Robert Prudhomme Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 (edited) Hello James I am having a little difficulty understanding how you have interpreted Mary Woodward saying that the limo had not reached her position at the time of the 1st shot, and was still 100' up the street from her. From CE 2084, FBI interview with Mary Woodward, December 7, 1963: "Just as the President and Mrs. Kennedy went by, they turned and waved at them. Just a second or two later, she heard a loud noise. At this point, it appeared to her that President and Mrs. Kennedy probably were about one hundred feet from her." So, the President goes by, turning and waving at Woodward. A second or two later, she hears a shot. "At this point" (I'm assuming she is referring to the shot a couple of seconds after they pass her) she estimates JFK to be 100' away from her. Am I missing something here, James? Edited December 19, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Robert The 100 feet cooment comes from Mary herself. I took that as fact. Actually that statement is now in doubt. From the triple underpass to the west pavement of Houston street is approx 495 feet. Mary is at 197, and JFK can be seen waving to his right. Therefore maybe he was waving at her. Now the 100 feet statement. That would take the car close to the turn onto Elm. Basically Mary has to be wrong about that. Mary estimated the 100 feet, but Elm street topology makes clear that has to be wrong. I suspect the car was actually closer, though I have no idea much closer. James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Mary Woodward: Mary was standing near the first light-post, not the second light-post. See CE2084 Who said "1 to 2 seconds" later? Was it actually Mary, or did the FBI conveniently add this. Before you answer, think about this relationship. James said the 1st light post is approx Z197. Approx 2 seconds later in terms of 18.3 frames per sec = 197 + 37= Z234 See Dr.Shaw for 26 degree angle at Z236. Approx 2 seconds from the 2nd light post = Z272 + 37 = Z309 = See Z313 Those two light posts are 90ft apart. 100ft from the 1st light post is 10ft past the 2nd light post. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Chris, My statement came from Don Roberdeau's map. Going back to that map, Mary was standing slightly beyond the first lamppost - maybe somewhere around 30 feet. That suggest the second lamppost was somewhere near 60 feet from her. I agree that the mid 230's is the likely moment for the Connally chest wound. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 David, after looking over your post, instead of addressing other issues, it might be more beneficial for you to try to comprehend what is being presented, because if you can understand what actually occurred during the assassination the answers to your other inquiries will be self evident. I asked this question a few posts back and it is really pertinent, I have posted over 30 corroborating testimonies from witnesses that essentially claimed the first rifle shot heard occurred at Z-313, which caused JFK's fatal head wound, which caused the President to 'slump'. IF this evidence has not made an impact on you, then really, there is no explanation I can give you for P WILLIS or R WILLIS or HICKEY or WEST survey that you would believe anyway. I suggest you also review the thread on Secret Service agents response to help your understanding as to when the first shot actually occurred. I wasn't going to bother with you any longer but this reply is so condescending and insulting I had to give it a try. I have found that people like you who put together strawman arguments are usually never willing to delve deeper into their own work but would rather tell others how they cannot comprehend... or they need to go do more research... it's standard COINTELPRO tactic for disruption of forums... it's so obvious it's tedious. I've shown you how your "corroborating testimonies" are both cherry-picked and dishonest in their presentation... yet you persist None of the people claim the shot was prior to 313, only YOU make that distinction. only YOU come to that increbily simplistic and misinformed opinion. I'm sure I've read more about this case in the last 15 years than you can to even begin to understand - I had Vince's book when it was a free pdf by chapter many, many years ago... (Shout out to Vince btw) What has made an impact is your disregard for logic and the componenets of a coherent argument. Cause you say so don't make it so Robert.... Pointing to a cherry-picked statement out of context and calling them golden eggs reflects more on you than anything else. I see you not responding to other direct questions about your thesis with little in reply other than Fetzer's classic, "well then you just dont know any better - it's obvious to me" I posted a number of your quotes next to the full statement - you dont seem prepared or able to address the evidence of your bias toward the information you post as "support". Engaging with you in this discussion is akin to discussing with DVP Oswald in the window or the ownership of the rifle... it gives credibility to a conclusion which was incorrect and unproven on its face and takes the conversation out of the realm of reality and puts it square into fantasy land. I's all for NEW and INTERESTING ideas on the events... trying to prove z313 was the first shot may have started out as a nobel quest, you've tutned it into a lesson in how not to read and interpret evidence while making sure not to include ALL the evidence for fear of contradication... I promose Robert... whatever you do in the future I will stay out of your way. Good luck with the members here, I'm sure they will treat you as you deserve. DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 (edited) Straightline distance between: Lightpost #1 = Station# 3+54.68 Lightpost #2 = Station# 4+44.68 A 90ft span. Station# 4+44.68 + 10ft = Station# 454.68 Or, now a total of 100ft span matching Mary's and/or the FBI's input. David supplied you with the trajectory and Elevation figures for a (Shot 2 from the SS/FBI Feb 64 plat). Elevation 419.07 = Station# 454.68. Mary was right on target if she said 100ft farther down Elm. This is approx 10.6ft away from Station# 4+65.3 = extant Z313. See Brehm and others. chris Edited December 19, 2014 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted December 19, 2014 Author Share Posted December 19, 2014 (edited) James, not every experience from any specific witness is going to be 100% correct or meet all expectations of what one might think they should have said, and with absolute certainty the FBI confounded claims where it was possible as well as out right lies when they felt it was necessary. The WC led witnesses away from evidence they did not want revealed and stopped testimony that strayed to close to the truth. What has been posted is numerous data points that corroborate the first rifle shot occurring at Z-313, do you feel it essential to focus just on WOODWARD or does the weight of testimonies posted have a greater significance? What is important about WOODWARDS statement is not the 100 feet but that the first shot she heard was not when the limo was near her but much further down Elm street, also her claim most closely matches the other thirty-some witnesses posted. This thread concerns the first rifle shot heard in DP This is not the first shot fired. The first shot fired was at ~Z-189 and was a silenced shot (not a rifle shot), undetected by most witnesses. Edited December 19, 2014 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted December 19, 2014 Author Share Posted December 19, 2014 David, I have posted 40 pages of "STRAWMAN" evidence that all points to one conclusion, fairly remarkable feat!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Robert, I am going to address one issue. Please restrict yourself to responding to this issue. You stated that the first shot was fired at Z 189. You further add that it was not a rifle that fired the shot. I assume it was a pistol that fired the shot. Umbrella man - if he is in your thoughts - to too far down the street to be effective. And that is to imply that he is a credible assassin - which he is not. I assume it is the throat wound that was inflicted at this point - because at this point JFK is turned to his right. Below is a extract of Don Roberdeau's map. The blue dot is placed at the point you refer to. To the right is an enlargement. So the question is, which of the seven people that were in this area who do believe is the assassin? If you answer someone else, well that person had to be very close by - within a few feet. Lets agree this gunman had a silenced weapon. First this person would have to fire above them. You are not suggesting he fired through them? Second, the silencer would muffle the sound. Though I would argue it might still be possible to hear the shot. But what is beyond dispute, if you have any understanding of firearms, the pressure of the shot as it made it way to its target would have been felt. The sound would be muffled, but the shot would not. The idea that a pistol shot was fired at this point with all these witnesses near by - and not one detected it - is not a rational point. James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 David, I have posted 40 pages of "STRAWMAN" evidence that all points to one conclusion, fairly remarkable feat!!! No sir - you posted 40 pages of opinion based on incomplete and cherry-picked evidence... which is easily made to look as such. Speaking LOUDER does not make you any more clear or correct Rereading the same poorly constructed arguments - the results don't change. I can post the entirely of the WCR here as well... doesn't make it true or correct cause I say it is.... & If I take the step further and stand by the conclusions without lifting the curtain to reveal the dishonesty, the result only reflects on the person making the ascertion It's not the evidence's fault you don't present the entire story or fashion your argument with only the evidence which supports your theory... it's yours. and it's transparent. Years analyzing the lies within