Mary Woodward said there were 3 shots and the 1st shot missed everything

[Lance Payette]

For those who don't know, "how the cow eats the cabbage" (a/k/a "how the cow ate the cabbage") is a common saying among rural folk. My late wife, who grew up on a remote Arizona ranch, used to say it all the time. It usually seemed to be used in the sense of "I'm gonna have to set that fool straight on how the cow ate the cabbage" or "good grief, you'd think by now the idiot would know how the cow eats the cabbage." See, you learned something today!

Here's a similar tidbit you may not know: Many people attempted to invest the REM song "Losing My Religion" with deep meaning. Michael Stipe explained that "losing my religion" is just a Southern expression like "well, shut my mouth." As in, "When I saw Shirley's new hairdo, I dang near lost my religion." You're welcome.

[John Corbett]

I never said that she recalled that JFK was hit by the first shot.  You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

No but you certainly implied that by insisting that JFK was looking at Woodward and her friends when the first shot was fired. You have constantly cited her account as evidence JFK was hit by the first shot. You tried to pull a fast one and once again ended up with egg on your face.

Anyone who read her DMN story knows that she said "Things are a little hazy from this point" (ie. after the first shot) but she did not think the first shot hit anyone.

And she was right. I imagine a lot of people were a little hazy once they realized JFK had just been shot right in front of them. It would be a bewildering event that happened without warning. From her perspective, she heard a loud bang but JFK did not seem to react so she figured it was just a backfire or a firecracker. Everything would have seemed otherwise normal to those spectators. Then there was a second loud bang and JFK instantly raised his arms up in front of his throat and they would have realized that it was an assassination attempt. From that point on, my guess is that to most people everything would have seemed a blur. When she heard another bang and saw JFK's head explode, she knew he had been killed. It would be a lot to expect anyone under those circumstances to accurately recall every detail. The only witness that we know did so was Zapruder's camera.

My point is that the location of JFK at the time of the first shot (after the president passed by where she was standing ie after he passed the lamp post, which he passed at z190) together with the last two shots being close together MEANS that JFK was struck by the first shot.

Utter nonsense. It was the second shot that hit JFK less than two seconds after he went by that lamppost.

So her recollections of specific facts demonstrate that her hazy impression from what she did not see that led her to conclude that no one was struck by the first shot was incorrect and her specific recollections of what she did see together with the zfilm (which shows JFK reacting just after he passed by where she was standing and more than 5 seconds before the last shot) provide evidence that is inconsistent with a first missed shot.

Give it up. The harder you try to save this ridiculous scenario, the sillier it sounds.

[Tom Graves]

From Mary Woodward's perspective, she heard a loud bang but JFK did not seem to react, so she figured it was just a backfire or a firecracker.

JFK didn't react in the sense of falling over or "clutching at his throat," but he did stop waving to folks on his right and start turning his head quickly to his left in Z-144.

[Andrew Mason]

No but you certainly implied that by insisting that JFK was looking at Woodward and her friends when the first shot was fired. You have constantly cited her account as evidence JFK was hit by the first shot.

Yes. Her account provides very strong evidence that JFK was hit by the first shot.

Her belief is not evidence. Her observations are the evidence. Her belief that no one was hit was not something she observed. She simply did not attribute what she saw-some movements of JFK and Jackie - to JFK being wounded.

You, on the other hand, insist on attributing more weight to beliefs that are hazy which are contradicted by the clear observations she made: 1. where JFK was when the first shot sounded and 2. her clear statement that the last two shots were more rapid. 

Her evidence was that the first shot was after the President passed by her at z190 and the second shot was closer to the last shot at z313. That puts the second shot after the midpoint, which is after z257.  Since JFK is obviously hit well before z257, her observations are evidence that JFK was hit on the first shot.

[Royell Storing]

Yes. Her account provides very strong evidence that JFK was hit by the first shot.

You, on the other hand, insist on attributing more weight to impressions that are hazy which are contradicted by the clear observations she made: 1. where JFK was when the first shot sounded and 2. her clear statement that the last two shots were more rapid. 

Her evidence that the first shot was after the President passed by her at z190 and the second shot was closer to the last shot at z313. That puts the second shot after the midpoint, which is after z257.  Since JFK is obviously hit well before z257, her observations are evidence that JFK was hit on the first shot.

    The woman did Not even know where SHE Was inside Dealey Plaza.  This glaring deficiency in her 11/22/63 account taints everything she says.

[Tom Graves]

The woman did not even know where she was inside Dealey Plaza.  This glaring deficiency in her 11/22/63 [sic] account taints everything she says.

How many decades after her 11/23/63 account are you referring to, Stormtrooper Storing?

This is what she wrote in her 11/23/63 Dallas Morning News article:

"We took our lunch along—some crackers and apples—and started walking down Houston Street. We decided to cross Elm and wait there on the grassy slope just east of the Triple Underpass, since there weren’t very many people there and we could get a better view."

Do you think she should have added, "When it started getting crowded, we stepped down onto the sidewalk to be as close to President Kennedy and Jackie as possible"?

[John Corbett]

Yes. Her account provides very strong evidence that JFK was hit by the first shot.

Her belief is not evidence. Her observations are the evidence.

Your spin on her observations are not evidence. You're entitled to believe she got it wrong, but then you can't turn around and tell us what she said she saw is evidence. That's called impeaching your own witness.

Her belief that no one was hit was not something she observed. She simply did not attribute what she saw-some movements of JFK and Jackie - to JFK being wounded.

This is so laughable. You are telling us her observation that the first shot didn't hit anybody is evidence JFK was hit by the first shot. That's comical.

You, on the other hand, insist on attributing more weight to beliefs that are hazy which are contradicted by the clear observations she made: 1. where JFK was when the first shot sounded and 2. her clear statement that the last two shots were more rapid.

Her evidence was that the first shot was after the President passed by her at z190 and the second shot was closer to the last shot at z313. That puts the second shot after the midpoint, which is after z257.  Since JFK is obviously hit well before z257, her observations are evidence that JFK was hit on the first shot.

Your take on her observations are evidence you are really, really bad at analyzing evidence.