James Tague
Robert Harris
eliminate the problems associated with the Tague wound by trying to
claim that it had nothing to do with the shooting.
I just wonder how those of you who are promoting this concept, deal with
the fact that Tague clearly remembered being hit by the debris, but did
not immediately connect it with the attack.
"I felt it at the time, but I didn't associate, didn't make any
connection."
Please explain. If it had nothing to do with any of the gunshots, then
what was it he felt?
Robert Harris
bigdog
I don't recall any LN saying it had nothing to do with the shooting. I
offered that as a possibility. We really can't say for sure what
caused this any more than we can definitively say where the missed
shot went. Possibly they are associated and possibly they are not.
Tague could have been hit by a bullet fragment from the head shot.
It's a guessing game. If you want to play that, fine. I would prefer
to focus on the things we have solid evidence for. Tague is a side
issue and not a very important one.
John Fiorentino
Works fine either way to me.
The issue is not "what he felt" but rather one of credibility.
Why don't YOU take up the task of providing verification of Tague's claims
that he had a "cut" and some "blood" on his face?
I'd like to see what you come up with.
(Please don't provide any citations from websites, trade books, etc., or
anything from Tague himself)
John F.
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-75FB1...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
Glenn Sarlitto
wrote:
> First Bob, I'm not trying to "eliminate" any problems relating to Tague.
> Works fine either way to me.
>
> The issue is not "what he felt" but rather one of credibility.
>
> Why don't YOU take up the task of providing verification of Tague's claims
> that he had a "cut" and some "blood" on his face?
>
> I'd like to see what you come up with.
>
> (Please don't provide any citations from websites, trade books, etc., or
> anything from Tague himself)
>
> John F.
>
>
> news:reharris1-75FB1...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
>
>
>
> >I noticed that recently, some of the LN types have been trying to
> > eliminate the problems associated with the Tague wound by trying to
> > claim that it had nothing to do with the shooting.
>
> > I just wonder how those of you who are promoting this concept, deal with
> > the fact that Tague clearly remembered being hit by the debris, but did
> > not immediately connect it with the attack.
>
> > "I felt it at the time, but I didn't associate, didn't make any
> > connection."
>
> > Please explain. If it had nothing to do with any of the gunshots, then
> > what was it he felt?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
John,
Regarding Tague's claim and your question
Quote On
Why don't YOU take up the task of providing verification of Tague's claims
that he had a "cut" and some "blood" on his face?
Quote Off
Try Buddy Walthers statement
http://www.jfk-online.com/walthers.html
This is from somebody's website. I just googled Buddy Walthers and found
this. Not sure, but I think it's from David Reitzes' website. I know you
didn't want something from a website, but that task is a tad diffiicult
since about the only way to retrieve something on the internet will most
likely originate from someone's website.
On a sidenote, I met James a few years ago with Ed Cage. We spent a Sunday
afternoon talking with Tague at his home. As far as credibility?
Although I don't agree with his conspiracy beliefs, I found him to be very
credible and honest in his convictions.
As far as what happened to him that day? Heck, he was adamant that even
till that day he didn't know for sure how and at what exact point in time
the impact occurred.
Regards,
Glenn Sarlitto
John Fiorentino
Yes, let me just clarify something, which maybe isn't very well worded on
my side. Something on the internet as you provided is absolutely OK.
I was trying to convey not to just use anecdotal stuff like he said, she
said, etc. Or "quotes" from trade books.
Walther's supplemental statement is of course, the kind of thing I'm
looking for, as it is verifiable.
However, the challenge is to produce evidence of the "cut' and the
"blood." You haven't done that.
Thanks for trying.
John F.
"Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ea193cbf-d861-44ce...@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
Glenn Sarlitto
wrote:
> Glenn:
>
> Yes, let me just clarify something, which maybe isn't very well worded on
> my side. Something on the internet as you provided is absolutely OK.
>
> I was trying to convey not to just use anecdotal stuff like he said, she
> said, etc. Or "quotes" from trade books.
>
> Walther's supplemental statement is of course, the kind of thing I'm
> looking for, as it is verifiable.
>
> However, the challenge is to produce evidence of the "cut' and the
> "blood." You haven't done that.
>
> Thanks for trying.
>
> John F.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
John,
Are you trying to Change the Challenge?
Regarding your comment...
Quote On
However, the challenge is to produce evidence of the "cut' and the
"blood." You haven't done that.
