Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)

[Richard Smith]

Tague's book apparently contains photos taken on Nov. 23.  But I've read that these photos are of preexisting wound to his left cheek.  Not sure if anyone has the book.  I can't find the pictures online.  Are there any photos of his wound?  His face appears in a William Allen photo of Charles Brehm but you can only see the left side clearly.

[Charles Collins]

Tague's book apparently contains photos taken on Nov. 23.  But I've read that these photos are of preexisting wound to his left cheek.  Not sure if anyone has the book.  I can't find the pictures online.  Are there any photos of his wound?  His face appears in a William Allen photo of Charles Brehm but you can only see the left side clearly.

I have a signed copy of Tague’s book “Truth Withheld”. I just flipped through it twice and didn’t find a photo that shows Tague’s wound. He shows a Frank Chancellare photo of him in the distance near the triple overpass. And, of course, he has a photo of the front page of the National Enquirer dated April 7, 1968. Headline reads: Exclusive, “Man wounded in assassination of JFK finally talks” under the headline it reads: A few minutes after the shooting, while blood was still streaming from the wound in my face, I showed police the mark on a curb where a bullet or bullet fragment hit near me.

Now you know that the National Enquirer always prints the truth…..   

[Andrew Mason]

Okay, you’ve had your chance to explain why Tague’s wishy washy fickle statements should be a legitimate reason to completely rule out the first shot was responsible for his injury. And you’ve failed miserably because he obviously doesn’t know which shot hit him. Thank you.

The point was that we don't have to take Tague's word that the first shot did not hit him.  The evidence of at least 60 other people was that the first shot struck JFK in the neck.  So unless you think that CE399 was the bullet that passed through JFK's head and the first shot that passed through JFK's neck fragmented, there is no way that Tague was hit by a fragment from the first shot.

[Richard Smith]

I have a signed copy of Tague’s book “Truth Withheld”. I just flipped through it twice and didn’t find a photo that shows Tague’s wound. He shows a Frank Chancellare photo of him in the distance near the triple overpass. And, of course, he has a photo of the front page of the National Enquirer dated April 7, 1968. Headline reads: Exclusive, “Man wounded in assassination of JFK finally talks” under the headline it reads: A few minutes after the shooting, while blood was still streaming from the wound in my face, I showed police the mark on a curb where a bullet or bullet fragment hit near me.

Now you know that the National Enquirer always prints the truth…..   

Are there no pictures of Tague's wound?  This is what it says on wiki:

 "In Tague's Truth Withheld, he published pictures of the wound that were taken on November 23, 1963.[5]" JFK - L. Fletcher Prouty; Chapter 19, Page 300, Paragraph 3

[Jerry Organ]

The point was that we don't have to take Tague's word that the first shot did not hit him.  The evidence of at least 60 other people was that the first shot struck JFK in the neck.  So unless you think that CE399 was the bullet that passed through JFK's head and the first shot that passed through JFK's neck fragmented, there is no way that Tague was hit by a fragment from the first shot.

"The evidence of at least 60 other people was that the first shot struck JFK in the neck."

They literally saw bullet holes in Kennedy's neck? That's quite a porkie.

How many of your "JFK slumped/reacted" to the "first shot" then go on to say the next shot was the head shot?

In other words, what you're terming the "first shot" is actually the second (SBT shot) in most LNer scenarios.

[Charles Collins]

The point was that we don't have to take Tague's word that the first shot did not hit him.  The evidence of at least 60 other people was that the first shot struck JFK in the neck.  So unless you think that CE399 was the bullet that passed through JFK's head and the first shot that passed through JFK's neck fragmented, there is no way that Tague was hit by a fragment from the first shot.

You can go argue your point with someone who thinks it is productive to argue the “he said, she said” crap. There is another ongoing thread that was started by someone else who appears to be of that mindset. This thread is about the physical evidence. I used the mark in the curb and Tague’s wound as physical evidence. Someone objected because he said Tague said it wasn’t the first shot. My argument is that Tague doesn’t know which shot hit him. You haven’t shown that Tague actually does know which shot hit him. If you come up with anything that indicates he does know based on his own memory, please let us know…

[Charles Collins]

Are there no pictures of Tague's wound?  This is what it says on wiki:

 "In Tague's Truth Withheld, he published pictures of the wound that were taken on November 23, 1963.[5]" JFK - L. Fletcher Prouty; Chapter 19, Page 300, Paragraph 3

I have to assume that the reference is to L. Fletcher Prouty’s book. Tague’s book only has 193 numbered pages in it. But I will search through it again just in case I missed it. I will let you know one way or the other. Thanks.

[Richard Smith]

I have to assume that the reference is to L. Fletcher Prouty’s book. Tague’s book only has 193 numbered pages in it. But I will search through it again just in case I missed it. I will let you know one way or the other. Thanks.

The text of the Prouty book is online.  Remarkably it says the following:

"The Secret Service, the FBI, and the Warren Commission had to admit that one of the three
bullets fired by their “lone gunman” missed. This admission was forced upon them by the fact
that James Tague, a bystander, was struck on the cheek by a fragment of the bullet or by a bit of
the granite curbstone struck by that errant round. In either case, Tague was photographed with
blood running down his cheek by an alert news cameramen. He also photographed the curbstone
where Tague stood that day, and those photographs show the bullet strike on the stone."

If Prouty is referring to the William Allen photo that captures Tague standing in the background, it shows no such thing.  In fact, the right side of his face is not visible.  It shows only the left side (the preexisting wound side again).  If it shows any blood (and I can't see any) then it would be from the preexisting cut.  Prouty also indicates that the curb was removed on Nov. 23.  I don't believe that happened until months later.  Unless, I'm missing something this appears to be a case of misinformation being reported from one source to another until accepted as a fact.