Discussion:
Jack Tatum Destroys Both Bugliosi & Myers
(too old to reply)
r***@gmail.com
2019-04-09 01:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Jack Tatum, a "witness" to the Tippit shooting came forward 15 years after
the incident and told a story that contradicted every other eyewitness
account of the Tippit shooting. He said that Oswald, after initially
shooting Tippit, walked around the car and out into the street and shot
Tippit in the head after he was down. This contradicts the accounts off
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins, who all say that there were 3 or 4 quick
shots, and that was all. There was no walking around and shooting Tippit
in the head after he was down. He got shot in the head before he went
down, according to their accounts.

Now, I'm not saying that any of these people told the truth. But any
serious researcher has to wonder about Jack Tatum coming forward 15 years
later and telling a story that contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses.
But Myers and Bugliosi do not wonder. They simply accept the Tatum story
as fact without even noting the contradiction.

How can anybody ever believe a single word said by Bugliosi and Myers?
BOZ
2019-04-09 19:11:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Jack Tatum, a "witness" to the Tippit shooting came forward 15 years after
the incident and told a story that contradicted every other eyewitness
account of the Tippit shooting. He said that Oswald, after initially
shooting Tippit, walked around the car and out into the street and shot
Tippit in the head after he was down. This contradicts the accounts off
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins, who all say that there were 3 or 4 quick
shots, and that was all. There was no walking around and shooting Tippit
in the head after he was down. He got shot in the head before he went
down, according to their accounts.
Now, I'm not saying that any of these people told the truth. But any
serious researcher has to wonder about Jack Tatum coming forward 15 years
later and telling a story that contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses.
But Myers and Bugliosi do not wonder. They simply accept the Tatum story
as fact without even noting the contradiction.
How can anybody ever believe a single word said by Bugliosi and Myers?
Any serious researcher would conclude that Oswald shot Tippit.
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-10 03:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by BOZ
Post by r***@gmail.com
Jack Tatum, a "witness" to the Tippit shooting came forward 15 years after
the incident and told a story that contradicted every other eyewitness
account of the Tippit shooting. He said that Oswald, after initially
shooting Tippit, walked around the car and out into the street and shot
Tippit in the head after he was down. This contradicts the accounts off
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins, who all say that there were 3 or 4 quick
shots, and that was all. There was no walking around and shooting Tippit
in the head after he was down. He got shot in the head before he went
down, according to their accounts.
Now, I'm not saying that any of these people told the truth. But any
serious researcher has to wonder about Jack Tatum coming forward 15 years
later and telling a story that contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses.
But Myers and Bugliosi do not wonder. They simply accept the Tatum story
as fact without even noting the contradiction.
How can anybody ever believe a single word said by Bugliosi and Myers?
Any serious researcher would conclude that Oswald shot Tippit.
That's what I've alaways said, so I guess now you have to attack me.
r***@gmail.com
2019-04-11 00:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by r***@gmail.com
Jack Tatum, a "witness" to the Tippit shooting came forward 15 years after
the incident and told a story that contradicted every other eyewitness
account of the Tippit shooting. He said that Oswald, after initially
shooting Tippit, walked around the car and out into the street and shot
Tippit in the head after he was down. This contradicts the accounts off
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins, who all say that there were 3 or 4 quick
shots, and that was all. There was no walking around and shooting Tippit
in the head after he was down. He got shot in the head before he went
down, according to their accounts.
Now, I'm not saying that any of these people told the truth. But any
serious researcher has to wonder about Jack Tatum coming forward 15 years
later and telling a story that contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses.
But Myers and Bugliosi do not wonder. They simply accept the Tatum story
as fact without even noting the contradiction.
How can anybody ever believe a single word said by Bugliosi and Myers?
Any serious researcher would conclude that Oswald shot Tippit.
That's what I've alaways said, so I guess now you have to attack me.
You know nothing about football.
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-13 03:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by r***@gmail.com
Jack Tatum, a "witness" to the Tippit shooting came forward 15 years after
the incident and told a story that contradicted every other eyewitness
account of the Tippit shooting. He said that Oswald, after initially
shooting Tippit, walked around the car and out into the street and shot
Tippit in the head after he was down. This contradicts the accounts off
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins, who all say that there were 3 or 4 quick
shots, and that was all. There was no walking around and shooting Tippit
in the head after he was down. He got shot in the head before he went
down, according to their accounts.
Now, I'm not saying that any of these people told the truth. But any
serious researcher has to wonder about Jack Tatum coming forward 15 years
later and telling a story that contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses.
But Myers and Bugliosi do not wonder. They simply accept the Tatum story
as fact without even noting the contradiction.
How can anybody ever believe a single word said by Bugliosi and Myers?
Any serious researcher would conclude that Oswald shot Tippit.
That's what I've alaways said, so I guess now you have to attack me.
You know nothing about football.
I played football. You played fuseball.
BOZ
2019-04-16 16:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by r***@gmail.com
Jack Tatum, a "witness" to the Tippit shooting came forward 15 years after
the incident and told a story that contradicted every other eyewitness
account of the Tippit shooting. He said that Oswald, after initially
shooting Tippit, walked around the car and out into the street and shot
Tippit in the head after he was down. This contradicts the accounts off
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins, who all say that there were 3 or 4 quick
shots, and that was all. There was no walking around and shooting Tippit
in the head after he was down. He got shot in the head before he went
down, according to their accounts.
Now, I'm not saying that any of these people told the truth. But any
serious researcher has to wonder about Jack Tatum coming forward 15 years
later and telling a story that contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses.
But Myers and Bugliosi do not wonder. They simply accept the Tatum story
as fact without even noting the contradiction.
How can anybody ever believe a single word said by Bugliosi and Myers?
Any serious researcher would conclude that Oswald shot Tippit.
That's what I've alaways said, so I guess now you have to attack me.
You know nothing about football.
I played football. You played fuseball.
Do you mean soccer or American football? How many concussions have you
had?
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-18 01:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by r***@gmail.com
Jack Tatum, a "witness" to the Tippit shooting came forward 15 years after
the incident and told a story that contradicted every other eyewitness
account of the Tippit shooting. He said that Oswald, after initially
shooting Tippit, walked around the car and out into the street and shot
Tippit in the head after he was down. This contradicts the accounts off
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins, who all say that there were 3 or 4 quick
shots, and that was all. There was no walking around and shooting Tippit
in the head after he was down. He got shot in the head before he went
down, according to their accounts.
Now, I'm not saying that any of these people told the truth. But any
serious researcher has to wonder about Jack Tatum coming forward 15 years
later and telling a story that contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses.
But Myers and Bugliosi do not wonder. They simply accept the Tatum story
as fact without even noting the contradiction.
How can anybody ever believe a single word said by Bugliosi and Myers?
Any serious researcher would conclude that Oswald shot Tippit.
That's what I've alaways said, so I guess now you have to attack me.
You know nothing about football.
I played football. You played fuseball.
Do you mean soccer or American football? How many concussions have you
had?
Aerican football, not that limey stuff.
No concussions. We were not allowed to give concusssions. Right now our
legislator is trying to pass a law to ban tackle football until junior
high school.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/sports/youth-tackle-football-ban.html
Jason Burke
2019-04-09 19:19:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Jack Tatum, a "witness" to the Tippit shooting came forward 15 years after
the incident and told a story that contradicted every other eyewitness
account of the Tippit shooting. He said that Oswald, after initially
shooting Tippit, walked around the car and out into the street and shot
Tippit in the head after he was down. This contradicts the accounts off
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins, who all say that there were 3 or 4 quick
shots, and that was all. There was no walking around and shooting Tippit
in the head after he was down. He got shot in the head before he went
down, according to their accounts.
Now, I'm not saying that any of these people told the truth. But any
serious researcher has to wonder about Jack Tatum coming forward 15 years
later and telling a story that contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses.
But Myers and Bugliosi do not wonder. They simply accept the Tatum story
as fact without even noting the contradiction.
How can anybody ever believe a single word said by Bugliosi and Myers?
The only person Jack Tatum destroyed was Darryl Stingley.