Quote Off
You never mentioned the word "EVIDENCE". Your original challenge was
"VERIFICATION". Buddy Walthers account certainly verifies that Tague
was cut and that there was an amount of blood on his cheek.
Be that as it may, I hate to bust your Bs but, EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS are
considered EVIDENCE, unless of course things have changed lately.
Cheers,
Glenn Sarlitto
Robert Harris
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
> First Bob, I'm not trying to "eliminate" any problems relating to Tague.
LOL! Of course you are.
Why aren't you claiming that Brennon was a liar and just made up the
story about seeing Oswald?
> Works fine either way to me.
It doesn't work fine at all John, because there is no remotely plausible
explanation for the Tague wound that doesn't require an extra gunshot.
>
> The issue is not "what he felt" but rather one of credibility.
So, why exactly, is Mr. Tague not credible?
>
> Why don't YOU take up the task of providing verification of Tague's claims
> that he had a "cut" and some "blood" on his face?
This is beyond pathetic, John.
You can't really verify ANY DP witness statements.
Why exactly, would Tague make up a story about something like that? And
his tiny wound is totally consistent with the fact that a fresh smear of
lead was on the curbing a short distance from him.
Arbitrarily calling everyone who contradicts your theory, a liar, is just
not a good plan, John. At the very least, YOU need to give us a good
reason to doubt James Tague.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<376e80a8-a621-4013...@r37g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 12:03?am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I noticed that recently, some of the LN types have been trying to
> > eliminate the problems associated with the Tague wound by trying to
> > claim that it had nothing to do with the shooting.
> >
> > I just wonder how those of you who are promoting this concept, deal with
> > the fact that Tague clearly remembered being hit by the debris, but did
> > not immediately connect it with the attack.
> >
> > "I felt it at the time, but I didn't associate, didn't make any
> > connection."
> >
> > Please explain. If it had nothing to do with any of the gunshots, then
> > what was it he felt?
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> I don't recall any LN saying it had nothing to do with the shooting. I
> offered that as a possibility. We really can't say for sure what
> caused this any more than we can definitively say where the missed
> shot went.
Actually, we can.
Or at the very least, we know that there is a high probability of where
it came from.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s&feature=channel_page
Robert Harris
John Fiorentino
That my friend, is THE point!
John F.
"Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7dc3e549-2eec-4714...@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
John Fiorentino
Oh, this is starting to be lots of fun.
Just produce Walther's testimony regarding Tague, ok?
And after you do that, we'll conclusively show that Tague's credibility is
less than it should be.
John F.
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-7024B...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
Glenn Sarlitto
> In article <4a1fad6...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Robert,
Regarding your comment....At the very least, YOU need to give us a good
reason to doubt James Tague.
I'll be the first to admit that its tuff to be on the wrong end of an
argument. In this instance and after further review of the matter, it
appears John is correct. There simply is no strong support for Tague's
claim regarding his cut and blood on his cheek. Chalk it under Live and
Learn.
It's not John's problem to give a good reason for doubt. If there is no
support, then there is no support.
This is a good one. At least for me. I truly believe Tague got hit by
something that day and that there was a small facial cut and some blood on
his cheek. But sad to say, I for one am falling short on the support part.
Cheers,
Glenn Sarlitto
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/c92d6e8ae1a96735
>>> "After further review of the matter, it appears John [Fiorentino] is correct. There simply is no strong support for [James] Tague's claim regarding his cut and blood on his cheek. Chalk it under Live and Learn. It's not John's problem to give a good reason for doubt. If there is no support, then there is no support. This is a good one. At least for me. I truly believe Tague got hit by something that day and that there was a small facial cut and some blood on his cheek. But sad to say, I for one am falling short on the support part." <<<
I agree with everything you said above, Glenn.
When I first read John Fiorentino's post regarding the "cut" and the
"blood" on James Tague's cheek, I raced to my bookmark labelled "WC
Testimony" (via John McAdams' handy alphabetical listing for all
testimony), and I immediately went to the link for Buddy Walthers'
Warren Commission session.
I was fully expecting to find SOME reference in Walthers' testimony
about seeing "blood" on the face of James Tague shortly after the
shooting in Dealey Plaza. But, alas, I found no such reference in
Walthers' testimony.
Deputy Sheriff Walthers tells the Warren Commission that he (Walthers)
was told by Tague himself that "something struck me on the face", with
Walthers also adding this supposed quote from Tague's lips: "It didn't
make any scratch or cut and it just was a sting".
