Article on James Tague
John McAdams
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/the-kennedy-assassinations-accidental-victim/66616/
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Grizzlie Antagonist
> http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/the-kennedy-assas...
<muttering> Oswald should have aimed higher.
John Fiorentino
It's just very sad that Tague keeps perpetuating this myth.
Walthers never mentioned anything of the kind about blood on Tague's
cheek. In fact Walthers testimony indicates just the opposite. All of this
mush comes from Tague's own testimony.
Everyone should read the relevant WC testimony. I've posted it here many
times.
John F.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4ceaec11....@news.supernews.com...
Anthony Marsh
> .John:
>
> It's just very sad that Tague keeps perpetuating this myth.
>
> Walthers never mentioned anything of the kind about blood on Tague's
> cheek. In fact Walthers testimony indicates just the opposite. All of
> this mush comes from Tague's own testimony.
>
> Everyone should read the relevant WC testimony. I've posted it here many
> times.
>
> John F.
>
I don't understand you point. Are you trying to claim that there was no
blood on Tague's cheek? Or are you just dancing around the issue?
HistorianDetective
> On 11/22/2010 8:26 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>
> > .John:
>
> > It's just very sad that Tague keeps perpetuating this myth.
>
> > Walthers never mentioned anything of the kind about blood on Tague's
> > cheek. In fact Walthers testimony indicates just the opposite. All of
> > this mush comes from Tague's own testimony.
>
> > Everyone should read the relevant WC testimony. I've posted it here many
> > times.
>
> > John F.
RE:
>
> I don't understand you point. Are you trying to claim that there was no
> blood on Tague's cheek? Or are you just dancing around the issue?
>
The claim is that no testimony outside of Tague's own testimony
declares that
blood was seen on Tague's cheek. There are no photos published that
support
Tague's claim.
If you have any testimony or other type evidence that supports Tague's
claim,
then post it by all means.
JM/HD
>
>
>
> > "John McAdams" <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
> >news:4ceaec11....@news.supernews.com...
>
> >>http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/the-kennedy-assas...
>
> >> .John
>
> >> --
> >> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> >>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Fiorentino
opposite. Look it up Tony.
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4ceb29a7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Brokedad
> http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/the-kennedy-assas...
>
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0464a.htm
Something of which you are most probably not aware.
The "true" and original survey completed for the Warren Commission by
Dallas County Surveyor Robert West, also has the "curb section
removed" clearly marked on the survey plat.
Along with a few other EEI's (essential elements of information) which
the phony (CE882) " tracing" does not have located on it.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0073b.htm
Now! Had one actually opened up the "envelope" and had there been a
true copy of Mr. West's survey plat inside the envelope, then one
would see that Mr. Gauthier and his "identical replica on cardboard",
are in fact NOT IDENTICAL.
P.S. John!
Just so you do not have to take "my word" on this, I will send more
junk mail which contains a couple of the "factual" copies of Mr.
West's survey plat.
Tom
P.P.S. There was also an ever so "slight"/sleight-of-hand change down
around the second road sign and lamp post as well.
Sneaky, sneaky, sneaky!
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 22, 9:11 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/22/2010 8:26 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>
>>> .John:
>>
>>> It's just very sad that Tague keeps perpetuating this myth.
>>
>>> Walthers never mentioned anything of the kind about blood on Tague's
>>> cheek. In fact Walthers testimony indicates just the opposite. All of
>>> this mush comes from Tague's own testimony.
>>
>>> Everyone should read the relevant WC testimony. I've posted it here many
>>> times.
>>
>>> John F.
>
>
> RE:
>>
>> I don't understand you point. Are you trying to claim that there was no
>> blood on Tague's cheek? Or are you just dancing around the issue?
>>
>
> The claim is that no testimony outside of Tague's own testimony
> declares that
> blood was seen on Tague's cheek. There are no photos published that
> support
> Tague's claim.
>
> If you have any testimony or other type evidence that supports Tague's
> claim,
> then post it by all means.