In a freaking preseason game...

A disgrace to #32, worn by the greatest *man* in NFL history. Bonus
points if you know who I consider that to be...
bigdog
2019-04-14 18:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Burke
Post by r***@gmail.com
Jack Tatum, a "witness" to the Tippit shooting came forward 15 years after
the incident and told a story that contradicted every other eyewitness
account of the Tippit shooting. He said that Oswald, after initially
shooting Tippit, walked around the car and out into the street and shot
Tippit in the head after he was down. This contradicts the accounts off
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins, who all say that there were 3 or 4 quick
shots, and that was all. There was no walking around and shooting Tippit
in the head after he was down. He got shot in the head before he went
down, according to their accounts.
Now, I'm not saying that any of these people told the truth. But any
serious researcher has to wonder about Jack Tatum coming forward 15 years
later and telling a story that contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses.
But Myers and Bugliosi do not wonder. They simply accept the Tatum story
as fact without even noting the contradiction.
How can anybody ever believe a single word said by Bugliosi and Myers?
The only person Jack Tatum destroyed was Darryl Stingley.
In a freaking preseason game...
A disgrace to #32, worn by the greatest *man* in NFL history. Bonus
points if you know who I consider that to be...
Jim Brown of course unless you're a Steelers fan and then you might say
Franco Harris. A pox on your house if you think it was O J Simpson.
Jason Burke
2019-04-15 19:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Jason Burke
Post by r***@gmail.com
Jack Tatum, a "witness" to the Tippit shooting came forward 15 years after
the incident and told a story that contradicted every other eyewitness
account of the Tippit shooting. He said that Oswald, after initially
shooting Tippit, walked around the car and out into the street and shot
Tippit in the head after he was down. This contradicts the accounts off
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins, who all say that there were 3 or 4 quick
shots, and that was all. There was no walking around and shooting Tippit
in the head after he was down. He got shot in the head before he went
down, according to their accounts.
Now, I'm not saying that any of these people told the truth. But any
serious researcher has to wonder about Jack Tatum coming forward 15 years
later and telling a story that contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses.
But Myers and Bugliosi do not wonder. They simply accept the Tatum story
as fact without even noting the contradiction.
How can anybody ever believe a single word said by Bugliosi and Myers?
The only person Jack Tatum destroyed was Darryl Stingley.
In a freaking preseason game...
A disgrace to #32, worn by the greatest *man* in NFL history. Bonus
points if you know who I consider that to be...
Jim Brown of course unless you're a Steelers fan and then you might say
Franco Harris. A pox on your house if you think it was O J Simpson.
Well, crud. BD's mailbox is full or something, so let me bore *everyone*
with my response...



