JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[twik]

Tague is certainly a lot more colinear with the TSBD and Kennedy than he is with the knoll and Kennedy. His injury and Kennedy's head wound are certainly more consistent with the known behaviour of bullets than some fanciful notion of a near 90 degree deflection required for Kennedy's head wound and Tague's injury to be caused by someone shooting from the knoll.

Maybe it was the acoustics, since Tague imagined that the sound came from the picket fence / grassy knoll area, Tague was able to telekineticly alter the bullets path or the way the bullet marked on the concrete to appear as so it was coming from the knoll, when in reality it was coming from the TSBD. This is plausible, don't you think?

Actually, that's just about as logical as your suggestion that a bullet from right-front of JFK would have hit his head and, instead of proceeding to kill him AND Jackie, somehow disappeared or made a 90 degree turn inside the brain tissue. Or that a bullet hitting a skull would transfer ALL its momentum (meaning its velocity would drop to zero, and the bullet itself would drop to the ground).

So, hey, if those sorts of fantasies float your boat, go ahead.

[ka9q]

Or that a bullet hitting a skull would transfer ALL its momentum (meaning its velocity would drop to zero, and the bullet itself would drop to the ground).

A bullet could transfer all of its momentum to a skull if it embedded itself inside, never emerging, creating an exit wound or ejecting any matter at all.

But that's certainly not what happened when Oswald's third bullet hit JFK in the back of the head. It transferred enough momentum to his head to move it noticeably forward during just one film frame time. Much of that momentum (and probably more) then departed through the skull defect, helping move his head in the opposite direction (i.e., toward the shooter) though most of that motion was probably caused by a massive neuromuscular spasm.

[profmunkin]

"Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think that it is consistent with what you heard and saw that day, that the shots could have come from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. TAGUE. Yes."


"We have people who will testify at the saw the President shot from the front. He said : You can always get people to testify about something" and say about anything.

[ka9q]

Right, which is exactly why it's so utterly pointless for you to keep looking for witnesses who thought the shots came from someplace other than the TSBD, their actual source. It's exactly why the physical evidence is so important. Evidence that you go far out of your way to ignore.

[Jason Thompson]

Maybe it was the acoustics, since Tague imagined that the sound came from the picket fence / grassy knoll area

You really are desperate to avoid learning anything about real science, aren't you? Tague did not 'imagine' the sound came from there, the sound that reached his ears quite probably did come from there. You seem stubbornly unable to understand the difference between the direction of a sound and the direction of the source of that sound. Yes, they can be different, just as a squash ball can smack you in the face from any given direction, even if the person who sent it to you is standing behind you, depending on which, if any, walls it bounced off on its way between the person who hit it and your face. You still get hit from the direction of the last surface it bounced off.

Tague was able to telekineticly alter the bullets path or the way the bullet marked on the concrete to appear as so it was coming from the knoll, when in reality it was coming from the TSBD. This is plausible, don't you think?

Why is it people who don't understand science think that any old fairytale is just as plausible as the counterintuitive (but readily demonstrated and understood for centuries) situations that occur in reality?

[SolusLupus]

Wow, 70 pages of this.  Was an... interesting read.  I got about halfway before giving up, so I zoomed ahead to page 70, and it really seems like nothing really new was brought up.

Prof, I want to ask you honestly -- is it really so impossible for there to have been one shooter from the book depository building?  Can't the evidence all point to Oswell?  You really don't even have to give up the possibility of a conspiracy for that.

[Echnaton]

Wow, 70 pages of this.  Was an... interesting read.  I got about halfway before giving up, so I zoomed ahead to page 70, and it really seems like nothing really new was brought up.

Prof, I want to ask you honestly -- is it really so impossible for there to have been one shooter from the book depository building?  Can't the evidence all point to Oswell?  You really don't even have to give up the possibility of a conspiracy for that.

Half way through, that is above and beyond the call of due diligence on this thread.  As you say, profmunkin never really got past the first few pages before he ran out of things to contribute.  There after it has been an exercise in evading his responsibility to prove his theory.

[profmunkin]

"Mr. LIEBELER. I have another picture here that purports to be a picture of a curb with a bullet mark on it. I ask you if that looks like what you saw that day.
Mr. TAGUE. It looks similar, but I can't say whether this is the actual one or not, because you can see it appears to be a bullet mark.
Mr. LIEBELER. I have initialed this picture, having marked it Tague Exhibit No. 1, and I would like to have you initial it for the purpose of identification.

(Mr. Tague initials.)

Mr. LIEBELER. You indicate that the mark on the curb----
Mr. TAGUE. I can't tell too much which angle of the curb this is or what here. "

Liebeler asked Tague to identify a photo that purports (To have or present the often false appearance of being or intending)to be "of a curb with a bullet mark on it"
What curb, what bullet mark?
Tague can't positively identify the photo, but Liebeler asks Tague to initial the photo as if he had positively identified it.

