Where did the shot come from that wounded James Tague?

[Steven Kossor]

In this still from Mark Lane's 1966 interview, James Tague marked his position near the South curb of Main Street, just outside the Triple Overpass in Dealey Plaza where he was struck in the right cheek by debris knocked off the curb of Main Street by a bullet or fragment that hit the curb a few feet East of his position. He reports that he had parked his car on Commerce Street where traffic was stopped and got out to see what was happening. The space between Main and Commerce at the Overpass in Dealey Plaza is a very narrow one.

The red arrows show the east to west alignment of the the scar on the South manhold cover on Elm Street with the top left corner of the Dallas Records Building that I confirmed when I visited Dallas in October of 2012. The west end of the scar points very close to Tague's position and could account for the curb strike that wounded him.

I'm not sure if others have posited this before, but corroboration always helps, right?

Best wishes always.

Steve

Damn, the file is only 68K but I only have 324 bytes of upload allowed. Sorry.

Here's a link to the .pdf for those who are interested: http://www.sendspace.com/pro/dl/rfwtvj

Edited April 8, 2013 by Steven Kossor

[Bernice Moore]

H i Steve i may have something here that you may be interested in..but it does not go back to the same building...oops...b

Edited April 8, 2013 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

Here are a couple other maps that researchers have marked after their studies, no names really..just the maps..best b..fwtaw

[Bernice Moore]

"In 1997 James Tague visited the U.S. National Archives and personally examined the curbstone scar chip. Tague was also accompanied by a U.S. National Archivist. They both immediately agreed that the scar chip was covered up with a foreign-material patch over the scar chip (no documented record nor documented authorization exists of precisely who/what agency that had the scar chip within its evidence chain, nor when the scar chip was covered-up). Harold Weisberg had said the same thing about the scar chip covering patch after he first examined the scar chip in the late 1960's."

As I was reading this, I was getting ready to mention the work Weisberg did on the Tague curb issue, so I am glad that you mentioned him.

Weisberg on the Tague curb . It was his view that at first the official investigators (FBI and Warren Commission) hoped to portray him as a publicity seeking "used car salesman" and they only pursued it when faced with the news photographs showing the damage. I believe that initially when the FBI did look for evidence of the hit, they said that they had examined the area and found no evidence of curb damage. Only later did they finally locate the curb and then, as Weisberg indicated, it had been patched..

this was a post at Lancers copied and pasted some years back...there may be some answers for you within their thread..b

http://www.jfklancer...g_id=52193=

Edited April 8, 2013 by Bernice Moore

[Guest Robert Morrow]

The shot that almost hit Tague came from the rear of JFK. Also, very importantly, Tague says the the shot that missed him definitely was NOT the early "firecracker" shot that so many heard (thinking it was a firecracker or a car backfiring). A separate shot later, nearly hit Tague, instead hitting the curb in front of him.

So those are 2 early missed shots. Plus at least 3 hit Kennedy - throat, upper back, at least one head shot.

Then Connally was hit by one shot in the back and perhaps another on his wrist.

So 2 missed shots + 3 JFK shots + 1 Connally shot = 6 shots within about 9 seconds.

There may have been more shots not heard or JFK and/or Connally could have been hit by another shot.

[Bernice Moore]

I agree Robert imo there were many more shots than 3....Steve here are a few more attachments, also make sure you do some searches within the forum...b

[John Dolva]

I still don't get this one. What exactly are the reasons that it is taken as given that a shot, a fragment of a shot, or a fragment of a piece of curb knocked off a curb hit Tague?

edit add: This afaik is something fundamental to much. If a fundament is suspect then anything that flows from that needs to reworked, revivisted, revised, ditched, or whatever. The very notion that Tagues had a wound that had anything to do with any shots is based on real time on the day evidence that is simply flimsy.

If that can be shown to be so and that alternative explanations found and as a consequence there was no 'Tague shot' what would that then mean. Anything?

_

add : here's a wild thought, having sifted thrugh the first few minutes and the consequent half hearted attempts to secure evidence it was 'immediately' seized upon as a given and so widely disseminated, the slip up, if there was one, was never noted and any alterrnative 'explanations' were never entertained.

Edited April 8, 2013 by John Dolva

[Robin Unger]

Click on image to view full size:

Edited April 8, 2013 by Robin Unger

[John Dolva]

I can not see he has suffered major trauma. When was that photo taken? Time wise I mean?

[Bernice Moore]

The photo was taken that afternoon.it could be an Allen photo, not positive right now..I believe he called it like a scratch....b

[Thomas Graves]

The photo was taken that afternoon.it could be an Allen photo, not positive right now..I believe he called it like a scratch....b

FWIW,

I remember seeing "the scratch" on his cheek in the uncropped (or perhaps just larger?) version of this photo on the internet.

--Tommy

[Bernice Moore]

this may be it Tommy, but is a very small crop..for now thanks..b

that photo as wrong as he was marked on his right cheek, here is a much newer one, where he points to the mark..where it was that day, from reading, it was a very small mark....b

Edited April 9, 2013 by Bernice Moore

[Thomas Graves]

this may be it Tommy, but is a very small crop..for now thanks..b

that photo as wrong as he was marked on his right cheek, here is a much newer one, where he points to the mark..where it was that day, from reading, it was a very small mark....b

this may be it Tommy, but is a very small crop..for now thanks..b

that photo as wrong as he was marked on his right cheek, here is a much newer one, where he points to the mark..where it was that day, from reading, it was a very small mark....b

Bernice,

Thanks for the feedback. I know the photo I was referring to was taken right around the time the photo in post #8 was taken. Thanks for pointing out that the wound was to his right cheek. Unless, of course, the photo you posted was "flipped" by somebody. LOL (But actually it probably makes more sense for the wound to be on his right cheek because the section of curb that was hit was on his right as he was facing the motorcade...)

--Tommy

[Bernice Moore]

Your welcome Tom..i am hoping that Robin will cruise along, and have the crop, i know i did at one time but the gremlin must have hungered again...yes he states it was his right cheek and was not much of a mark, also Walthers, i believe it was says he had a couple of small blood spots..we shall see...have a good day..b

PS here is the link to his interview..FYI..

Edited April 9, 2013 by Bernice Moore

[Robin Unger]

Yes the wound was on his RIGHT cheek.

As i understand it, the scratch to the left cheek was there prior to 22/11/63