Definitely the three greatest *players* to wear #32 (and I suppose Allen
might be in the mix also.)

The greatest man who wore #32 played for the NYG. Rather unknown today,
but he was one of three winners of UPI Athlete of the year in '41, along
with Ben Hogan and Joe Louis. (Apparently,... though the only source I've
ever seen for this was from his perhaps slightly biased alma mater,
Georgetown.)

Quick story. He was from Garfield NJ, which was also my home town. About
five years ago, we were in NJ for a Giants night game and walked in to a
bar in Garfield during the afternoon (it's a rather crappy town for Bergen
County, but not dangerous or anything.) A bunch of 30-somethings were
there, and we were shooting the shit with the locals, me wearing a #32
jersey, and my wife #29 - another WWII story.

Damn, I felt old.

Anyway, they're all trying to figure out who #32 was.

After a beer or two we headed out. A *really* old guy - must've been 90
- got up slowly as we were leaving, came over and gave me a big hug.
bigdog
2019-04-16 16:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Burke
Post by bigdog
Post by Jason Burke
Post by r***@gmail.com
Jack Tatum, a "witness" to the Tippit shooting came forward 15 years after
the incident and told a story that contradicted every other eyewitness
account of the Tippit shooting. He said that Oswald, after initially
shooting Tippit, walked around the car and out into the street and shot
Tippit in the head after he was down. This contradicts the accounts off
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins, who all say that there were 3 or 4 quick
shots, and that was all. There was no walking around and shooting Tippit
in the head after he was down. He got shot in the head before he went
down, according to their accounts.
Now, I'm not saying that any of these people told the truth. But any
serious researcher has to wonder about Jack Tatum coming forward 15 years
later and telling a story that contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses.
But Myers and Bugliosi do not wonder. They simply accept the Tatum story
as fact without even noting the contradiction.
How can anybody ever believe a single word said by Bugliosi and Myers?
The only person Jack Tatum destroyed was Darryl Stingley.
In a freaking preseason game...
A disgrace to #32, worn by the greatest *man* in NFL history. Bonus
points if you know who I consider that to be...
Jim Brown of course unless you're a Steelers fan and then you might say
Franco Harris. A pox on your house if you think it was O J Simpson.
Well, crud. BD's mailbox is full or something, so let me bore *everyone*
with my response...
Definitely the three greatest *players* to wear #32 (and I suppose Allen
might be in the mix also.)
The greatest man who wore #32 played for the NYG. Rather unknown today,
but he was one of three winners of UPI Athlete of the year in '41, along
with Ben Hogan and Joe Louis. (Apparently,... though the only source I've
ever seen for this was from his perhaps slightly biased alma mater,
Georgetown.)
Quick story. He was from Garfield NJ, which was also my home town. About
five years ago, we were in NJ for a Giants night game and walked in to a
bar in Garfield during the afternoon (it's a rather crappy town for Bergen
County, but not dangerous or anything.) A bunch of 30-somethings were
there, and we were shooting the shit with the locals, me wearing a #32
jersey, and my wife #29 - another WWII story.
Damn, I felt old.
Anyway, they're all trying to figure out who #32 was.
After a beer or two we headed out. A *really* old guy - must've been 90
- got up slowly as we were leaving, came over and gave me a big hug.
The e-mail I used to register with google is no longer in service. One of
these days I'll get around to updating it.

I tried to google for the UPI 1941 Athlete of the Year and according to
the source I came up with, UPI didn't start giving out such an award until
1974. The AP Athletes of the year were Joe DiMaggio (56 game hitting
streak) and Betty Hicks Newell (golf). Hogan wouldn't have won the award
because he didn't achieve greatness until his mid thirties which would
have been post WWII.

I couldn't find a source that listed the 1941 New York Football Giants by
number, only name and position so you have me stumped. The only name I
recognized was Jim Lee Howell who would go on to coach the Giants in the
1950s including the first sudden death overtime game in NFL history. Two
of his assistant coaches were Vince Lombardi and Tom Landry.

