Cowlick Vs Occipital Protuberance

[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.

[Thomas Graves]

I disagree with you and I think most people on this.

There was no chip of concrete that was sent flying from the curb. There was only a lead smear on the corner of the curb. That is something many people have agree on.

Click on the picture below to see the curb with the lead smear:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/smear.htm

And the lead smear was not caused by a bullet, in all probability. This is where I disagree with most people.

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. Or at least miss by a quarter of an inch. Such a coincidence should not be accepted if there is some other way the lead smear could have gotten on the location without a coincidence. If there was some way a lead object could have been guided precisely there. And there is such a way.

Thousands of cars pass this curb each day. If one of them drifted out of its lane, the tire would bump against the curb. The rim of the curb could guide a lead balancing weight precisely to the corner of the curb.

Indeed, in the picture of the curb which is now stored at the National Archives:



One can even see curved lines marking the curb. One of these curved lines point right at the lead smear.

Another coincidence? Or was this curved line made by the rim of a car’s tire, and the rim guided the lead balancing weight right to the corner where some of the lead was rubbed off.


Question for anyone:

How did the bullet fragment cause a curved mark on the curb that points right at the lead smear it made?

Or was this curve mark unrelated to the bullet and it just happens to point at the lead smear by coincidence. And the lead smear itself just happens to be on the corner of the curb, again, by coincidence.

Joe, et al.,

How do you know that Tague's wound wasn't caused by a bullet that had lost its copper jacket when it glanced the mast arm of the traffic light, and then ricocheted off the concrete near the manhole cover, and finally hit the curb and fragmented, wounding Tague with one of the fragments?

It's a plausible scenario in that: 1) one of the four (iirc) Carcano bullets Max Holland's crew fired at a mast-like metal pipe did lose its copper jacket in a glancing blow, 2) the fact that the three spent shells in in the Sniper's Lair were found to be in a pattern that suggested that one of those three bullets had been fired at a much sharper down-angle, i.e., when the limo was almost directly below the window (i.e., when the mast arm would have been directly in the assassin's firing line), 3) the line segments representing that bullet's flight from the window to the mast arm to the man hole cover to the curb was plausibly straight or "direct," and 4) both Amos Euins and Patricia Ann Donaldson (nee Lawrence) told Max Holland in so many words that when they heard the first shot, the limo had just passed a particular highway sign pole on the "island," which correlates well with point #2, above.

--  MWT

[John Iacoletti]

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.

This is not true, and it’s your fatal flaw. It’s a random event. No specific spot is any more likely than any other specific spot.

Tague did not see something hit that spot.

My mistake. Tague said that the patrolman who talked to him “saw something fly off back on the street". And then they saw a fresh mark there on the curb.

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.

Isn’t that what you are doing — interpreting the marks you see on the curb as it now exists as tire rim marks?

[Joe Elliott]

Joe, et al.,

How do you know that Tague's wound wasn't caused by a bullet that had lost its copper jacket when it glanced the mast arm of the traffic light, and then ricocheted off the concrete near the manhole cover, and finally hit the curb and fragmented, wounding Tague with one of the fragments?

It's a plausible scenario in that: 1) one of the four (iirc) Carcano bullets Max Holland's crew fired at a mast-like metal pipe did lose its copper jacket in a glancing blow, 2) the fact that the three spent shells in in the Sniper's Lair were found to be in a pattern that suggested that one of those three bullets had been fired at a much sharper down-angle, i.e., when the limo was almost directly below the window (i.e., when the mast arm would have been directly in the assassin's firing line), 3) the line segments representing that bullet's flight from the window to the mast arm to the man hole cover to the curb was plausibly straight or "direct," and 4) both Amos Euins and Patricia Ann Donaldson (nee Lawrence) told Max Holland in so many words that when they heard the first shot, the limo had just passed a particular highway sign pole on the "island," which correlates well with point #2, above.

--  MWT

I don’t know. But I find it unlikely that Oswald fired a bullet that early because:

•   The angular speed of the target would be very high. Even with a limited speed just coming off the sharp turn, the limousine would be moving at almost right angles as seen from Oswald’s position. The angular speed would be, at 5 mph about 5.25 degrees per second and at even 3 mph, 3.15 degrees per second.
•   I think the boxes would be in the way of that shot. 60 feet up, the target about, what, 30 horizontal feet away. That would be shooting down at an angle of 63 degrees. I think the boxes would be in the way. Even with the boxes out of the way, I think it would require the upper portion of his body to be hanging out of the window. And he would be not nearly so will hidden if he just stays back a bit and waits a few more seconds.

[Joe Elliott]

This is not true, and it’s your fatal flaw. It’s a random event. No specific spot is any more likely than any other specific spot.

My mistake. Tague said that the patrolman who talked to him “saw something fly off back on the street". And then they saw a fresh mark there on the curb.

Isn’t that what you are doing — interpreting the marks you see on the curb as it now exists as tire rim marks?

You are referring to James Tague’s Warren Commission testimony:

Mr. TAGUE. Right. Going on Elm. So I stood there looking around. I looked up---there was a motorcycle policeman, and he stopped and had drawn his gun and was running up the embankment toward the railroad tracks. A crowd of people; several people, were starting to come down into that area where he was running, and the people pointing, and excitement up there and so on, and about that time a patrolman who evidently had been stationed under the triple underpass walked up and said, "What happened?" and I said, "I don't know; something."
And we walked up to the---by this time the motorcycle policeman returned back close to where his motorcycle was, and we walked up there and there was a man standing there. Seeing that he was very excited--I don't remember his name at the time I did have it on the tip of my tongue very excited saying he was watching the President and it seemed like his head just exploded. This was a couple or 3 minutes after this happened. And the patrolman said, "Well, I saw something fly off back on the street."
We walked back down there, and another man joined us who identified himself as the deputy sheriff, who was in civilian clothes, and I guess this was 3 or 4 minutes after. I don't know how to gage time on something like that.

First of all, this is second hand information. We don’t have testimony from the police officer saying this but just Mr. Tague’s recollection that this was said.

More importantly, Mr. Tague did not say the police officer said “I saw something fly back on the street from where you found the lead smear”. At the time, no one had found the lead smear, so the police officer could not have known about that. The police officer said “and it seemed like his head just exploded” followed by "Well, I saw something fly off back on the street." Most likely talking about seeing a part of JFK’s head, bone fragment or brain tissues, fly off and land on the street.

Question:

What makes you think the policeman’s statement is about something flying back from the curb and not something flying back off of JFK’s head?

[John Iacoletti]

You are referring to James Tague’s Warren Commission testimony:

First of all, this is second hand information. We don’t have testimony from the police officer saying this but just Mr. Tague’s recollection that this was said.

Fair enough. Do you have any-hand information that a tire rim rubbed a lead balancing weight there or did you see some scratches on a photo of the removed section of curb?

What makes you think the policeman’s statement is about something flying back from the curb and not something flying back off of JFK’s head?

Because right after he mentions that statement about the policeman seeing something fly off, he says “And I says, "Well, you know now, I recall something sting me on the face while I was standing down there.“