Cowlick Vs Occipital Protuberance

[John Iacoletti]

If someone says:

“I will pay you 1 dollar and you can cut the deck and I will flip over the top card. If the top card is a 4 of spades, you must pay me 5 dollars. If it is any other card, you pay me nothing.”

Now, if I am foolish enough to take this bet, I cut the deck, and he appears to turn over the top card and it is the 4 of spades, it probably didn’t happen by luck. Maybe it was luck, but probably not. The four of spades was probably “guided” there.

True, but that's not the correct analogy.

You're picking a random card that happens to be the 4 of spades and then claiming that the odds against picking that particular card are high.  But that would be true for any card you happened to pick.

Similarly, you're picking a spot on the curb where something happened to hit and claiming that the odds against that particular spot are high.  But that would apply to any other particular spot.

[Joe Elliott]

True, but that's not the correct analogy.

You're picking a random card that happens to be the 4 of spades and then claiming that the odds against picking that particular card are high.  But that would be true for any card you happened to pick.

Similarly, you're picking a spot on the curb where something happened to hit and claiming that the odds against that particular spot are high.  But that would apply to any other particular spot.

How does one know a random card is being picked? Why do you make an assumption that every time a card is being picked from a deck, it is a random card? Is that really true? Aren’t cards selections sometimes guided by sharp hustlers?

How do you know that lead smears always happen at a random location? Couldn’t there be some process that guides a lead substance right to certain places? Like the rim of a tire guiding a lead weight to the corner of a curb if a car bumps up against it?

Your assumption seems to be that cards are always selected at random. And that lead smears always occur at random locations. Both are faulty assumptions.


A lead smear left a lead balancing weight on a tire won’t be left at random places but will commonly end up on the corner of a curb. When a tire bumps against the curb and scrapes along it, the tire will be up against the curb. As the tire continues to rotate, the lead weight will be guided by the rim to strike the curb right on the corner. Such a lead weight might end up being smeared along the side of the curb, if the weight happened to be near the “6 o’clock” position. But more often, it will be initially higher than the curb, but as the tire continues to rotate, and continues to scrape along the curb, inevitably the lead weight will be guided by the rim to the corner of the curb.


Lead smears on a curb caused by a bullet could be anywhere, roughly 49 % of the time on the vertical face of the curb, 49% of time on the horizontal face of the curb, and about 2% of the time right on the corner.

Lead smears on a curb caused by a tire will be on the side of the curb 33% of time, and right on the corner 67% of the time, assuming the curb is one fourth as tall as the tire is wide, and the tire scrapes along for a short distance of about 10 feet or so.

So, if a lead smear can be caused by a bullet or a tire and it is found right smack on the corner of the curb, it is probably caused by a tire.



Plus, there are other factors that make the tire hypothesis even more likely. There were, what, 3, 4, 5, maybe 8 shots, tops, fired. There are thousands of cars that go passed that curb each day. Not cars are going to strike a curb. Anymore than all the bullets fired are going to strike a curb. But it stands to reason that cars bumping against a curb somewhere in Dealey Plaza happened more times than a bullet struck one of these curbs. Most lead smears on a curb in Dealey Plaza should be caused by cars, not by bullets, one would expect.


And, finally, a strong case that can be made without using the compelling probability arguments. The curb itself.



What about those curved lines on top of the curb? Were those caused by bullet fragments?

What about the one curve line that points directly at the lead smear itself? Would the bullet fragment make that mark?

Marks like that could have been made by a hubcap, possibly while it was being effectively pried away from the rim by the curb itself.

It would be surprising if there is no connection between those marks on the curb and the lead smear. Any theory that explains how the lead smear got there needs to explain how the other marks got on top of the curb.

Question:

Has anyone who believes the lead smear was caused by a bullet explained how the other marks got there?

[Brian Roselle]

Just some thoughts. I have no way of knowing if the mark was related to the shooting, but it seemed at the time a number of people thought so.  When I looked at the Tague mark scenario awhile back a few things I noticed or questions I had were:

- The national archives took the picture incorrectly; it is upside down/reversed as they present it.  The rough edge on top of the block should be down, and the blob on the left side should be on the right.

