Cowlick Vs Occipital Protuberance

[John Iacoletti]

If it was caused by a bullet, how was it, by sheer coincidence, that a bullet just happened to hit directly on the corner of the curb. The odds are roughly 25 to 1, that the bullet fragment would strike right on the corner, and not an inch or two beyond it or below it.

This is a logical fallacy.  Any specific spot would be equally unlikely, but a missile that struck a curb would have to strike somewhere.  This is like randomly picking a 4 of spades out of a deck of cards and saying the odds against picking that card are 52 to 1, so it's unlikely that you actually picked the 4 of spades.

[Joe Elliott]

This is a logical fallacy.  Any specific spot would be equally unlikely, but a missile that struck a curb would have to strike somewhere.  This is like randomly picking a 4 of spades out of a deck of cards and saying the odds against picking that card are 52 to 1, so it's unlikely that you actually picked the 4 of spades.

No, this is not a logical fallacy.


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.


Similarly, the lead smear occurring smack, on the corner, right where a curved line, perhaps made by the rim of a tire, is pointing to, probably did not occur there by luck. It was probably guided there by the rim of the tire.


If the lead smear was caused by a tire’s lead balancing weight, the smear occurred right where we would expect it to occur, on the corner of a curb. And it may have a curved line pointing to it.

If the lead smear was caused by a bullet fragment, it was a fluke that the fragment just happened to strike right on the corner of the curb, right on the same spot a tire rim would guide it to.

If:
•   lead smears left by a car tend to occur on the corner of a curb
•   lead smears left a bullet fragment tend to occur on any concrete surface

and:
•   a lead smear was found and it is smack on the corner of the curb

then:
•   it probably was caused by a car, not by a bullet.

[Joe Elliott]

This is a logical fallacy.  Any specific spot would be equally unlikely, but a missile that struck a curb would have to strike somewhere.  This is like randomly picking a 4 of spades out of a deck of cards and saying the odds against picking that card are 52 to 1, so it's unlikely that you actually picked the 4 of spades.

No, this is not a logical fallacy.


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.


Similarly, the lead smear occurring smack, on the corner, right where a curved line, perhaps made by the rim of a tire, is pointing to, probably did not occur there by luck. It was probably guided there by the rim of the tire.


If the lead smear was caused by a tire’s lead balancing weight, the smear occurred right where we would expect it to occur, on the corner of a curb. And it may have a curved line pointing to it.

If the lead smear was caused by a bullet fragment, it was a fluke that the fragment just happened to strike right on the corner of the curb, right on the same spot a tire rim would guide it to.

If:
•   lead smears left by a car tend to occur on the corner of a curb
•   lead smears left a bullet fragment tend to occur on any concrete surface

and:
•   a lead smear was found and it is smack on the corner of the curb

then:
•   it probably was caused by a car, not by a bullet.


Question for anyone:

Is my logic in error? Is this a clear example of a logical fallacy? If so, explain.

Note, I am not saying it is an absolute certainty the lead smear was caused by a car. Only that it probably was, particularly with a curved line pointing right at the dark lead smear.

[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.