But according to Tague's Warren Commission testimony:
"And he [Deputy Walthers] looked up and he said, 'Yes, you have
blood there on your cheek.' And I reached up and there was a couple of
drops of blood." -- James T. Tague; July 23, 1964
So it would appear that the only source for a "cut" and/or "blood" on
Tague's cheek is James Thomas Tague himself, although I believe that
Tague almost certainly WAS slightly cut on his face by either a bullet
fragment or a piece of the Main Street curbing.
One thing that certainly does gel together when comparing Walthers'
and Tague's WC sessions (which both took place on the same day, btw,
on 7/23/64) is the fact it would appear that Tague did tell Walthers
that something did "sting" him on the face during the shooting. The
word "sting" can be found in each man's WC testimony.
It's quite possible (and probable) that Deputy Sheriff Walthers did
see some blood on Tague's face on 11/22/63, but (as John Fiorentino
stated in his prior posts) that fact cannot be corroborated
definitively by anyone else other than James T. Tague (at least as far
as each man's Warren Commission testimony is concerned; it's possible
that Walthers gave some private interviews after the assassination
where he stated he physically saw the blood on Tague's face, but as of
this writing I am not aware of any such interviews).
Another thing that gels perfectly between Tague's and Walthers'
testimony is the Main Street curb damage that both Tague and Walthers
noticed on November 22, 1963. Both men told the WC that the mark they
remember seeing that day was a "fresh" mark on the curb near the
Triple Underpass.
So, regardless of whether or not Tague actually suffered any minor cut
on his face, it's pretty clear that there certainly WAS a "fresh" mark
on the curb on Main Street on 11/22/63, which was a mark that was
deemed to have been the result of a bullet or a bullet fragment
striking that curb during the assassination of President Kennedy. And,
of course, traces of lead (deemed to be bullet lead) were also later
found on that same curbstone.
Although, to tell you the truth, upon looking at the very small nick
(or mark) on the curbstone (as seen in the photo linked below),
something that has always somewhat amazed me is the fact that anybody
was able to spot this teeny-tiny mark on the curb as quickly as they
did on November 22nd. But, then too, Tague and Walthers were searching
for possible bullet markings near where Tague was standing, so I guess
it wasn't a miracle that they were able to see this mark. It is mighty
small, though:
http://www.jamestague.com/images/curb001.jpg
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/085b004c446bdc6e
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/walthers.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tague.htm
======================================
A TAGUE ADDENDUM:
The post below contains links to an interesting 2005 radio interview
with James Tague:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f65550908d2ae06f
======================================
John Fiorentino
John F.
"Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:36af3fa3-f98b-4a04...@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Glenn Sarlitto
wrote:
> Oh, this is starting to be lots of fun.
>
> Just produce Walther's testimony regarding Tague, ok?
>
> And after you do that, we'll conclusively show that Tague's credibility is
> less than it should be.
>
> John F.
>
>
> news:reharris1-7024B...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
>
>
>
> > In article <4a1fad6...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >> First Bob, I'm not trying to "eliminate" any problems relating to Tague.
>
> > LOL! Of course you are.
>
> > Why aren't you claiming that Brennon was a liar and just made up the
> > story about seeing Oswald?
>
> >> Works fine either way to me.
>
> > It doesn't work fine at all John, because there is no remotely plausible
> > explanation for the Tague wound that doesn't require an extra gunshot.
>
> >> The issue is not "what he felt" but rather one of credibility.
>
> > So, why exactly, is Mr. Tague not credible?
>
> >> Why don't YOU take up the task of providing verification of Tague's
> >> claims
> >> that he had a "cut" and some "blood" on his face?
>
> > This is beyond pathetic, John.
>
> > You can't really verify ANY DP witness statements.
>
> > Why exactly, would Tague make up a story about something like that? And
> > his tiny wound is totally consistent with the fact that a fresh smear of
> > lead was on the curbing a short distance from him.
>
> > Arbitrarily calling everyone who contradicts your theory, a liar, is just
> > not a good plan, John. At the very least, YOU need to give us a good
> > reason to doubt James Tague.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
John,
Looks like my signed copy of a WC Summary Report just declined in
value a tad. :-(
I must admit, I certainly misread both Walthers statement and
testimony and have to agree that Walthers never stated that he
actually saw the wound or any blood.