- They had some pretty heavy equipment to remove the curb section. I wondered if that couldn’t have been a source of some marks. I don’t recall seeing the scratches in the Dillard photo before the curb was disturbed, but the photo is not crystal clear.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TEV9xliiOdI/AAAAAAAAE0E/R79eTS0K1Pg/s1600/Main-St.-Curb.jpg


- I had some reservations about the curb analysis since I never saw the report.  I personally think there could have been a small amount of copper residue that was eroded away after the curb saw ~8 months of weathering and acidic rain.
I seem to recall the report also said a trace amount of antimony being in the lead. This suggests unhardened lead was the source as I think hardened lead has up to a couple of percent of antimony.
Again, I’m not too sure about the analysis without seeing the method or analytical results. A curb control analysis nearby would have been useful, as I mentioned before there was a lot of lead residue in exhaust from tetaethyl lead in those days.

My conclusion was IF the mark was related to the shooting, it was most likely related to the large missing bullet fragment (that had unhardened lead and probably a little jacket material) that was never found from the head shot.

[John Iacoletti]

Lead smears on a curb caused by a tire will be on the side of the curb 33% of time, and right on the corner 67% of the time, assuming the curb is one fourth as tall as the tire is wide, and the tire scrapes along for a short distance of about 10 feet or so.

You're making a whole lot of assumptions in order to calculate your "probabilities".  Hence they are contrived.

Here's the thing.  We know that shots were fired in Dealey Plaza, something hit Tague, and that Tague saw a fresh mark on the curb.  We don't know that anybody's tire rim rubbed up against the curb on that spot.

[Joe Elliott]

Just some thoughts. I have no way of knowing if the mark was related to the shooting, but it seemed at the time a number of people thought so.  When I looked at the Tague mark scenario awhile back a few things I noticed or questions I had were:

- The national archives took the picture incorrectly; it is upside down/reversed as they present it.  The rough edge on top of the block should be down, and the blob on the left side should be on the right.

The curb is shown “upside down”? Of course. I should have figured that out myself. If there is anyway the government can screw something up, it will. And some people think the government was able to figure out how to kill a President.

So, the “side” was actually the top of the curb and the “top” was actually the side, if I understand you correctly.

Well, this makes it even more clear that the other marks on the curb was caused by a car. I thought it was a little less straight forward for a car to put the marks on top of the curb. Those other curved marks must have been made by cars. Whatever explanation is there? Bullets? Urban woodpeckers?

Since those marks must have been made by cars, I figured a hubcab must have made the marks, since the rim of a tire would leave marks on the side of the curb, not the top. But with those marks on the side of the curb, and the marks are curved, and the marks are curved upward (or would be in the curb was positioned correctly) that fits the curved marks being caused by cars. And one of those curves points directly at the lead smear. That curve must have been made by the vary rim that had the lead balancing weight attached to it.

- They had some pretty heavy equipment to remove the curb section. I wondered if that couldn’t have been a source of some marks.

Marks that are curved?

Marks that are curved upward, like by the rim of a tire?

Marks that are at about the same height as the bottom of the rim of a tire?

And with one mark that points directly at lead smear itself?

I don’t think those marks were caused by the heavy equipment used to remove the curb.

I don’t recall seeing the scratches in the Dillard photo before the curb was disturbed, but the photo is not crystal clear.

No, but the side of the curb was in shadow, and the camera light adjustment was clearly set to show details of the lit portion of the curb. Those marks would be invisible with that lighting. We don’t have photographic proof or even evidence that the marks were not on the curb at that time.

- I had some reservations about the curb analysis since I never saw the report.  I personally think there could have been a small amount of copper residue that was eroded away after the curb saw ~8 months of weathering and acidic rain.
I seem to recall the report also said a trace amount of antimony being in the lead. This suggests unhardened lead was the source as I think hardened lead has up to a couple of percent of antimony.
Again, I’m not too sure about the analysis without seeing the method or analytical results. A curb control analysis nearby would have been useful, as I mentioned before there was a lot of lead residue in exhaust from tetaethyl lead in those days.

My conclusion was IF the mark was related to the shooting, it was most likely related to the large missing bullet fragment (that had unhardened lead and probably a little jacket material) that was never found from the head shot.

I agree. I think that very fragment did fly near there and hit James Tague directly. Although it is possible that the fragment first struck the curb, right on the corner, right where the rim of a car had previously scraped the curb and ricocheted upward and nicked James Tague. I just doubt it. If this is so, it was the true Magic Bullet.

[Joe Elliott]

You're making a whole lot of assumptions in order to calculate your "probabilities".  Hence they are contrived.

Arguing that the lead smear was likely made by a car is an unwarranted assumption. But assuming the lead smear was left by a bullet is not?

Why isn’t assuming the lead smear was caused by a bullet an “unwarranted assumption”.

