Oh, dear, TG doesn't react well when caught with his pants down and egg on his weenie, does he?

With your kind permission, I will repeat what I just posted on your other OCD-driven Mary Woodward thread, to wit:

Mary was so "traumatized" when writing her article literally minutes after the assassination (according to her on C-SPAN in 1993) that she FORGOT WHERE SHE WAS. She and her coworkers had planned to watch on Houston, but because of the crowds they crossed to Elm and stationed themselves "just down" from the TSBD. Writing her article minutes later, she thought she'd spent the entire time on the grassy knoll, the shots came from behind and to her right, the Newmans were ten feet away, and the Newmans covered their child because "Apparently, the bullets had whizzed directly over their heads."

Now THAT, by God, is "traumatized!" 

Give it up. You're just digging yourself deeper in a hole. At best - AT BEST - Mary was a dingbat. At worst - well, I'm not sure what to make of her.

To repeat: She wrote her article IMMEDIATELY after returning to her office. And, yes, I am confident that if I had been standing along Elm the entire time I would not have thought I'd been sitting on the grassy knoll the entire time. If she was that traumatized, NOTHING she ever said is of any significance whatsoever.

Dear Miles Scull I mean MGFPR (Macho Genius Fancy Pants Rants),

Where do you get off?

(It's an expression from the 1940s, IIRC. As in, "When are you getting off this bus/train? You're so full of beans, you're stinking the place up.")

-- Tom

Dear Macho-Genius FPR,

Dan Rather and Gloria Calvery's colleague, Karen Westbrook, screwed up a lot, too.

Were they "dingbats"?

If you had been standing where Mary Woodward was standing at 12:30 on 11/22/63, would you have been able to write down correctly, a couple of hours later, everything you had witnessed?

And 20, 30, 40 years later, too?

Macho genius that you are?

-- Tom

Oh, dear, TG doesn't react well when caught with his pants down and egg on his weenie, does he?

With your kind permission, I will repeat what I just posted on your other OCD-driven Mary Woodward thread, to wit:

Mary was so "traumatized" when writing her article literally minutes after the assassination (according to her on C-SPAN in 1993) that she FORGOT WHERE SHE WAS. She and her coworkers had planned to watch on Houston, but because of the crowds they crossed to Elm and stationed themselves "just down" from the TSBD. Writing her article minutes later, she thought she'd spent the entire time on the grassy knoll, the shots came from behind and to her right, the Newmans were ten feet away, and the Newmans covered their child because "Apparently, the bullets had whizzed directly over their heads."

Now THAT, by God, is "traumatized!" 

Give it up. You're just digging yourself deeper in a hole. At best - AT BEST - Mary was a dingbat. At worst - well, I'm not sure what to make of her.

To repeat: She wrote her article IMMEDIATELY after returning to her office. And, yes, I am confident that if I had been standing along Elm the entire time I would not have thought I'd been sitting on the grassy knoll the entire time. If she was that traumatized, NOTHING she ever said is of any significance whatsoever.

Mary is a certified dingbat. Here is the 1993 panel that Milicent Cranor mentioned. Mary appears at 1:20. As in the 2015 interview, she says they had planned to watch the motorcade from Houston but, because it was crowded, they walked across Houston and stationed themselves "just down from" the TSBD; absolutely nothing about the grassy knoll, except that she repeats making the comment to her coworker that the grassy knoll looked like a dangerous spot and there must be lots of security up there. She thought the "first shot" sounded like a firecracker and turned to her coworker and asked what it was. The third shot came "very, very quickly on top of" the second. Her big schtick is that the limo almost came to a stop after the first shot (?) and she has been forever haunted by the thought that JFK might have lived if the Secret Service had reacted more quickly after the "first shot" (which she herself thinks missed and didn't recognize as a shot?).

To make things worse, she typed up her story within minutes of getting back to the office. She reread it just before this appearance, and "the only thing [she] got wrong" was saying that the shots seemed to come from behind and to her right - which she then explains by her hearing issue. Well, no, Mary, you got wrong where the hell you WERE. You specifically said you and your coworkers and your lunches "decided to wait" on the grassy knoll and had been "waiting" about a half hour before the first motorcycles appeared. The Newmans were about ten feet from you and covered their child because "Apparently, the bullets had whizzed directly over their heads."

The only plausible conclusions are that Mary is a Grade A dingbat or someone got to her as Milicent Cranor suspected. I can't believe the assorted interviews allowed her to get away with the "hearing problem" explanation when it simply doesn't touch the blatant discrepancies in an article typed IMMEDIATELY after the JFKA. Something drastically doesn't add up. No one is THAT confused.

https://www.c-span.org/program/public-affairs-event/journalists-remember-jfk-assassination/121449

Dear Macho-Genius FPR,

Dan Rather and Gloria Calvery's colleague, Karen Westbrook, screwed up a lot, too.

Were they "dingbats"?

If you had been standing where Mary Woodward was standing at 12:30 on 11/22/63, would you have been able to write down correctly, a couple of hours later, everything you had witnessed?

And 20, 30, 40 years later, too?

Macho genius that you are?

-- Tom

JS-

I could never make heads or tails of any of the acoustics evidence.

I have looked at Z-film more times than I could ever want.

Gov. JBC is pushed forward ~Z-295, and JFK is shot Z-313.

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

The above happens about ~Z-295.

In the Z-film, it sure looks like JFK's head is reacting to a shot from the GK. But who knows? Maybe there is a "carom effect" from a rear shot in combo with a back brace.

The "bang....bang-bang" cadence heard on 11.22 tends to rule out a lone gunsel armed with a single-shot-per-bolt-action rifle.

I have reasonable doubts LHO acted alone.

 

Mary is a certified dingbat. Here is the 1993 panel that Milicent Cranor mentioned. Mary appears at 1:20. As in the 2015 interview, she says they had planned to watch the motorcade from Houston but, because it was crowded, they walked across Houston and stationed themselves "just down from" the TSBD; absolutely nothing about the grassy knoll, except that she repeats making the comment to her coworker that the grassy knoll looked like a dangerous spot and there must be lots of security up there. She thought the "first shot" sounded like a firecracker and turned to her coworker and asked what it was. The third shot came "very, very quickly on top of" the second. Her big schtick is that the limo almost came to a stop after the first shot (?) and she has been forever haunted by the thought that JFK might have lived if the Secret Service had reacted more quickly after the "first shot" (which she herself thinks missed and didn't recognize as a shot?).

To make things worse, she typed up her story within minutes of getting back to the office. She reread it just before this appearance, and "the only thing [she] got wrong" was saying that the shots seemed to come from behind and to her right - which she then explains by her hearing issue. Well, no, Mary, you got wrong where the hell you WERE. You specifically said you and your coworkers and your lunches "decided to wait" on the grassy knoll and had been "waiting" about a half hour before the first motorcycles appeared. The Newmans were about ten feet from you and covered their child because "Apparently, the bullets had whizzed directly over their heads."

The only plausible conclusions are that Mary is a Grade A dingbat or someone got to her as Milicent Cranor suspected. I can't believe the assorted interviews allowed her to get away with the "hearing problem" explanation when it simply doesn't touch the blatant discrepancies in an article typed IMMEDIATELY after the JFKA. Something drastically doesn't add up. No one is THAT confused.

https://www.c-span.org/program/public-affairs-event/journalists-remember-jfk-assassination/121449