Live and Learn, eh?
Cheers,
Glenn Sarlitto
David Von Pein
>>> "I must admit, I certainly misread both Walthers' statement and testimony and have to agree that Walthers never stated that he actually saw the wound or any blood." <<<
That's true, but if James Tague was telling a false tale, then he sure
was a fast thinker...because (as I noted in my earlier post) Buddy
Walthers confirmed in his 1964 WC testimony that Tague said to him AT
THE TIME (i.e., within minutes of the shooting) that he (Tague) had
been struck in the face by something during the shooting.
Now, yes, Walthers was relying on only what Tague himself had said,
but the key factor, IMO, is WHEN Tague told Walthers that something
had hit him in the face -- and the "When" was within minutes of JFK's
assassination.
So, it's not a situation similar to Beverly Oliver or Gordon Arnold,
who were supposedly "witnesses" to the assassination who came forward
years later to tell their stories. But with Tague, WITHIN MINUTES OF
THE SHOOTING, we know he told somebody (Walthers) that he had been
struck in the face by something as the assassination was occurring.
That time factor shouldn't be overlooked, IMO.
Here's a portion of Deputy Walthers' '64 WC testimony:
MR. WALTHERS -- "His [James Tague's] 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."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/walthers.htm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/73523c55a639c5a1
John Fiorentino
======================================================
Mr. Tague. (Referring to Walthers) And he looked up and he said, "Yes; you
have blood there on your cheek."
WCR Vol. VII pg. 553
=====================================================
Mr. Walthers: (excerpts) and he said, (referring to Tague) "It didn't make
any scratch or cut and it just was a sting."
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?"....... WCR Vol. VII ppgs
546-547
======================================================
So, THREE real points of interest...... 1. Walthers testifies that Tague
himself indicated there was no "scratch or cut."
2. Walthers indicates he had no interest in whether Tague was cut or not.
(Again, Walthers never indicated Tague was cut)
3. Walthers, in his supplementary investigation report (of 11/22/63) never
mentioned any cut or blood re: Tague.
So, I think it's fair to say, based on the above, that Tague does indeed
suffer from a credibility problem.
John F.
"Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4023e754-84e4-4af4...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
Robert Harris
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Oh, this is starting to be lots of fun.
>
> Just produce Walther's testimony regarding Tague, ok?
Walther fully confirmed the fact that Tague immediately told him that he
had been hit.
"While I was looking for possible marks, some unknown person stated to me
that something had hit his face while he was parked on Main Street, the
next lane south from Elm, as the traffic had been stopped for the parade.
Upon examining the curb and pavement in this vicinity, I found where a
bullet had splattered on the top edge of the curb on Main Street"
He later confirmed that the man was Tague, but the fact that he didn't
even recall Tague's name, makes it pretty obvious that he wasn't paying
much attention to him.
Your belief that immediately following the assassination, Tague decided to
lie to the first cop he could find, by telling him he was nicked by a
fragment or whatever, is simply idiotic.
After watching the assassination of the President of the United States,
you would have his only thought being about making up a totally pointless
lie that wouldn't even get him a lawsuit in small claims court.
Calling people liars without even the slightest justification, is a very,
very old tactic John. You use it against a small army of inconvenient
witnesses, but you must realize that it doesn't convince anyone outside of
your tiny group of fringe theorists.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "There is also no firm evidence that it was "bullet lead"." <<<
But it sure would have been an amazing coincidence if it WASN'T
"bullet lead" that was adhered to that curbstone on Main Street,
however.
Wouldn't you agree?
We have a "fresh" mark on the curb with "lead" traces on it being
discovered just after BULLETS (with lead in them) are flying around
Dealey Plaza.
Come on, John Fiorentino, where are you going with this stuff about
James Tague's "credibility"? You know as well as I do that he was
struck with something by the Underpass on November 22nd.
In addition to his Warren Commission testimony, there is also Buddy
Walthers' 11/22/63 Sheriff's Report, which clearly indicates that
Tague told Walthers (very shortly after the assassination) that he was
struck in the face by something:
"Some unknown person stated to me that something had hit his
face while he was parked on Main Street." -- Via Walthers' 11/22/63
Sheriff's Report
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/walther1.htm
Regarding Walthers' WC testimony, my guess is this: The reason that
Walthers never mentioned seeing "blood" on Tague's face in his WC
testimony is due to the chronology of the questioning that was done
during Walthers' WC session.
