Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)  (Read 13031 times)

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6506
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #72 on: February 19, 2022, 01:56:04 AM »
Advertisement
No bloody nose needed
The scrape will do




JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #72 on: February 19, 2022, 01:56:04 AM »


Offline Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1402
    • SPMLaw
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #73 on: February 19, 2022, 04:47:34 PM »
But the narrative also requires that for Tague to have been wounded at all, it could not have been the second (magic bullet) shot.
No it doesn't. It just requires accepting that the first shot struck JFK. The entire WC was of that view.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #74 on: February 19, 2022, 08:39:53 PM »
No bloody nose needed
The scrape will do

Will do for what?  McDonald himself said that was self-inflicted.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #74 on: February 19, 2022, 08:39:53 PM »


Offline Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5309
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #75 on: February 19, 2022, 09:24:44 PM »
No bloody nose needed
The scrape will do




[/quote

There were also numerous witnesses to Oswald resisting arrest and/or involved in the actual struggle to subdue him.  And, of course, whether McDonald had a bloody nose or not is not material to the event.  Whereas the nature of Tague's injury (product of preexisting injury, bullet fragment, or overpass pillar) is the entire point in that situation.

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6506
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #76 on: February 19, 2022, 11:51:54 PM »
Will do for what?  McDonald himself said that was self-inflicted.

McDonald himself said that was self-inflicted.
_AKA known as he was trying to wrench the gun away from Oswald

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #76 on: February 19, 2022, 11:51:54 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #77 on: February 20, 2022, 09:24:03 PM »
There were also numerous witnesses to Oswald resisting arrest and/or involved in the actual struggle to subdue him.  And, of course, whether McDonald had a bloody nose or not is not material to the event.  Whereas the nature of Tague's injury (product of preexisting injury, bullet fragment, or overpass pillar) is the entire point in that situation.

Of course it's material.  The alleged punch in the nose was his excuse for punching Oswald in the face (which there IS photo evidence of) and then "subduing" him.

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3779
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #78 on: February 26, 2022, 01:40:05 PM »

That is his story.  It is odd that Tague just happens to have a preexisting cut to his face.  Photos taken afterward apparently often confuse that wound for the alleged wound during the assassination.  Why would he allow anyone to take photos of the preexisting wound that has nothing to do with the assassination?  He ducked behind the overpass when the shooting began.  Maybe he caused this wound while doing that and thought it was related to the assassination.  It just seems extremely unlikely - but not impossible - that a bullet fragment fired at the JFK car ends up wounding Tague given his position at the time.  I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it just seems unlikely that no one along the parade route was hit by a bullet fragment but Tague standing a couple streets over is wounded.  Is there any confirmation from Buddy Walthers that he saw the blood?  There were apparently pictures taken of the wound but I've also never seen them.


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…

Offline Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1402
    • SPMLaw
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #79 on: February 27, 2022, 06:14:07 PM »

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 #79 on: February 27, 2022, 06:14:07 PM »