[profmunkin]

Gary Aguilar: "Gerald Posner, the author of the book Case Closed reported to the Congress Committee that he had interviewed both Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell at apparently the same time they were interviewed by the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1992...Dr. Boswell told me that had never spoken with Mr. Posner"
"Mr. Posner says, and I quote again: I would be happy, Mr. Chairman, to ask Drs. Humes and Boswell if they would agree for their notes to be released to the National Archives.

This occurred on November 17th. I called Dr. Boswell on March 30th, four-and-a-half months later, and at that time he had not yet spoken to him for the first time"

Aguilar gave the ARRB tapes of these conversations.

[profmunkin]

Tague is certainly a lot more colinear with the TSBD and Kennedy than he is with the knoll and Kennedy. His injury and Kennedy's head wound are certainly more consistent with the known behaviour of bullets than some fanciful notion of a near 90 degree deflection required for Kennedy's head wound and Tague's injury to be caused by someone shooting from the knoll.

Why couldn't Tague determine if it was shot 2 or 3 or 4?

[Jason Thompson]

Why couldn't Tague determine if it was shot 2 or 3 or 4?

I don't know. Maybe because he wasn't himself sure how many shots there were, and just maybe being hit in the face by something during a confused and chaotic and traumatic event like that might just have left his memory less than photographic.

This is the whole problem with eyewitness testimony that you are still unable to accept for some reason: human memory is unreliable. In traumatic events like being present when the President is unexpectedly shot to death and being hit by a fragment of bullet or bone the memory is even less reliable. Add to that the fact that every witness in the enquiry would have heard a lot of stories about the assassination simply because the media were all over it for obvious reasons and you have additional factors that can become confused with actual memories. Your whole argument is based on the premise that every witness should tell exactly the same story and be absolutely able to tell how many shots there were and where each one came from. That's just so absurdly flawed that you would never succeed in prosecuting a case in any court of law.

[Jason Thompson]

Tague can't positively identify the photo, but Liebeler asks Tague to initial the photo as if he had positively identified it.

No, he asks Tague if it looks like what he saw. Nowhere in that exchange does he ask if that is definitely the curb with the bullet mark, and the testimony reflects that. Nor is there any inference in that snippet of dialogue that the initials are confirmation that Tague has positively identified that mark as the one resulting from the fragment that struck him. That's all your own doing.

As to your definition of the word 'purport', as expected you highlighted the word 'false' but glossed over the word 'often'. It does not mean that it is always false or suspect.

[Jason Thompson]

Oh, and one more thing:

"Mr. LIEBELER. Immediately to your left, or toward the back? Of course, now we have other evidence that would indicate that the shots did come from the Texas School Book Depository, but see if we can disregard that and determine just what you heard when the shots were fired in the first place. "

Ya, lets.just.disregard.this, Mr Liebler now ask Tague again if the shots could have come from the TSBD, after he just told you multiple times he thought the shots came from the picket fence.

We will disregard this indeed, because Liebeler is referring to the fact that Tague has already said that he thought that the book depository was a possible source of the shots, based on his looking around after the shooting was done and noticing something in a window. It turned out not to be the window Oswald was at, but he immediately spotted the possibility that a shooter could have been up there and he might have been hit by something from there.

Later he was asked where he had the impression the sounds came from and he pointed to the grassy area as his impression of where the sound came from, but he had already mentioned the depository. Libeler is not being in any way 'leading'.

In fact Tague's testimony flies right in the face of your entire argument, because he says, both independently and when asked about it, that he found nothing inconsistent in the notion that his impression of where the shots came from and his spotting of a possible location of the shooter were not one and the same. In other words, he recognises quite well that there can be a discrepancy between those two things and that this is not unusual or grounds for suspicion.

[profmunkin]

As to your definition of the word 'purport', as expected you highlighted the word 'false' but glossed over the word 'often'. It does not mean that it is always false or suspect.

In this case we know exactly what is meant by purport.
Since the photo is never defined by a source or which agency took the photo in addition it is not defined as how this photo is relevant or should be considered evidence. It's entered into testimony as "an unrelated by the way doesn't this sound familiar" and by the way just to prove you gave testimony concerning this photo, lets just both sign it...OK? This way it may appear that the photo has some evidentiary significance.

Purport in this case can only be considered as false or suspect.
The irony is that is exactly what he is telling you, do you get this?

This photo supposedly shows a bullet mark on a curb. If this is in Dealey Plaza, where is the FBI analysis of the bullet mark?

[twik]

I am constantly amused how CTists see evil intent in everything, even when it would be against the interests of the person doing it, assuming they had evil intent. The bad guys make bizarre admissions, when it would be clearly idiotic for them to do so.

Why would the Commission use the word "purported" to mean "false" when they were putting something on the record? It is clear from context that they were using the word simply to mean "assumed", or "not yet fully established". That is a legal term, and quite ordinary in its context.