Before hitting POST, I tried one more google search and I think I found
your man. Albert Charles Blozis. Born in 1919, he played for Georgetown
and was drafted by the NYG in 1942. He exceeded the Army's size limitation
so initially he was not accepted into the service but later convinced the
Army to wave their limit and he enlisted. He was killed in France on
January 31, 1945, searching for two members of his patrol. Shades of Pat
Tillman. The New York Giants retired his #32. He was inducted into the
College Football Hall of Fame in 1986. The Army named an athletic facility
in his honor in Frankfurt, Germany.
bigdog
2019-04-14 18:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Burke
Post by r***@gmail.com
Jack Tatum, a "witness" to the Tippit shooting came forward 15 years after
the incident and told a story that contradicted every other eyewitness
account of the Tippit shooting. He said that Oswald, after initially
shooting Tippit, walked around the car and out into the street and shot
Tippit in the head after he was down. This contradicts the accounts off
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins, who all say that there were 3 or 4 quick
shots, and that was all. There was no walking around and shooting Tippit
in the head after he was down. He got shot in the head before he went
down, according to their accounts.
Now, I'm not saying that any of these people told the truth. But any
serious researcher has to wonder about Jack Tatum coming forward 15 years
later and telling a story that contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses.
But Myers and Bugliosi do not wonder. They simply accept the Tatum story
as fact without even noting the contradiction.
How can anybody ever believe a single word said by Bugliosi and Myers?
The only person Jack Tatum destroyed was Darryl Stingley.
In a freaking preseason game...
A disgrace to #32, worn by the greatest *man* in NFL history. Bonus
points if you know who I consider that to be...
In Tatum's defense, most DBs in the NFL would have taken that shot. What
made it tragic is Stingley came down off balance with his head and neck in
a vulnerable position. Add in the fact that Tatum was one of the hardest
hitting DBs to ever play the game. He was a linebacker in a DBs body.
Tatum was already committed to the hit and had no chance to pull out of
it. If a DB can't make a play on the ball the next best thing is to unload
on the receiver to try and separate him from the ball as well as to
instill fear into him the next time he's trying to make a catch. Current
rules prohibit hits on defenseless receivers but that wasn't the case in
Tatum's day. A receiver running a crossing route was fair game. In fact
back in the 1970s, it was legal to mug a receiver before the ball was even
thrown and that was a common practice. Back in those days, the rules still
favored the defense and a 55% completion percentage was considered
outstanding. Now it will earn you a job as a third string QB. If there is
blame to be placed, it is on the culture of the game back then.
Grizzlie Antagonist
2019-04-09 19:26:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Jack Tatum, a "witness" to the Tippit shooting came forward 15 years after
the incident and told a story that contradicted every other eyewitness
account of the Tippit shooting. He said that Oswald, after initially
shooting Tippit, walked around the car and out into the street and shot
Tippit in the head after he was down. This contradicts the accounts off
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins, who all say that there were 3 or 4 quick
shots, and that was all. There was no walking around and shooting Tippit
in the head after he was down. He got shot in the head before he went
down, according to their accounts.
Now, I'm not saying that any of these people told the truth. But any
serious researcher has to wonder about Jack Tatum coming forward 15 years
later and telling a story that contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses.
But Myers and Bugliosi do not wonder. They simply accept the Tatum story
as fact without even noting the contradiction.
How can anybody ever believe a single word said by Bugliosi and Myers?
Don't argue with Jack Tatum, man, not if you value your health. Not if
you don't want a helmet planted in the small of your back with 200+ pounds
of force behind it coming at you at 15 miles per hour.

