 on: May 20, 2022, 01:27:49 AM »
Your time would be better spent on the "overwhelming evidence" of a third shot. Even Tague's statement does not support your bizarre theory. Interesting, he has a second shot head shot.
I have given you the abundant and overwhelming evidence of three shots.  You just disagree with it. That doesn't mean it does not exist.

As far Tague's evidence is concerned, I have no idea what you are referring to.  Here is what he said under oath (7 H 555):

Mr. LIEBELER Do you have any idea which bullet might have made that mark?
Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn’t say
definitely on which one.
Mr. LIEBELER . Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards.