Wipe that egg off your weenie and pull your pants back up, you're starting to embarrass yourself worse than usual.

What she got RIGHT, at least insofar as her location goes, was in 1993 and 2015. What she got absurdly, completely WRONG was MINUTES AFTER THE JFKA. If her statements in 1993 strike you as problematical, then you must think her 1963 article was correct. Hello? Or is it "Mary was soooooooo traumatized, dude, that she forgot where the hell she was and made numerous other misstatements based on being at that location, but by God she was rock-solid on her description of the shots" - hello, really, ya think?

What a bizarro. Let it go.

Dear MGFPR,

Why are you so riled up?

-- Tom

  STEVE - Remember that there are Very Young Newbes to the JFK Assassination among us. They might think your visual aid/pic above was actually taken on 11/22/63. In the future, please attach some sort of disclaimer to posted pics that were Not taken on 11/22/63. PS - (The background scenery is way off)

 
 Thanks much, Royell.  I corrected my mistake of forgetting to include he caption.

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