Evidence for the location of limo at moment first rifle shot is heard

[Robert Mady]

Chris, you would have to ask CURRY and KINNEY and ALTGENS what their motivation was for various statements.

Why did CONNALLY blurt out that the limo was 150-200 feet down Elm (placing the limo at ~Z-313 for the first shot) and then revise the limo position to 'We had just made the turn'?

They say it is difficult to keep the lies straight, it appears to be true.

I only analyze the data and look for the trends as pointers to truths.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Interesting to read Jack Franzen's report to the FBI, from 24/11/63:

"He noticed the men, who were presumed to be Secret Service Agents, riding in the car directly behind the President's car, unloading from the car, some with firearms in their hands, and noticed police officers and these plainclothesmen [sic] running up the grassy slope across Elm St. from his location and toward a wooded and bushy area across Elm St. from him."

Interesting observation. Any other witness see this?

[Robert Mady]

I have been given a final warning by James Gordon who fails to appreciate the manner in which I reply to posts, so to avoid getting banned from the forum, I will discontinue posting.

Sorry to leave anyone hanging.

Best Wishes

Bob Mady

[Chris Davidson]

Chris

~Z-189 : 1st shot : Silent : wounds KENNEDY in the throat from the front

~Z-313 : 2nd shot : Rifle shot : causes fatal head wound : KENNEDY is seen to 'slump'

~Z-325 : 3rd shot : Rifle shot : wounds CONNALLY : KENNEDY is seen to disappear into the seat, making him appear that he has been hit again, in reality JACKIE panics and starts to get out of limo, she stops supporting KENNEDY, and he falls to his left and disappears from view. From distance there is no way to determine that KENNEDY was not hit by both bullets because there is noticeable movement after both shots 2 and 3. Also keep in mind no one understood that KENNEDY was wounded by a shot prior to Z-313.

~Z-345 : 4th shot : Rifle shot : hits curb, injuring TAGUE

Robert,

Forget the up the street shot/s for now.

Let's refer to Z313 as shot#1

Then you have Z325 as shot #2

And, Z345 as shot#3.

Hickey: "The first shot of the second two. The second two would be 2 3

That wouldn't be Z313 shot #1.

That would be shot#2.

Hickey: "The last shot seemed to hit his head"

That would be shot#3

chris

Edited December 21, 2014 by Chris Davidson

[Chris Davidson]

http://www77.zippyshare.com/v/87406160/file.html

Mary Woodward would appear to agree with George Hickey.

Starting 100ft down from where she was standing (CE2084) to shot #1= extent Z313

What did she see with the 2nd and 3rd shots? Watch Video.

2 of 3 and 3 of 3

chris

[Chris Davidson]

Start with Z313 as shot #1.

Ike Altgens:

The first shot: 1 of 3

The 2nd shot: 2 of 3 The shot "in between"

The last shot: 3 of 3

Mr. LIEBELER - Could you tell us approximately how many shots there were between the first and the last shot--as you well know--there were supposed to have been three shots, but how many shots did you hear?

Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I wouldn't want to say--I don't want to guess, because facts are so important on something like this. I am inclined to feel like that there were not as many as I have heard people say. I think it's of a smaller denomination, a smaller number, but I cannot--I can really only vouch for the two. Now, I know that there was at least one shot in between.
Mr. LIEBELER - At least one?
Mr. ALTGENS - I would say that--I know there was one in between. It is possible there might have been another one I don't really know, but two, I can really account for.
Mr. LIEBELER - And that's the first one and the last one?

A little later on:

Mr. LIEBELER - So, it is clear from your testimony that the third shot--the last shot, rather--hit the President?