>
>
> JM/HD
>
>
Ok, if you want to play your trump card so early then start calling all
the witnesses liars.
jbarge
wrote:
Actually there's a photo of the cut published in the paperback High
Treason (Groden/Livingston) showing the cut on Tague's cheek, seemingly
taken immediately after the assassination - so goes my understanding.
John Fiorentino
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4cec00f2$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John Fiorentino
John F.
"HistorianDetective" <historian...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8061ac64-7804-4c47...@c39g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
John Fiorentino
I believe we are talking about the "blood" on Tague's cheek.
John F.
"Brokedad" <tempty...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c19dd2b4-b62d-4da0...@a37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4cec00f2$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
HistorianDetective
> On 11/23/2010 8:59 AM, HistorianDetective wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 9:11 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 11/22/2010 8:26 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>
> >>> .John:
>
> >>> It's just very sad that Tague keeps perpetuating this myth.
>
> >>> Walthers never mentioned anything of the kind about blood on Tague's
> >>> cheek. In fact Walthers testimony indicates just the opposite. All of
> >>> this mush comes from Tague's own testimony.
>
> >>> Everyone should read the relevant WC testimony. I've posted it here many
> >>> times.
>
> >>> John F.
>
> > RE:
>
> >> I don't understand you point. Are you trying to claim that there was no
> >> blood on Tague's cheek? Or are you just dancing around the issue?
>
> > The claim is that no testimony outside of Tague's own testimony
> > declares that
> > blood was seen on Tague's cheek. There are no photos published that
> > support
> > Tague's claim.
>
> > If you have any testimony or other type evidence that supports Tague's
> > claim,
> > then post it by all means.
>
> > JM/HD
>
> Ok, if you want to play your trump card so early then start calling all
> the witnesses liars.
Perhaps you do, but I don't need a trump card, Tony.
Please cite any post of mine where I stated that Tague was a liar.
I stated that their exists no supportive evidence or witness testimony
outside of his own testimony. That doesn't mean he is lying.
Not all witnesses are liars. At the same time, not all witnesses tell
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Not all witnesses have supporting evidence to back their claim.
Nothing is absolute when it comes to witnesses.
Cliche, Cliche!
JM/HD
HistorianDetective
> Actually there's a photo of the cut published in the paperback High
> Treason (Groden/Livingston) showing the cut on Tague's cheek, seemingly
> taken immediately after the assassination - so goes my understanding.
>
I don't have the book, but I think I know which pic it is. If the cut is
on his left cheek in that photo, then its back to square one. He was cut
on the right cheek.
Groden & Livingston have a problem with verification skills, among others.
I discovered early on in my own personal research that I can't depend on
any of their conclusions.
JM/HD
Anthony Marsh
That doesn't matter to the cover-up artists. They'll just claim he cut
himself shaving that morning.
John Fiorentino
You need more research
John F.
"jbarge" <anjb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:35f41fd9-630e-4bd2...@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
HistorianDetective
wrote:
> .John:
>
RE:
> It's just very sad that Tague keeps perpetuating this myth.
>
I've yet to see any evidence that it is a myth.
> Walthers never mentioned anything of the kind about blood on Tague's
> cheek. In fact Walthers testimony indicates just the opposite.
I don't recall reading where Walthers states he did not see a cut or
blood.
Be that as it may, something caused Walthers to walk to the area that
Tague mentioned. With all that was going on, I'm not convinced Walthers
relied strictly on Tague's word about feeling something on his (Tague's)
cheek. I think Walthers needed some support and seeing blood on Tague's
cheek could have been that support.
I suppose the "Lack of Evidence does''t mean..." cliche would apply here.
It is certainly one of those JFK Assassination anomalies.
JM/HD
Brokedad
wrote:
> And this has to do with what?
>
> I believe we are talking about the "blood" on Tague's cheek.
>
> John F.
Certainly fooled me! I was under the obviously mistaken opinion that
the discussion began in regards to the article regarding James Tague.
Which, by the way, states:
==========================================================================================
"the deputy sheriff saw that a curb about 15 feet away bore what
seemed like a fresh mark. Walthers surmised that Tague had been hit by
a spray of concrete kicked up by a bullet fired at the president.