He sure did a number on Darryl Stingley. Know what Jack Tatum's nickname
was during his NFL career? It was -- heh-heh --"The Assassin"!
bigdog
2019-04-14 18:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Jack Tatum, a "witness" to the Tippit shooting came forward 15 years after
the incident and told a story that contradicted every other eyewitness
account of the Tippit shooting. He said that Oswald, after initially
shooting Tippit, walked around the car and out into the street and shot
Tippit in the head after he was down. This contradicts the accounts off
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins, who all say that there were 3 or 4 quick
shots, and that was all. There was no walking around and shooting Tippit
in the head after he was down. He got shot in the head before he went
down, according to their accounts.
Now, I'm not saying that any of these people told the truth. But any
serious researcher has to wonder about Jack Tatum coming forward 15 years
later and telling a story that contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses.
But Myers and Bugliosi do not wonder. They simply accept the Tatum story
as fact without even noting the contradiction.
How can anybody ever believe a single word said by Bugliosi and Myers?
None of the witnesses should be assumed to be true. Their statements
should be evaluated against the body of evidence. I am not familiar enough
with the medical forensic evidence in the Tippit murder to know if it
supports Tatum or not. Two things that I know could support or refute
Tatum's account, gun powder residue and the path of the bullet through his
head. The gun powder residue could tell us the range at which Oswald shot
Tippit. The angle of the bullet tract through Tippit's head would also
tell us a lot. If it went through his head on an upward angle, the would
indicate the shot was not fired from the opposite side of the car but
likely as Tippit lay on the ground.
r***@gmail.com
2019-04-15 03:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Jack Tatum, a "witness" to the Tippit shooting came forward 15 years after
the incident and told a story that contradicted every other eyewitness
account of the Tippit shooting. He said that Oswald, after initially
shooting Tippit, walked around the car and out into the street and shot
Tippit in the head after he was down. This contradicts the accounts off
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins, who all say that there were 3 or 4 quick
shots, and that was all. There was no walking around and shooting Tippit
in the head after he was down. He got shot in the head before he went
down, according to their accounts.
Now, I'm not saying that any of these people told the truth. But any
serious researcher has to wonder about Jack Tatum coming forward 15 years
later and telling a story that contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses.
But Myers and Bugliosi do not wonder. They simply accept the Tatum story
as fact without even noting the contradiction.
How can anybody ever believe a single word said by Bugliosi and Myers?
None of the witnesses should be assumed to be true. Their statements
should be evaluated against the body of evidence. I am not familiar enough
with the medical forensic evidence in the Tippit murder to know if it
supports Tatum or not. Two things that I know could support or refute
Tatum's account, gun powder residue and the path of the bullet through his
head. The gun powder residue could tell us the range at which Oswald shot
Tippit. The angle of the bullet tract through Tippit's head would also
tell us a lot. If it went through his head on an upward angle, the would
indicate the shot was not fired from the opposite side of the car but
likely as Tippit lay on the ground.
The point is not about Tatum, it's about Bugliosi and Myers. We go 15
years with no reason to think that Oswald (or anybody) delivered a coup de
gras shot after Tippit was down, and then suddenly a witness claims there
was such a shot. A serious researcher must deal with the contradiction,
and neither Bugliosi nor Myers bothered. And the Tippit autopsy report

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338568/m1/3/

says there is no powder burn associated with the head wound, "absent."
bigdog
2019-04-16 01:36:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Jack Tatum, a "witness" to the Tippit shooting came forward 15 years after
the incident and told a story that contradicted every other eyewitness
account of the Tippit shooting. He said that Oswald, after initially
shooting Tippit, walked around the car and out into the street and shot
Tippit in the head after he was down. This contradicts the accounts off
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins, who all say that there were 3 or 4 quick
shots, and that was all. There was no walking around and shooting Tippit
in the head after he was down. He got shot in the head before he went
down, according to their accounts.
Now, I'm not saying that any of these people told the truth. But any
serious researcher has to wonder about Jack Tatum coming forward 15 years
later and telling a story that contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses.
But Myers and Bugliosi do not wonder. They simply accept the Tatum story
as fact without even noting the contradiction.
How can anybody ever believe a single word said by Bugliosi and Myers?
None of the witnesses should be assumed to be true. Their statements
should be evaluated against the body of evidence. I am not familiar enough
with the medical forensic evidence in the Tippit murder to know if it
supports Tatum or not. Two things that I know could support or refute
Tatum's account, gun powder residue and the path of the bullet through his
head. The gun powder residue could tell us the range at which Oswald shot
Tippit. The angle of the bullet tract through Tippit's head would also
tell us a lot. If it went through his head on an upward angle, the would
indicate the shot was not fired from the opposite side of the car but
likely as Tippit lay on the ground.
The point is not about Tatum, it's about Bugliosi and Myers. We go 15
years with no reason to think that Oswald (or anybody) delivered a coup de
gras shot after Tippit was down, and then suddenly a witness claims there
was such a shot. A serious researcher must deal with the contradiction,
and neither Bugliosi nor Myers bothered. And the Tippit autopsy report
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338568/m1/3/
says there is no powder burn associated with the head wound, "absent."
Unfortunately page 10 appears blank in this link and that seems like it
contains critical information about the track of the headshot. It
continues on page 11 but all I can gather from that is the bullet entered
the right temporal bone. It would help if I understood some of the medical
jargon but I don't. What we know is four bullets hit Tippit's torso and
one hit his head. Why would one shot be fired at his head? One explanation
is if Oswald fired the fatal shot as Tippit lay on the ground as per
Tatum's account. Another would be if Oswald continued to fire as Tippit
began to fall. This really doesn't seem that important to me. What
difference does it make if Oswald fired the fatal shot from the opposite
side of the car or walked around and shot Tippit execution style. Oswald
killed Tippit as surely as he killed JFK.
Robert Reynolds
2019-04-17 01:14:51 UTC
Permalink
r***@gmail.com
2019-04-18 02:05:48 UTC
Permalink
As the text of the autopsy report indicates, Tippit was hit only four
times: once in the head and three times in the chest. Discussion of
whether five shots were fired (one miss) or only four shots (all hits) is
on pp. 266-269 in the 1998 ed. of Myers' WM, but the 2013 edition
apparently differs, and may even reach different conclusions
The angle of the head wound is also in the online version of the autopsy
report, page 9 of 28: "Examination of the wound of the right temple is
made. It is found to enter in the right middle cranial fossa, pursues a
course which is slightly upward, backward, and to the left."
VB's endnote for page 79 of RH cites a footnote from the HSCA report, pg.
60: "The committee did verify from the Tippit autopsy report that there was
one wound to the body that slanted upward from front to back. Though previously
unexplained, it would be consistent with the observations of Jack Ray Tatum."
VB notes: "Conspiracy theorists have raised the issue of Jack
Tatum’s legitimacy as a witness because he never came forward to
the authorities at the time with his observations. That normally is a
valid position. But Tatum’s bona fides in this case overcome
this infirmity." He then discusses his reasons for accepting Tatum's
testimony. One reason he gives is the upward angle, apparently agreeing
with HSCA that it reflected Oswald standing over Tippit when he shot him.
DM is more dubious of Tatum than VB.
(http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2018/11/jack-ray-tatum.html). He also
rejects the claim that the angle of the headwound supports Tatum's story
(With Malice, p. 243), noting that the chest wounds were also "front to
back, slightly upward and to the left."
Neither VB nor DM neglected to consider the issue of Tatum's late
testimony. They weighed it before reaching their somewhat different
conclusions.
They neglected to deal with the fact that his testimony contradicted every
other witness testimony. That's what reveals Bugliosi and Myers to be
hacks. Scoggins, Markham and Benavedes all said, in effect, that Tippit
was shot while he was standing, not after he fell down. And Tatum says
"Oswald" was starting to leave, but came around the car out into the
street and shot him in the head after he was down. A serious researcher
cannot ignore the contradiction, but Myers and Bugliosi are just hack
propagandists. If Tatum is correct, then the original witnesses must be
lying. A mistake of this sort is not credible. Even Bugliosi describes the
shooting as "BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!" Tatum's version would be, BANG!
BANG! BANG! ...(Oswald strolls around the car) BANG! Bugliosi's account
also contradicts Tatum.