Mr. ALTGENS - Well, off and on we have been referring to the third shot and the fourth shot; but actually, it was the last shot, the shot did strike the President and there was no other sound like a shot that was made after that. I was just going to make a conclusion here, but that's not my place to do that, so I'll just forget it--what I was going to say.
Mr. LIEBELER - Well, what were you going to suggest--go ahead.
Mr. ALTGENS - Well, it seems obvious now, when you think back on it--of course, at the time you don't reason these things out in a state of shock, but it seemed obvious to me afterwards that there wouldn't be another shot if the sniper saw what damage he did. He did enough damage to create enough attention to the fact that everybody knew he was firing a gun. Another shot would have truly given him away, because everybody was looking for him, but as I say, that's an obvious conclusion on my part, but there was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head.

chris

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Robert

I'm sorry to read that you are no longer going to be posting. While you and I do not always see eye to eye on the finer points, I think the two of us, plus Chris who I do not always understand, pretty much agree the assassination took place much further down Elm St., and in a much shorter space, than the WC wants us to believe. The reason for them wanting us to believe their version is obvious; the event had to be lengthened out in order to give one gunman the ability to effectively load and fire a bolt action rifle 3 times.

How would it work if you tried posting material this way; post the truth as you see it, and not demand the other members immediately see the wisdom of your arguments? If you have read any of my threads at the DPF, you will know that I have many ideas and theories regarding the assassination that, like yours, do not always go along with conventional interpretations of the assassination. It is frustrating to not have people see things your way, but demanding they do so does not help.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme

[Thomas Graves]

Hi Robert

I'm sorry to read that you are no longer going to be posting. While you and I do not always see eye to eye on the finer points, I think the two of us, plus Chris who I do not always understand, pretty much agree the assassination took place much further down Elm St., and in a much shorter space, than the WC wants us to believe. The reason for them wanting us to believe their version is obvious; the event had to be lengthened out in order to give one gunman the ability to effectively load and fire a bolt action rifle 3 times.

How would it work if you tried posting material this way; post the truth as you see it, and not demand the other members immediately see the wisdom of your arguments? If you have read any of my threads at the DPF, you will know that I have many ideas and theories regarding the assassination that, like yours, do not always go along with conventional interpretations of the assassination. It is frustrating to not have people see things your way, but demanding they do so does not help.

Robert,

Thanks for summarizing it like that so even I can understand.

--Tommy

[James R Gordon]

I have found this a very difficult thread. I profoundly disagree with the thesis of this thread. I have found myself emotionally involved in the arguments and that has highlighted, for me, one of the difficulties of being an administrator as well as a member: especially if there certain situations tempt you to want to restrain others.

Robert Mady, informing the membership that he was under threat of being banned was one such case. I had informed him twice I had no intention of banning him. I was therefore very angry when I read him say he was stoppping posting because he was under threat of being banned. I put him on moderation for saying so.

This has been a learning experience for me. I have found it is much more difficult being an administrator than I had initially thought.

I have removed Robert Mady from moderation.

James.

[Robert Mady]

Kathy, it is never my intention to mislead anyone about anything. I assumed that the final warning meant just that, a final warning! But in retrospect I did not pay attention to James also saying that it did not mean I would be banned although in my mind moderation is banned. I apologize for misconceptions that I have caused.

I posted the message so James would not have to explain where Mady went if I stopped posting, the message was merely posting the news, it meant no disrespect.

Kathy I do not have all the answers as a matter of fact Beatrice provided a key piece of evidence I was unaware of prior to posting on this forum. There are many portions of the model I am presenting that still need to be worked out.

I have asked this forum and JFK forum to review the evidence being presented. I am looking for the flaws in the A4 model as well as trying to make people aware of another way to look at the assassination that is more reasonable than anything else ever proposed (to my knowledge).

I am not looking for the truth, I already found it, this is what I am attempting to elaborate on to the forum. Posted on this thread are 43 witnesses that I believe claim the first rifle shot they heard was at Z-313, I am asking this forum to analyze this evidence, either prove that the bulk of this evidence has been misinterpreted by me or start to figure out that this evidence being true means something significant concerning how the assassination should be viewed, it should cause the formation of the new perspective to blossom.

As I told James, if the forum rather not listen to what I have to say, I will bow out and leave with all good will towards this forum and all its members. As I have said previously I understand this forum is privately owned and the owners have every right to choose what is posted here. I would bare them no ill will if they believe my postings are unwelcome.

