James T. Tague
David Von Pein
Street curb at the mouth of the Triple Underpass in Dallas' Dealey
Plaza on November 22, 1963, when he was peppered on the cheek by
something during JFK's assassination.
It's likely that Tague was struck by either a bullet fragment or by
small pieces of concrete that flew up off the curb on Main Street
after a bullet or bullet fragment hit the curb.
Many conspiracy theorists seem to want to prop up Tague as PROOF of a
second gunman in Dealey Plaza. But Tague's wounding proves no such
thing. In fact, Mr. Tague is a pretty good overall "LN" witness.....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tague.htm
Tague heard exactly three shots, and his very PRESENCE on the curb
near the Underpass on Main Street, in almost a straight line of fire
from the Depository's "Sniper's Nest" window, makes it MUCH more
likely that Tague was wounded by a REAR (Book Depository) shot than by
some crazily-askew shot that might have come from "Badge Man's"
vicinity on the Grassy Knoll.
Mr. Tague was standing between the two Underpass tunnels visible in
this Warren Commission exhibit.....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0458a.htm
.....And notice the oak tree still visible at the bottom of that
picture. Now, the trajectory line to Tague isn't perfectly straight
for either theory (the "head-shot fragment hit him" theory or the "oak
tree" theory).
In fact, the tree theory makes the trajectory much less than
"straight" to Tague. But, of course, the bullet would have been
deflected off of the tree and changed course before getting to Tague,
but such a bullet would still have been moving in the same general
direction--southwest.
But either "LN" theory is much more logical and believable than having
a Knoll shooter hitting Tague, or an invisible second TSBD gunman. If
an assassin firing from the Grassy Knoll hit Tague, what was that guy
aiming at, for Pete sake? Kennedy (the gunman's target) was in the
street, to the proposed gunman's LEFT. But Tague was situated
considerably to the RIGHT of any such make-believe Knoll gunman.
Crazy, huh?
So, in my own opinion, even the conspiracy theorists really don't have
much of a leg to stand on with respect to James Tague's
wounding....because, given the trajectory to the TSBD when the
shooting took place, Tague was probably wounded by a bullet coming
from BEHIND President Kennedy's vehicle, and not from in front of it.
And the only verified source of gunfire FROM BEHIND the President's
car was the southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the Texas
School Book Depository Building (where three bullet shells from Lee
Harvey Oswald's gun were found shortly after the assassination).
But the bottom-line truth of the matter is --- James T. Tague's
wounding is an UNSOLVABLE portion of the John F. Kennedy murder case;
and it always will be....because that bullet was never recovered, and
Tague's memory of the exact timing of the event is murky (at best). So
all anyone can do is GUESS about the timing of Tague's slight facial
injury.
Also......
The Warren Commission, which arrived at a "1-Assassin" conclusion in
1964, wasn't BOXED IN to accepting the "Single-Bullet Theory" merely
because of the Tague wounding (as many conspiracists seem to want to
believe).
Page #117 of the Warren Commission Report proves that fact, loudly and
clearly.....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm
David Von Pein
March 2007
Anthony Marsh
> 27-year-old car salesman James Thomas Tague was standing on the Main
> Street curb at the mouth of the Triple Underpass in Dallas' Dealey
> Plaza on November 22, 1963, when he was peppered on the cheek by
> something during JFK's assassination.
>
> It's likely that Tague was struck by either a bullet fragment or by
> small pieces of concrete that flew up off the curb on Main Street
> after a bullet or bullet fragment hit the curb.
>
> Many conspiracy theorists seem to want to prop up Tague as PROOF of a
> second gunman in Dealey Plaza. But Tague's wounding proves no such
> thing. In fact, Mr. Tague is a pretty good overall "LN" witness.....
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tague.htm
>
> Tague heard exactly three shots, and his very PRESENCE on the curb
> near the Underpass on Main Street, in almost a straight line of fire
> from the Depository's "Sniper's Nest" window, makes it MUCH more
> likely that Tague was wounded by a REAR (Book Depository) shot than by
> some crazily-askew shot that might have come from "Badge Man's"
> vicinity on the Grassy Knoll.
>
Strawman. I can't remember ANYONE who said that a shot from the grassy
knoll hit Tague. Can you cite any?
David Von Pein
"Hay", man! Watch your language!
CTers just love that word "strawman", don't they? Is that your middle
name Tony?
>>> "I can't remember ANYONE who said that a shot from the grassy knoll hit Tague. Can you cite any?" <<<
I sure hope not. If so, those kooks are really far gone.
But, then again, if it wasn't the proverbial "picket fence man" who
wounded Tague, and if it wasn't Oswaldovich up in the SN, then what
gun accounted for Tague's injury? (If a head-shot fragment is ruled
out, like most CTers believe.)
Was it the invisible and noiseless shooter in the Dal-Tex maybe? Or
that stealth-like guy on the west end of the TSBD that Walt has fallen
in love with? Who was it?