That doesn't mean Tatum is wrong, but it means that something is wrong
among these witnesses. Either 3 of them are lying, or 1 of them is lying,
or all of them are lying. The Lone Nutter, if he is to be diligent, is
forced to assume that Tatum is lying, because the 3 originals all lying
the same lie would imply a conspiracy. One liar, especially one who comes
forward 15 years later, can be easily dismissed. But three makes a
conspiracy. Yet Bugliosi and Myers throw caution to the wind and accept
Tatum as an apostle of Warren Commission truth. Why? Because it sounds
good. It helps them sell their propaganda. It won't fool the people who do
their own research, but who cares about them? Propagandists address the
masses, not the researchers.
r***@gmail.com
2019-04-17 01:17:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Jack Tatum, a "witness" to the Tippit shooting came forward 15 years after
the incident and told a story that contradicted every other eyewitness
account of the Tippit shooting. He said that Oswald, after initially
shooting Tippit, walked around the car and out into the street and shot
Tippit in the head after he was down. This contradicts the accounts off
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins, who all say that there were 3 or 4 quick
shots, and that was all. There was no walking around and shooting Tippit
in the head after he was down. He got shot in the head before he went
down, according to their accounts.
Now, I'm not saying that any of these people told the truth. But any
serious researcher has to wonder about Jack Tatum coming forward 15 years
later and telling a story that contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses.
But Myers and Bugliosi do not wonder. They simply accept the Tatum story
as fact without even noting the contradiction.
How can anybody ever believe a single word said by Bugliosi and Myers?
None of the witnesses should be assumed to be true. Their statements
should be evaluated against the body of evidence. I am not familiar enough
with the medical forensic evidence in the Tippit murder to know if it
supports Tatum or not. Two things that I know could support or refute
Tatum's account, gun powder residue and the path of the bullet through his
head. The gun powder residue could tell us the range at which Oswald shot
Tippit. The angle of the bullet tract through Tippit's head would also
tell us a lot. If it went through his head on an upward angle, the would
indicate the shot was not fired from the opposite side of the car but
likely as Tippit lay on the ground.
The point is not about Tatum, it's about Bugliosi and Myers. We go 15
years with no reason to think that Oswald (or anybody) delivered a coup de
gras shot after Tippit was down, and then suddenly a witness claims there
was such a shot. A serious researcher must deal with the contradiction,
and neither Bugliosi nor Myers bothered. And the Tippit autopsy report
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338568/m1/3/
says there is no powder burn associated with the head wound, "absent."
Unfortunately page 10 appears blank in this link and that seems like it
contains critical information about the track of the headshot. It
continues on page 11 but all I can gather from that is the bullet entered
the right temporal bone. It would help if I understood some of the medical
jargon but I don't. What we know is four bullets hit Tippit's torso and
one hit his head. Why would one shot be fired at his head? One explanation
is if Oswald fired the fatal shot as Tippit lay on the ground as per
Tatum's account. Another would be if Oswald continued to fire as Tippit
began to fall. This really doesn't seem that important to me. What
difference does it make if Oswald fired the fatal shot from the opposite
side of the car or walked around and shot Tippit execution style. Oswald
killed Tippit as surely as he killed JFK.
Why do you refuse to address the issue that Bugliosi and Myers accepted
without reservation a new account of what happened which contradicted
every other witness account? I am saying that Bugliosi and Myers are not
serious researchers.