The chipped curb would soon become part of assassination lore, along
with the "mysterious" deaths of eyewitnesses, the "altered" autopsy
photographs, the "planted" stretcher bullet,"
========================================================================================
And, since you quite obviously know so little about any of this and
the relevance, then you no doubt accepted this as being factual as
well:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++
"In August 1964, the FBI cut out a section of the curb for analysis.
Later, conspiracy theorists (including Tague) would contend that
someone--probably the FBI--patched the curb in order to hide the mark
and cover up possible evidence of multiple shooters."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++
Sorry folks! But, the curb section had been removed PRIOR to the
Warren Commission assassination re-enactment of May 1964, and it is
clearly marked on the ORIGINAL copy of the Warren Commission Survey
Plat.
Now! Since the FBI conducted an assassination re-enactment, complete
with survey data and a survey plat, on February 7, 1964, one would not
be incorrect if they also assumed that the "curb strike" removal had
something to do with this date as well.
But then again, the WC blamed the erroneous FBI survey plat of 2/7/64
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144b.htm
on the U.S. Secret Service as being the survey plat which was
actually completed on 12/5/63.
All of which is no doubt far too deep into factual evidence for you to
grasp.
>
> "Brokedad" <temptypock...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c19dd2b4-b62d-4da0...@a37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 22, 4:18 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>
> >http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/the-kennedy-assas...
>
> > .John
>
> > --
> > The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> Something of which you are most probably not aware.
>
> The "true" and original survey completed for the Warren Commission by
> Dallas County Surveyor Robert West, also has the "curb section
> removed" clearly marked on the survey plat.
>
> Along with a few other EEI's (essential elements of information) which
> the phony (CE882) " tracing" does not have located on it.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_007...
Brokedad
> On Nov 23, 9:13 pm, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
> > And this has to do with what?
>
> > I believe we are talking about the "blood" on Tague's cheek.
>
> > John F.
>
>
> Certainly fooled me! I was under the obviously mistaken opinion that
> the discussion began in regards to the article regarding James Tague.
> Which, by the way, states:
>
> "the deputy sheriff saw that a curb about 15 feet away bore what
> seemed like a fresh mark. Walthers surmised that Tague had been hit by
> a spray of concrete kicked up by a bullet fired at the president.
>
> The chipped curb would soon become part of assassination lore, along
> with the "mysterious" deaths of eyewitnesses, the "altered" autopsy
> photographs, the "planted" stretcher bullet,"
>
> And, since you quite obviously know so little about any of this and
> the relevance, then you no doubt accepted this as being factual as
> well:
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> ++++++++++++++++
> "In August 1964, the FBI cut out a section of the curb for analysis.
> Later, conspiracy theorists (including Tague) would contend that
> someone--probably the FBI--patched the curb in order to hide the mark
> and cover up possible evidence of multiple shooters."
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> +++++++++++++++++
>
> Sorry folks! But, the curb section had been removed PRIOR to the
> Warren Commission assassination re-enactment of May 1964, and it is
> clearly marked on the ORIGINAL copy of the Warren Commission Survey
> Plat.
>
> Now! Since the FBI conducted an assassination re-enactment, complete
> with survey data and a survey plat, on February 7, 1964, one would not
> be incorrect if they also assumed that the "curb strike" removal had
> something to do with this date as well.
>
> But then again, the WC blamed the erroneous FBI survey plat of 2/7/64
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++
John;
Soon, by "snail-mail", you will receive two documents which represent
portions of the "True"* survey plat as completed by Mr. Robert West
for the Warren Commission.
(*As opposed to the phony CE882 which was admitted into evidence)
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0464a.htm
So! In addition to the altered survey data (CE 884), you can add
these two additional "alterations" to your listing.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0464b.htm
Should you, after receipt of the aformentioned copies, wish to discuss
the rational/reasoning behind altering the survey plat to delete the
section of street curb removed (Tague hit), as well as changing the
physical location (on paper) of the curb inlet, then I would be glad
to discuss this subject matter with "inquiring minds".*
Tom Purvis
*For the record, I do not consider "enquiring minds" to include those
who merely "parrot" the WC and it's completely asinine conclusion.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++