I.E., there was no specific question about "blood" asked of Buddy
Walthers, nor did there really need to be, in order to arrive at the
truth of the situation -- with the obvious truth being: James Tague
was struck by SOMETHING during the assassination of JFK, and that fact
is bolstered by Walthers' testimony, when Buddy told the Warren
Commission that Tague told him that is what happened.
However, it would have been nice if Wesley Liebeler had asked this
question, too:
"Mr. Walthers, do you recall seeing any blood on the face of the
man who told you he was struck by something down by the Underpass?"
But Liebeler obviously saw no reason to doubt Tague's story, so the
"blood on the cheek" issue, specifically, was not considered a
particularly important issue and was not followed-up with other
witnesses (such as Walthers).
Hindsight, of course, is always 20/20. And if Liebeler were to have a
second chance at questioning Eddy "Buddy" Walthers again, perhaps he
would ask the above question. But perhaps he still wouldn't have. Who
knows?
And along those same lines, if J. Lee Rankin were to have been given a
second opportunity to interview Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy, then Rankin
might have asked her the following very important question which was
never asked of Mrs. Kennedy by Rankin on June 5, 1964:
"Mrs. Kennedy, can you state for the record exactly where on
your husband's head the wounds that you saw that day were located?"
It sure would have been nice if the above question was asked of Jackie
Kennedy.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2e1d9ff409489d9b
aeffects
can't make up your mind shithead, or is it a daily quota issue....
ROTFLMFAO
David Von Pein
>>> "can't make up your mind.." <<<
About what?
John Fiorentino
documenting...the conclusions you draw are your own.
John F.
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-A1730...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
David Von Pein
>>> "So, I think it's fair to say, based on the above, that Tague does
indeed suffer from a credibility problem." <<<
The "blood" and "cut" remarks are rather meaningless in the long run,
because Walthers confirmed the fact that Tague told him within MINUTES of
the shooting that something struck him in the face.
As I said earlier, if Tague was a liar, he sure was quick at making up his
tall tale (and then having a "fresh" mark being found on a curb AFTER he
had already told Walthers that something hit him in the face; talk about
lucky).
Unless you want to believe that Tague concocted his "Hit In The Face"
story just after HE, himself, had noticed the curb damage.
IMO, there's no good reason to think any of Tague's story was fabricated
in any way.
John Fiorentino
story just after HE, himself, had noticed the curb damage."
Well, IF it was concocted, it was done BEFORE he saw the curb, as he told
Walthers about being "stung" quite obviously before they began looking for
evidence of a "hit" on the curbstone.
I don't know, maybe Tom Pinkston might want to chime in here? Perhaps some
anecdotal musings?.................
Where was Tague going that day?
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f6b0823d-c0f8-4b0c...@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
Glenn Sarlitto
wrote:
> "Unless you want to believe that Tague concocted his "Hit In The Face"
> story just after HE, himself, had noticed the curb damage."
>
> Well, IF it was concocted, it was done BEFORE he saw the curb, as he told
> Walthers about being "stung" quite obviously before they began looking for
> evidence of a "hit" on the curbstone.
>
> I don't know, maybe Tom Pinkston might want to chime in here? Perhaps some
> anecdotal musings?.................
>
> Where was Tague going that day?
>
> John F.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> "So, I think it's fair to say, based on the above, that Tague does
> > indeed suffer from a credibility problem." <<<
>
> > The "blood" and "cut" remarks are rather meaningless in the long run,
> > because Walthers confirmed the fact that Tague told him within MINUTES of
> > the shooting that something struck him in the face.
>
> > As I said earlier, if Tague was a liar, he sure was quick at making up his
> > tall tale (and then having a "fresh" mark being found on a curb AFTER he
> > had already told Walthers that something hit him in the face; talk about
> > lucky).
>
> > Unless you want to believe that Tague concocted his "Hit In The Face"
> > story just after HE, himself, had noticed the curb damage.
>
> > IMO, there's no good reason to think any of Tague's story was fabricated
>
> - Show quoted text -
John,
Regarding...Where was Tague going that day?
If I remember correctly, Tague said he was going to have lunch with
his girlfriend. Ask Ed Cage to verify.
Glenn Sarlitto
David Von Pein
>>> "Where was Tague going that day?" <<<
He talks about that (briefly) during the 2005 interview I posted
previously. Here it is again:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f65550908d2ae06f