Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)  (Read 9967 times)

Offline Brian Roselle

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #32 on: February 11, 2022, 05:41:56 PM »
Advertisement
Richard,

I'm not sure I can post the pictures I've found in the format I would like, so I decided to drop them in a pdf with the photos aligned in time. Hopefully this will display and additionally allow some direct zooming in on your screen.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tsj1RnCbMm5rbo_JtdcAc7RY-M8jVttT/view?usp=sharing

I dug around and found versions of the photos that do not readily show the mark, and aligned beside versions of the ones that do. It appears to me to be a function of the resolution and lighting of the photos. If its a mark, I think this would suggest a very shallow surface mark that needs good lighting to visually bring out.

I'm not totally sure on the source of the last couple of sets. I think the last set, with the jump seats moved may be from the FBI or Secret Service. I'm pretty sure the next to last set are FBI versions. One of those appears to perhaps have an inspector with a lab coat in the front seat. I wonder if this could be Frazier looking at the windshield.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #32 on: February 11, 2022, 05:41:56 PM »


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3707
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #33 on: February 11, 2022, 05:54:04 PM »
Richard,

I'm not sure I can post the pictures I've found in the format I would like, so I decided to drop them in a pdf with the photos aligned in time. Hopefully this will display and additionally allow some direct zooming in on your screen.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tsj1RnCbMm5rbo_JtdcAc7RY-M8jVttT/view?usp=sharing

I dug around and found versions of the photos that do not readily show the mark, and aligned beside versions of the ones that do. It appears to me to be a function of the resolution and lighting of the photos. If its a mark, I think this would suggest a very shallow surface mark that needs good lighting to visually bring out.

I'm not totally sure on the source of the last couple of sets. I think the last set, with the jump seats moved may be from the FBI or Secret Service. I'm pretty sure the next to last set are FBI versions. One of those appears to perhaps have an inspector with a lab coat in the front seat. I wonder if this could be Frazier looking at the windshield.

Great work! This does appear to be something that should have interested the investigators. Wow!

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #34 on: February 12, 2022, 11:48:10 PM »
We have all seen the Murray photo of the detectives looking at the concrete surrounding manhole cover on the south side of Elm Street. They were investigating what appeared to be a mark left by a bullet that grazed the concrete. This area is inline with the position of James Tague who was grazed on the cheek by a piece of this bullet or a piece of the concrete curb adjacent to him. That curb was apparently also hit by a part of the bullet, which apparently skipped from the manhole area to that curb.

Except Tague said that he wasn't hit by the first shot.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #34 on: February 12, 2022, 11:48:10 PM »


Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #35 on: February 13, 2022, 12:13:28 AM »
Great work! This does appear to be something that should have interested the investigators. Wow!
For reference, look at this photo of the car as it sat at Parkland:


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3707
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #36 on: February 13, 2022, 01:55:05 AM »
For reference, look at this photo of the car as it sat at Parkland:



Yes, thanks Mitch. Brian shows that image twice in his pdf. One version is at a higher resolution than the other one.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #36 on: February 13, 2022, 01:55:05 AM »


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3707
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #37 on: February 13, 2022, 03:08:09 AM »
Except Tague said that he wasn't hit by the first shot.

Tague has said a lot of inconsistent things. I believe that he really doesn’t know which shot it was. Therefore, I personally am not going to rule out the first shot based on Tague’s guesses. And it really doesn’t matter to me whether or not you want to believe whatever the “story du jour” from Tague.




FYI:

 Tague testified he heard three shots and “guesses” and “believes” the bullet that struck the curb was the second one (7 H 555)

 

Offline Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5098
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #38 on: February 14, 2022, 10:05:19 PM »
Tague has said a lot of inconsistent things. I believe that he really doesn’t know which shot it was. Therefore, I personally am not going to rule out the first shot based on Tague’s guesses. And it really doesn’t matter to me whether or not you want to believe whatever the “story du jour” from Tague.




FYI:

 Tague testified he heard three shots and “guesses” and “believes” the bullet that struck the curb was the second one (7 H 555)

I always wondered if he was even wounded during the assassination or made this story up on the fly.  He admitted having some preexisting facial injury.  He tried to peddle some film footage of a race car crash to a reporter.  Not exactly a guy who missed an opportunity to make a buck.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #38 on: February 14, 2022, 10:05:19 PM »


Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1361
    • SPMLaw
Re: Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)
« Reply #39 on: February 15, 2022, 12:39:11 AM »
Arguing where the first shot hit the road is like arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin. The first shot struck JFK, according to the evidence.

Also, the MythBusters video shows that a 1200 fps 115 grain jacketed bullet from a handgun is not going to hit asphalt without leaving a trace. So it is obvious that a 2000 fp 170 grain jacketed bullet, with more than four times the energy of the Mythbuster's bullet, will leave a noticeable divot in the pavement.  Does anyone seriously think the FBI could not find such a mark in the pavement if it really existed?