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Strawman." <<<
>
> "Hay", man! Watch your language!
>
> CTers just love that word "strawman", don't they? Is that your middle
> name Tony?
>
>>>> "I can't remember ANYONE who said that a shot from the grassy knoll hit Tague. Can you cite any?" <<<
>
> I sure hope not. If so, those kooks are really far gone.
>
> But, then again, if it wasn't the proverbial "picket fence man" who
> wounded Tague, and if it wasn't Oswaldovich up in the SN, then what
> gun accounted for Tague's injury? (If a head-shot fragment is ruled
> out, like most CTers believe.)
>
The shot which hit Connally's wrist. Z-329/330.
David Von Pein
================================================
ANOTHER LNer SAID:
>>> "Well, I must say that I still don't understand what is so impossible about either of the shots having caused Tague's cheek wound. Can someone please enlighten me?" <<<
DVP SAYS:
There's nothing (at all) impossible about either of Oswald's shots (#1
or #3) having caused the Tague wound and microscopic Main St. curb
damage.
The oak tree could (and probably would) have taken a considerable
amount of velocity off of Oswald's #1 shot, hence (possibly) resulting
in the teeny-weeny curb damage. .....
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/curb.jpg
And the head-shot fragment theory is not totally crazy. I've always
said it was a possibility (although I prefer the "first-shot-hit-
Tague" scenario best).
And I'm wondering why it wouldn't be at least POSSIBLE for Oswald's
first bullet (which hit the oak tree) to have fragmented after
striking the hard oak of the tree....with a portion of that bullet
going out to hit Tague, while another portion hit the street behind
the limo, causing the witnesses to see the "sparks" of a bullet
hitting the pavement.
Why is that any more impossible than anything else that's been
purported re. this impossible-to-prove Tague wounding scenario?
To sum up........
The trajectory works (generally) fine for either of the two LN "Tague"
scenarios (oak tree or head fragment)......
1.) Oswald's gun is pointing west/southwest the entire time of the
shooting.
2.) Tague is located to the west/southwest of Oswald's gun during the
whole shooting timeline. .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0458a.htm
3.) The only verified shots came from the SN of the TSBD (with the
rifle-rest box configuration in the Nest indicating the gunman
probably was only planning on shooting his gun at the President in a
west-southwesterly direction).
1 through 3 = The trajectory works fine given the DEFLECTION factor
which obviously HAD to have occurred NO MATTER HOW TAGUE WAS WOUNDED.
(Or was that gunman who hit Tague just a really, really piss-poor
shot...or blind?)
Would some CTer now care to demonstrate how they can PROVE just
exactly how a 6.5mm FMJ bullet being fired from where Oswald fired
from is going to move, fragment, and generally behave after having
struck another object before coming to rest?
You can't possibly predict with perfect accuracy how any deflected
bullet is going to behave and exactly where it's going to end up after
hitting something like a tree branch at a totally-unknown angle, or a
President's head. But good luck if you want to attempt to prove
something like that.
David Von Pein
Then what causes that super-fast "hat flip" of JBC's begininng at
Z226, Tony? John C. was just getting in a little exercise as he
abruptly moves the exact same arm/wrist that's going to be fractured
at Z329-330 (per your theory)? Is that it?
And you've also got to ignore Gregory's/Shaw's testimony, stating that
a shot like that which you propose would have destroyed Connally's
wrist...possibly beyond repair (per other doctors who have observed
similar wrist wounds caused by unimpeded high-velocity missiles).
But just ignore all the things that make your Z329 theory pure
trash....and just make up your own re-written version of history
(which VB will be "reclaiming" in short order).
I'm sure Groden is mighty proud of the likes of people like you.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "The shot which hit Connally's wrist. Z-329/330." <<<
>
> Then what causes that super-fast "hat flip" of JBC's begininng at
> Z226, Tony? John C. was just getting in a little exercise as he
> abruptly moves the exact same arm/wrist that's going to be fractured
> at Z329-330 (per your theory)? Is that it?
>
What super-fast hat flip?
What likewise caused the super-fast hat flip out at Love Field? Was
Connally hit by a bullet then? Post Hoc Fallacy.
> And you've also got to ignore Gregory's/Shaw's testimony, stating that
> a shot like that which you propose would have destroyed Connally's
> wrist...possibly beyond repair (per other doctors who have observed
> similar wrist wounds caused by unimpeded high-velocity missiles).
>
Not sure I can ignore whatever you bring up. I can understand that their
arguments are based on instinct, not forensics or experience, and
limited by what assumptions they make, such as a direct and
perpendicular hit.
David Von Pein
Good job. Just ignore it. It'll go away prob'ly.
>>> "What caused the super-fast hat flip out at Love Field?" <<<
Whatever that means. <lol>
>>> "Not sure I can ignore whatever you bring up..." <<<
Yeah, I know what you mean. The truth and a reasonable interpretation
of the available evidence IS a bit hard to ignore, isn't it? ;)