Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)

[Charles Collins]

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.

Thanks, i did complete a slow scan of the book looking at the page numbers to make sure I didn’t miss any photos. There is no photo of Tague with a bleeding wound on his face.

On page 165 there is a photo of the scar on the curb that is stated to be taken by Tom Dillard. So, it might be worth searching all of Dillard’s photos for one of Tague. However, it does seem to me that if there is one that Tague would have certainly published it in his book!?? Also, on page 168, it shows a photo looking back at the TSBD from the position of the scar on the curb that was taken on 8/5/64 by the FBI just before the curb section was cut from the street.

[Charles Collins]

I found another witness who stated that he saw a short piece of material flying close to the ground at the time of the first shot. I wasn’t previously aware of Special Agent Warren W. Taylor’s report dated 11/29/63. He stated that he saw it out of the corner of his eye near the right rear of the Vice Presidential follow-up car. I believe that this report should be considered reliable due to the fact that he was a responsible trained observer and felt that his observation was important enough to include in his report.

[Dan O'meara]

I found another witness who stated that he saw a short piece of material flying close to the ground at the time of the first shot. I wasn’t previously aware of Special Agent Warren W. Taylor’s report dated 11/29/63. He stated that he saw it out of the corner of his eye near the right rear of the Vice Presidential follow-up car. I believe that this report should be considered reliable due to the fact that he was a responsible trained observer and felt that his observation was important enough to include in his report.

So when I post the evidence of 10 witnesses in the VP car and VP follow-up car [Reply #2] that blows your first shot miss nonsense out of the water it's "he said, she said" crap. And when these witnesses include two highway patrol officers and four Special Agents it's still "he said, she said" crap.
But when you post the evidence of a single agent it "should be considered reliable due to the fact that he was a responsible trained observer."
The irony being that one of the witnesses included in the 10 I quote is...you guessed it...Warren W Taylor. 

[Charles Collins]

So when I post the evidence of 10 witnesses in the VP car and VP follow-up car [Reply #2] that blows your first shot miss nonsense out of the water it's "he said, she said" crap. And when these witnesses include two highway patrol officers and four Special Agents it's still "he said, she said" crap.
But when you post the evidence of a single agent it "should be considered reliable due to the fact that he was a responsible trained observer."
The irony being that one of the witnesses included in the 10 I quote is...you guessed it...Warren W Taylor. 

Why did you fail to mention that he saw something flying close to the ground that he associated with the first shot? That would have been relevant to a thread about physical evidence of a first shot miss. Is the reason that you excluded it because it doesn’t support your theory?

[Richard Smith]

The Tague story is interesting when you look into it further.  Some authors including Prouty cite the Allen photo as confirmation of Tague's wound.  He even characterizes the picture as showing his bloody face.  There is no blood shown in the photo and it depicts only the left side of Tague's face (not the side that he claimed was wounded during the assassination).  In addition, Walthers testimony glosses over whether he observed a wound or blood on Tague's face.  In fact, his recollection appears to be that Tague indicated that he felt a sting but that there was no cut.  Tague claims he was at the DPD and saw Oswald after he was arrested.  I wonder if there any photos or films that capture Tague (or even any confirmation that he was actually there)?

Mr. LIEBELER. Down at the point marked No. 9 of the exhibit we are talking about; is that right?
Mr. WALTHERS. That's right--in this lane here and his car was just partially sticking out parked there and he came up to me and asked me, he said, "Are you looking to see where some bullets may have struck?" And I said, "Yes." He says, "I was standing over by the bank here, right there where my car is parked when those shots happened," and he said, "I don't know where they came from, or if they were shots, but something struck me on the face," and he said, "It didn't make any scratch or cut and it just was a sting," and so I had him show me right where he was standing and I started to search in that immediate area and found a place on the curb there in the Main Street lane there close to the underpass where a projectile had struck that curb.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you remember that man's name if I told you or if I reminded you of it?
Mr. WALTHERS. I'm sorry--I don't know if I would remember it or not.
Mr. LIEBELER. There is a man by the name of Jim Tague [spelling], T-a-g-u-e, who works as an automobile salesman.
Mr. WALTHERS. I remember he had a gray automobile---I remember that very well.
Mr. LIEBELER. I think it must have been Mr. Tague because he was in here this afternoon and he told me his car was parked right there at No. 9 and that's when I put the mark on the exhibit and he walked up there and talked to a deputy sheriff and he looked at the curb.
Mr. WALTHERS. Yes; this was pure ignorance on my part in not getting his name---I don't know---but I didn't.
Mr. LIEBELER. I think it is pretty clear it was Mr. Tague, because his testimony he gave today jibed with yours and it couldn't have been anybody else and he had a cut and some blood on his face.
Mr. WALTHERS. Well, at the time I wasn't interested in whether he was cut or what, I just said, "Where were you standing?" In an effort to prove there was some shots fired, and after seeing the way it struck the curb at an angle---which it came down on the curb---it was almost obvious that it either came from this building or this building [indicating] the angle it struck the curb at.