Here's the thing.  We know that shots were fired in Dealey Plaza, something hit Tague, and that Tague saw a fresh mark on the curb.  We don't know that anybody's tire rim rubbed up against the curb on that spot.

No, here’s the thing. We know that there were a limited number of bullets fired. We know that thousands of cars went pass this curb day after day. We know that there are other marks on the curb. Which you haven’t even attempted to explain yet.

Here is a clear photograph showing the lead smear right on the corner.




Here is a picture of the same curb at the National Archive:



Brian Roselle has pointed out the curb is “upside down”. I believe him. It makes the marks even easier to explain.

Assuming Brian is right:

•   The curve lines are what one would expect to see in there were formed by a rim of a tire.

•   The curve lines are the correct height off the ground to be caused by a rotating rim.

•   The curve lines were curved upwards, like those caused by a rotating rim.

•   One of these lines points directly at the lead smear. Likely made by the very rim that had the lead weight that was scrapped off.


Now, I anticipate that you will ask how do we know that Brian is right. I say he has to be right, because how is it that the marks match so perfectly what one would expect to be formed by tire rims when the curb is shown incorrectly.

You have dodged the questions long enough. Just answer the three following simple questions.

Questions:

1.   How do you explain the curved marks on the curb? How were they formed?


2.   Can you explain why one of these curve marks points directly to the lead smear?


3.   Do you think the curved marks were formed by bullets?

[John Iacoletti]

Arguing that the lead smear was likely made by a car is an unwarranted assumption. But assuming the lead smear was left by a bullet is not?

What I'm objecting to is they way in which you arrived at "likely", which was basically via the use of the Lottery paradox:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottery_paradox

Any specific position on the curb that you pick for a possible bullet strike is equally likely or unlikely, just as any combination of lottery numbers in a fair lottery is equally likely to win, even 1-2-3-4-5-6.

No, here’s the thing. We know that there were a limited number of bullets fired. We know that thousands of cars went pass this curb day after day.

But we actually do know that bullets were fired and that Tague saw something hit that spot.  We don't actually know that any of these "thousands of cars" rubbed the portion of its tire rim with a lead balancing weight on that particular spot.

We know that there are other marks on the curb. Which you haven’t even attempted to explain yet.

That's an appeal to ignorance:  "You can't explain what caused these marks, therefore they were caused by car tires."

•   The curve lines are what one would expect to see in there were formed by a rim of a tire.

That sounds like confirmation bias.

[Joe Elliott]

What I'm objecting to is they way in which you arrived at "likely", which was basically via the use of the Lottery paradox:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottery_paradox

Any specific position on the curb that you pick for a possible bullet strike is equally likely or unlikely, just as any combination of lottery numbers in a fair lottery is equally likely to win, even 1-2-3-4-5-6.

All results are equally likely in a lottery. But not in a bullet strike on a curb.

With a bullet or a bullet fragment travelling at a shallow angle, under 45 degrees relative to the horizon, a strike on the vertical face of the curb is the most likely result. The second most probable result is a strike to the top of the curb. The least likely result is a strike right on the corner of the curb.

With a lead smear being caused by a lead balancing weight mounted on the rim of a tire, it would be common for the lead smear to appear on the corner of the curb, because the rim of the tire would guide it there. It might end up strike the vertical face of the curb, if weight happened to be near the 6 o’clock position when the tire first brushed against the curb. But likely it would occur on the edge of the curb.

But we actually do know that bullets were fired and that Tague saw something hit that spot.

Tague did not see something hit that spot. He felt the sting of the fragment on his cheek and someone else noticed blood. Only then did a search for a bullet strike occur. Whatever they found, they were incline to interpret the find as a bullet strike, if at all plausible. People often spot what they expect to find.

We don't actually know that any of these "thousands of cars" rubbed the portion of its tire rim with a lead balancing weight on that particular spot.

That's an appeal to ignorance:  "You can't explain what caused these marks, therefore they were caused by car tires."

That sounds like confirmation bias.

We don’t know if a car left the lead smear. But we do know that tire rims brushed against that curb. We can see the marks left on the side of the curb. And one of those marks, a curved line, points right at the lead smear.

One must not ignore those marks, even though you prefer to ignore them and simply assume that these marks have nothing to do with the lead smear, even though one of these marks points right to it.


Question:

Why is the assumption that these other marks on the curb have nothing to do with the lead smear the correct assumption?

Question:

Place in the order of likelihood, most probable first, the odds of the bullet striking:

•   The vertical face of the curb
•   The horizontal face of the curb
•   The edge of the curb.

This is a simple question. Don’t try to dodge it.