As to what really happened, to believe Tatum, you have to believe that all
of these other witnesses are unreliable, and that is against your Lone
Nutter faith. If you accept Tatum's singular account, then why couldn't AJ
Millican have been right about the shots in Dealey Plaza? Unlike Tatum, at
least we know that Millican really was there. But the Nutter will believe
in the "democracy of the witness accounts" when it suits him, and then
dismiss it when it doesn't.

Yes, I think the head shot plus three torso shots does imply two shooting
events, though it does not prove it. I don't think the trajectory is
critical to the issue, since Tippit and his assailant(s) were in motion.
Either somebody did shoot Tippit after he was down, or there were two
shooters. Or both. But, to simply accept Tatum's account, you must dismiss
everybody else's. How could they NOT have noticed that "Oswald" walked
around the car and shot Tippit again?

If you are intellectually honest, you must accept that this is a problem
for the Official Story. Bugliosi and Myers are not honest. Maybe we can't
know exactly what happened, but we can be honest about it, can't we? Or
are we just propagandists? Propaganda need not be honest.
donald willis
2019-04-18 01:59:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Jack Tatum, a "witness" to the Tippit shooting came forward 15 years after
the incident and told a story that contradicted every other eyewitness
account of the Tippit shooting. He said that Oswald, after initially
shooting Tippit, walked around the car and out into the street and shot
Tippit in the head after he was down. This contradicts the accounts off
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins, who all say that there were 3 or 4 quick
shots, and that was all. There was no walking around and shooting Tippit
in the head after he was down. He got shot in the head before he went
down, according to their accounts.
Now, I'm not saying that any of these people told the truth. But any
serious researcher has to wonder about Jack Tatum coming forward 15 years
later and telling a story that contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses.
But Myers and Bugliosi do not wonder. They simply accept the Tatum story
as fact without even noting the contradiction.
How can anybody ever believe a single word said by Bugliosi and Myers?
None of the witnesses should be assumed to be true. Their statements
should be evaluated against the body of evidence. I am not familiar enough
with the medical forensic evidence in the Tippit murder to know if it
supports Tatum or not. Two things that I know could support or refute
Tatum's account, gun powder residue and the path of the bullet through his
head. The gun powder residue could tell us the range at which Oswald shot
Tippit. The angle of the bullet tract through Tippit's head would also
tell us a lot. If it went through his head on an upward angle, the would
indicate the shot was not fired from the opposite side of the car but
likely as Tippit lay on the ground.
The point is not about Tatum, it's about Bugliosi and Myers. We go 15
years with no reason to think that Oswald (or anybody) delivered a coup de
gras shot after Tippit was down, and then suddenly a witness claims there
was such a shot. A serious researcher must deal with the contradiction,
and neither Bugliosi nor Myers bothered. And the Tippit autopsy report
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338568/m1/3/
says there is no powder burn associated with the head wound, "absent."
Unfortunately page 10 appears blank in this link and that seems like it
contains critical information about the track of the headshot. It
continues on page 11 but all I can gather from that is the bullet entered
the right temporal bone. It would help if I understood some of the medical
jargon but I don't. What we know is four bullets hit Tippit's torso and
one hit his head. Why would one shot be fired at his head? One explanation
is if Oswald fired the fatal shot as Tippit lay on the ground as per
Tatum's account. Another would be if Oswald continued to fire as Tippit
began to fall. This really doesn't seem that important to me. What
difference does it make if Oswald fired the fatal shot from the opposite
side of the car or walked around and shot Tippit execution style. Oswald
killed Tippit as surely as he killed JFK.
Why do you refuse to address the issue that Bugliosi and Myers accepted
without reservation a new account of what happened which contradicted
every other witness account? I am saying that Bugliosi and Myers are not
serious researchers.
As to what really happened, to believe Tatum, you have to believe that all
of these other witnesses are unreliable, and that is against your Lone
Nutter faith. If you accept Tatum's singular account, then why couldn't AJ
Millican have been right about the shots in Dealey Plaza? Unlike Tatum, at
least we know that Millican really was there. But the Nutter will believe
in the "democracy of the witness accounts" when it suits him, and then
dismiss it when it doesn't.
Yes, I think the head shot plus three torso shots does imply two shooting
events, though it does not prove it. I don't think the trajectory is
critical to the issue, since Tippit and his assailant(s) were in motion.
Either somebody did shoot Tippit after he was down, or there were two
shooters. Or both. But, to simply accept Tatum's account, you must dismiss
everybody else's. How could they NOT have noticed that "Oswald" walked