the evidence offered by the SS/FBI/CIA makes it very easy to identify your techniques, they wrote the book on it and you are following suit. Congrats! Affidavit - Admiral George Burkley: "There was no difference in the nature of the wounds I saw at Parkland Hospital and those I observed at the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. " So basically Robert you are beyond discussion. If you wil believe this Klein's has a rifle they'd like to sell you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 James With all due respect, I have shown the FBI report concerning Mary Woodward to several people, and not a single person came to any other conclusion than that Mary meant the limo was 100 feet PAST her, not 100 feet toward Houston St. I really cannot comprehend how such a clearly worded report can be interpreted any other way. Woodward's words would seem to be corroborated by the FBI report concerning Charles Brehm, who was standing on the opposite side of Elm St. and further down the street from Woodward's position (only a few feet away from Jean Hill and Mary Moorman). From Charles Brehm's FBI report: "When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded." "BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain." Interestingly, Brehm was a combat veteran of WW II, and would have had a great deal of experience with the sound of rifle shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Robert, Sorry I miss read the extract from Mary's statement. A 100 feet further down Elm Street places the car around the 313 position. James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Hi Robert Concerning your post # 112 I believe, up to this point, I have misunderstood what you have been saying. As I understand you now, you are saying that z313 is the first shot actually HEARD in Dealey Plaza, but not necessarily the first shot actually FIRED in Dealey Plaza? If so, I can go along with that theory. I have long maintained that the Altgens 6 photo, which corresponds to z255 of the Zapruder film, depicts what is, to me anyways, an impossible scene. There is just no way a short barreled rifle of that calibre could have been fired a few seconds before this photo was taken, and there could be absolutely no startle reactions visible in the onlookers' faces. The place where I believe we will disagree is that you believe a poison dart struck his throat pre-z200, while I believe a suppressed rifle shot struck him in the back; likely fired from the top of the laundry van parked at Elm and Houston, or from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building. While you believe the SS agents in Altgens 6 are scanning the crowd, I believe the two agents on the starboard side of the Queen Mary have just had a suppressed bullet pass very close to their heads, breaking the sound barrier on its way by, and are looking around in bewilderment, attempting to understand what has happened, and its source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted December 20, 2014 Author Share Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) First shot fired was at ~Z-189. It was not a conventional rifle with a silencer, it was likely a weapon operated by compressed gas, made for stealth made for assassination. Silent weapon could have been fired from the GK, evidenced by the fact that GAYLE NEWMAN and WILLIAM NEWMAN are among the few witnesses that heard this noise. Shot at Z-189 inflicted the throat wound. None of the seven people near the blue dot fired a weapon. Edited December 20, 2014 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted December 20, 2014 Author Share Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) David, I appreciate you taking the time to read this thread and to ask questions, I did not mean to be condescending, I meant that as advice that I can only point to the truth, you need to comprehend the testimonies and understand what is really being claimed, I did not make this stuff up, it comes from testimonies corroborated by films and photographic evidence. You need to do the work. Now let me address a question to you. You posted ROSEMARY WILLIS as a proof that the first shot occurred at Z-162 or so. I posted evidence that ROSEMARYS actions had nothing to do with being attracted to a odd noise, but was because she was stopped from running with the limo into the kill zone, I also posted a gif of the woman with a cane or umbrella outstretched toward ROSEMARY, I also advised you that if you look at the Zapruder frames you will see ROSEMARY stops because of this woman and then turns to look at her. Also I would seriously doubt anyone using 1 witness within the Zapruder film as proof of an event that would have effected everyone depicted but no other reactions can be discerned. Has this evidence made you aware that ROSEMARY is not evidence of the first shot? ROSEMARY is evidence of a controlled kill zone. If not I would like to know why you are holding onto the belief that ROSEMARY was reacting to a noise? Edited December 20, 2014 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now