Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)  (Read 8808 times)

Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1241
    • SPMLaw
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #80 on: February 27, 2022, 06:14:07 PM »
Advertisement

Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes. There was another one came up who was located, at the time he stated, on the south side of Elm Street back toward the triple underpass. Back, well, it would be north of the underpass there, and said he had gotten hit by a piece of concrete or something, and he did have a slight cut on his right cheek, upper portion of his cheek just to the right of his nose.
Mr. BELIN. Would he have been to the front or to the back of the Presidential…
Given the three impact locations on the windshield, one of which was about as high as possible, it would be surprising if there were not some fragments that went over the top of the windshield.  And then there is the evidence of the mark on the curb which was described as being a fresh mark.  There was no damage to the curb - no concrete missing.  It was just a mark that left traces of lead and antimony when it was analysed 8 months later.  For Tague to imagine something that did not happen but have it fit with this evidence would be implausible.  All this evidence fits with Tague being hit by a fragment from one of the shots - the second shot, according to Tague's WC testimony.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #80 on: February 27, 2022, 06:14:07 PM »


Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3026
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #81 on: February 27, 2022, 07:38:04 PM »
Given the three impact locations on the windshield, one of which was about as high as possible, it would be surprising if there were not some fragments that went over the top of the windshield.  And then there is the evidence of the mark on the curb which was described as being a fresh mark.  There was no damage to the curb - no concrete missing.  It was just a mark that left traces of lead and antimony when it was analysed 8 months later.  For Tague to imagine something that did not happen but have it fit with this evidence would be implausible.  All this evidence fits with Tague being hit by a fragment from one of the shots - the second shot, according to Tague's WC testimony.

"All this evidence fits with Tague being hit by a fragment from one of the shots - the second shot, according to Tague's WC testimony."

Isn't your second shot the one that was supposed to exit JBC's chest while he was facing Zapruder?
How could a fragment from such a shot head towards Tague?

Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1241
    • SPMLaw
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #82 on: March 02, 2022, 03:18:21 PM »
"All this evidence fits with Tague being hit by a fragment from one of the shots - the second shot, according to Tague's WC testimony."

Isn't your second shot the one that was supposed to exit JBC's chest while he was facing Zapruder?
How could a fragment from such a shot head towards Tague?
The deflection is off the wrist that is pressed against the chest.  The bullet sent a spray of lead throughout the wrist wound after striking and shattering the radius well above the wrist joint.

No one has ever been able to explain how the bullet and its resulting fragments would not obey the laws of physics and deflect away from the point of contact.  So if the bullet obeyed the laws of physics, it should have deflected up slightly.  The fragments that struck the windshield were spread over an area of about 12" x 12" ranging from the upper edge down to below the mirror.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #82 on: March 02, 2022, 03:18:21 PM »