around the car and shot Tippit again?
I have to admit I'm glad that I don't seem to be the only one who thinks
the Tippit killer wasn't Oswald. Even Provo Marshal Marsh thinks it
was....
Post by r***@gmail.com
If you are intellectually honest, you must accept that this is a problem
for the Official Story. Bugliosi and Myers are not honest. Maybe we can't
know exactly what happened, but we can be honest about it, can't we? Or
are we just propagandists? Propaganda need not be honest.
r***@gmail.com
2019-04-19 06:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Jack Tatum, a "witness" to the Tippit shooting came forward 15 years after
the incident and told a story that contradicted every other eyewitness
account of the Tippit shooting. He said that Oswald, after initially
shooting Tippit, walked around the car and out into the street and shot
Tippit in the head after he was down. This contradicts the accounts off
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins, who all say that there were 3 or 4 quick
shots, and that was all. There was no walking around and shooting Tippit
in the head after he was down. He got shot in the head before he went
down, according to their accounts.
Now, I'm not saying that any of these people told the truth. But any
serious researcher has to wonder about Jack Tatum coming forward 15 years
later and telling a story that contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses.
But Myers and Bugliosi do not wonder. They simply accept the Tatum story
as fact without even noting the contradiction.
How can anybody ever believe a single word said by Bugliosi and Myers?
None of the witnesses should be assumed to be true. Their statements
should be evaluated against the body of evidence. I am not familiar enough
with the medical forensic evidence in the Tippit murder to know if it
supports Tatum or not. Two things that I know could support or refute
Tatum's account, gun powder residue and the path of the bullet through his
head. The gun powder residue could tell us the range at which Oswald shot
Tippit. The angle of the bullet tract through Tippit's head would also
tell us a lot. If it went through his head on an upward angle, the would
indicate the shot was not fired from the opposite side of the car but
likely as Tippit lay on the ground.
The point is not about Tatum, it's about Bugliosi and Myers. We go 15
years with no reason to think that Oswald (or anybody) delivered a coup de
gras shot after Tippit was down, and then suddenly a witness claims there
was such a shot. A serious researcher must deal with the contradiction,
and neither Bugliosi nor Myers bothered. And the Tippit autopsy report
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338568/m1/3/
says there is no powder burn associated with the head wound, "absent."
Unfortunately page 10 appears blank in this link and that seems like it
contains critical information about the track of the headshot. It
continues on page 11 but all I can gather from that is the bullet entered
the right temporal bone. It would help if I understood some of the medical
jargon but I don't. What we know is four bullets hit Tippit's torso and
one hit his head. Why would one shot be fired at his head? One explanation
is if Oswald fired the fatal shot as Tippit lay on the ground as per
Tatum's account. Another would be if Oswald continued to fire as Tippit
began to fall. This really doesn't seem that important to me. What
difference does it make if Oswald fired the fatal shot from the opposite
side of the car or walked around and shot Tippit execution style. Oswald
killed Tippit as surely as he killed JFK.
Why do you refuse to address the issue that Bugliosi and Myers accepted
without reservation a new account of what happened which contradicted
every other witness account? I am saying that Bugliosi and Myers are not
serious researchers.
As to what really happened, to believe Tatum, you have to believe that all
of these other witnesses are unreliable, and that is against your Lone
Nutter faith. If you accept Tatum's singular account, then why couldn't AJ
Millican have been right about the shots in Dealey Plaza? Unlike Tatum, at
least we know that Millican really was there. But the Nutter will believe
in the "democracy of the witness accounts" when it suits him, and then
dismiss it when it doesn't.
Yes, I think the head shot plus three torso shots does imply two shooting
events, though it does not prove it. I don't think the trajectory is
critical to the issue, since Tippit and his assailant(s) were in motion.
Either somebody did shoot Tippit after he was down, or there were two
shooters. Or both. But, to simply accept Tatum's account, you must dismiss
everybody else's. How could they NOT have noticed that "Oswald" walked
around the car and shot Tippit again?
I have to admit I'm glad that I don't seem to be the only one who thinks
the Tippit killer wasn't Oswald. Even Provo Marshal Marsh thinks it
was....
Post by r***@gmail.com
If you are intellectually honest, you must accept that this is a problem
for the Official Story. Bugliosi and Myers are not honest. Maybe we can't
know exactly what happened, but we can be honest about it, can't we? Or
are we just propagandists? Propaganda need not be honest.
I have vacillated on this point for years. I am not at all committed to
Oswald's innocence, as the Nutters like to say. I now think that it was
not Oswald. That's where the evidence leads me. Somebody else shot Tippit.
Loading...