I am aware of my abrasive quality and I do try to keep it in check, I will not promise that more fur won't be ruffled, but for what it might be worth, I mean well.

Best Wishes.

Bob Mady

PS my delivery sucks, if I had any communication skills we would not be having this conversation and you would be researching the Assassination 4 Shot Model and James wouldn't have to be flustered as to what to do with me.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Robert Mady

[Robert Prudhomme]

That's the spirit, Robert, and a Merry Christmas to you, too, and to everyone here at the Ed Forum!! (regardless of which side of the argument you are on )

[Mark Knight]

I believe that Mr. Mady's hypothesis has "legs," that it's supported by much of the testimony. And I believe it also dovetails well with Chris Davidson's analysis of the Zapruder film, which the Robert West surveys suggest very strongly [for those who can interpret the data] has been altered, most likely by the removal of frames. And again, the testimony of the witnesses to the Warren Commission and its representatives are the key.

A long while back, the late Tom Purvis strongly suggested this...but he didn't give us the pieces to the puzzle as Mr. Mady and Mr. Davidson have. [Tom and I disagreed on several other points, but the survey data is quite compelling. It shows that, the closer the WC came to the SBT, the more likely it was that any post-Z313 shots would "disappear."

What has been off-putting about Mr. Mady's posts has been his unwillingness or inability to put his theory together in a single thread post and then support it by the testimony, and his apparent "I can see this, so why can't everyone else?" frustration. And I would remind Mr. Mady that this is a discussion forum and not an "instant message" board, so responses are always going to be slower to trickle in than what he apparently expects.

I would suggest that Mr. Mady read through some of the extensive archives here, and see what has been discussed here in the past, so that he might not treat others who are long-time researchers with a great deal of knowledge, information, and analytical abilities as either rookies or as dunderheads...because most here are neither.

Just my opinions, thoughts, and impressions drawn from this thread. My standard disclaimer applies.

[Ray Mitcham]

Withdrawn comment

Edited December 23, 2014 by Ray Mitcham

[Robert Mady]

Mark, I understand people have asked for a narrative, a story they can grasp.

I have tried that approach without noticeable success. This Story is rejected out of hand because it is contrary to all beliefs, it is incompatible with what we think we know. The Story appears absurd because evidence has been misunderstood. The reader immediately resorts to that can't be true because..........

What I have been attempting since August of this year is to continue to post evidence that points to the truth because I believe it is not going to be a story that will alter minds it is a realization that evidence does not support current theories whether they be WC based or conspiracy based. It is the researcher that must began to understand how conditioned our minds are that we have lived a lie for 51 years and that psychosis is the reason why we have never come close to understanding the assassination, the photographic images or the testimonies.

Once a researcher understands they were entrapped in myth, the myth can fall away, then understanding the assassination is simple.

A frustration is in posting 43 witnesses that place the first shot heard at Z-313 without some realization as to how is this even possible to find so much evidence for a single occurrence, an event that is contrary to everything currently believed.

Yes I comprehend the level of intelligence on this website, people vastly more learned than me, but in this aspect of the assassination, completely ignorant of the truth.

I don't know how to get people to stop defending what they know and analyze the evidence presented without referencing to their beliefs.

That is my frustration, people on this forum and JFK forum claim to be researchers but the reality is everyone believes they know how the assassination occurred without the corroboration of photographic media or majority of testimonies and they stick to their stories no matter what evidence is presented.

If there are people on this forum that believe some of the evidence I posted, I have seen little response from them in support. Postings started in August, how long does it take to read a few testimonies and understand they claim something other than previously assumed?

[Robert Mady]

I could post another 30 or so witnesses in support of the first rifle shot heard occurring at Z-313, but if the members of this forum wont analyze the 43 already posted and realize the conundrum they face then another 30 won't much matter.

If I can continue to post this thread will end for now with inputting of new information, I will be glad to answer honest questions about the evidence.

A new thread will be started on either Debunking myths or Instructions on how to build a data base using witness testimony that is useful to determine trends in the data that help reveal truths.