[Dan O'meara]

From the WC testimony of Clyde Haygood:

Mr. BELIN: You talked to any other witnesses there?

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.

[Charles Collins]

The Tague story is interesting when you look into it further.  Some authors including Prouty cite the Allen photo as confirmation of Tague's wound.  He even characterizes the picture as showing his bloody face.  There is no blood shown in the photo and it depicts only the left side of Tague's face (not the side that he claimed was wounded during the assassination).  In addition, Walthers testimony glosses over whether he observed a wound or blood on Tague's face.  In fact, his recollection appears to be that Tague indicated that he felt a sting but that there was no cut.  Tague claims he was at the DPD and saw Oswald after he was arrested.  I wonder if there any photos or films that capture Tague (or even any confirmation that he was actually there)?

Mr. LIEBELER. Down at the point marked No. 9 of the exhibit we are talking about; is that right?
Mr. WALTHERS. That's right--in this lane here and his car was just partially sticking out parked there and he came up to me and asked me, he said, "Are you looking to see where some bullets may have struck?" And I said, "Yes." He says, "I was standing over by the bank here, right there where my car is parked when those shots happened," and he said, "I don't know where they came from, or if they were shots, but something struck me on the face," and he said, "It didn't make any scratch or cut and it just was a sting," and so I had him show me right where he was standing and I started to search in that immediate area and found a place on the curb there in the Main Street lane there close to the underpass where a projectile had struck that curb.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you remember that man's name if I told you or if I reminded you of it?
Mr. WALTHERS. I'm sorry--I don't know if I would remember it or not.
Mr. LIEBELER. There is a man by the name of Jim Tague [spelling], T-a-g-u-e, who works as an automobile salesman.
Mr. WALTHERS. I remember he had a gray automobile---I remember that very well.
Mr. LIEBELER. I think it must have been Mr. Tague because he was in here this afternoon and he told me his car was parked right there at No. 9 and that's when I put the mark on the exhibit and he walked up there and talked to a deputy sheriff and he looked at the curb.
Mr. WALTHERS. Yes; this was pure ignorance on my part in not getting his name---I don't know---but I didn't.
Mr. LIEBELER. I think it is pretty clear it was Mr. Tague, because his testimony he gave today jibed with yours and it couldn't have been anybody else and he had a cut and some blood on his face.
Mr. WALTHERS. Well, at the time I wasn't interested in whether he was cut or what, I just said, "Where were you standing?" In an effort to prove there was some shots fired, and after seeing the way it struck the curb at an angle---which it came down on the curb---it was almost obvious that it either came from this building or this building [indicating] the angle it struck the curb at.

It is difficult to have a lot of confidence in what Tague says. In his book he states that Walthers told him that he had blood on his face. And then, subsequently, Tague put the palm of his hand on his face to feel and discovered there was a couple of drops of blood. If you have ever cut yourself shaving, you know how easily the face bleeds a lot of blood with just a very minor cut. So, I think any abrasion that Tague might have received from the shot had to have been very very minor for there to be only a couple of drops of blood.

That said, the Tom Dillard photo that is shown on page 165 of Tague’s book does appear to me to be a fresh chip out of the curb that could have been caused by a bullet or fragment of a bullet from the TSBD. Therefore I do consider it to be possible physical evidence of a missed shot. Tague’s wound would be another piece of physical evidence (if one believes it existed). We need to keep in mind that different people usually remember the same event somewhat differently. Walther’s lack of a memory of Tague’s wound is understandable given the circumstances and what we can only imagine was going through his mind at that point in time.

[John Iacoletti]

The contrarian "mind" is an astounding thing to behold.  I specifically noted that whether Tague was wounded makes no difference to the LN vs CTer debate.  And the contrarian suggests that I have only questioned this witness because it supports my view that Oswald was the assassin.  Huh?  Of course, Tague being wounded is part of the "official" narrative that contrarians so mightily struggle against.  Making it all the more astounding that questioning Tague's story is somehow promoting that narrative.

But the narrative also requires that for Tague to have been wounded at all, it could not have been the second (magic bullet) shot.