An article written some years ago by Col. Fletcher Proudy details that the military support was called off. But no one knows who told the unit to stand down.
Army Aid to Help Protect President Kennedy Was Refused
Trained U.S. Army Intelligence Units were told their assisstance was not needed in Dallas during the JFK visit. William McKinney, a former member of the crack 112th Military Intelligence Group at 4th Army Headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, has revealed that both Col. Maximillian Reich and his deputy, Lt. Col. Joel Cabaza, protested violently when they were told to "Stand Down" rather than to report with their units for duty in augmentation of the Secret Service in Dallas. McKinney said, "All the Secret Service had to do was nod and these units [which had been trained at the Army's top Intelligence school at Camp Holabird, Maryland] would have performed their normal function of Protection for the President in Dallas."
The 315th, the Texas unit which would have been involved if its support had not been turned down, had records in its files, according to McKinney, on Lee Harvey Oswald. The 315th had a Dallas office and its records were up to date.
McKinney added that, "Highly specialized classes were given at Camp Holabird on the subject of Protection. This included training designed to prepare this army unit to assist the Secret Service. If our support had not been refused, we would have been in Dallas."
>An article written some years ago by Col. Fletcher Proudy details that the >military support was called off. But no one knows who told the unit to >stand down.
>Army Aid to Help Protect President Kennedy Was Refused
> Trained U.S. Army Intelligence Units were told their assisstance was >not needed in Dallas during the JFK visit. William McKinney, a former >member of the crack 112th Military Intelligence Group at 4th Army >Headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, has revealed that both Col. >Maximillian Reich and his deputy, Lt. Col. Joel Cabaza, protested >violently when they were told to "Stand Down" rather than to report with >their units for duty in augmentation of the Secret Service in Dallas. >McKinney said, "All the Secret Service had to do was nod and these units >[which had been trained at the Army's top Intelligence school at Camp >Holabird, Maryland] would have performed their normal function of >Protection for the President in Dallas."
> The 315th, the Texas unit which would have been involved if its >support had not been turned down, had records in its files, according to >McKinney, on Lee Harvey Oswald. The 315th had a Dallas office and its >records were up to date.
> McKinney added that, "Highly specialized classes were given at Camp >Holabird on the subject of Protection. This included training designed to >prepare this army unit to assist the Secret Service. If our support had >not been refused, we would have been in Dallas."
>--L.F.P.
Do you mean Fletcher Prouty with a "t" instead of your "d"? That would be great except for the fact that Fletcher Prouty is a full blown nut case.
> An article written some years ago by Col. Fletcher Proudy details that the
> military support was called off. But no one knows who told the unit to
> stand down.
> Army Aid to Help Protect President Kennedy Was Refused
> Trained U.S. Army Intelligence Units were told their assisstance was
> not needed in Dallas during the JFK visit. William McKinney, a former
> member of the crack 112th Military Intelligence Group at 4th Army
> Headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, has revealed that both Col.
> Maximillian Reich and his deputy, Lt. Col. Joel Cabaza, protested
> violently when they were told to "Stand Down" rather than to report with
> their units for duty in augmentation of the Secret Service in Dallas.
> McKinney said, "All the Secret Service had to do was nod and these units
> [which had been trained at the Army's top Intelligence school at Camp
> Holabird, Maryland] would have performed their normal function of
> Protection for the President in Dallas."
> The 315th, the Texas unit which would have been involved if its
> support had not been turned down, had records in its files, according to
> McKinney, on Lee Harvey Oswald. The 315th had a Dallas office and its
> records were up to date.
> McKinney added that, "Highly specialized classes were given at Camp
> Holabird on the subject of Protection. This included training designed to
> prepare this army unit to assist the Secret Service. If our support had
> not been refused, we would have been in Dallas."
> --L.F.P.
IIRC, supposedly the offer of more support from both City and County law enforcement personnel was also turned down. The Chief and Sheriff should have deployed those resources anyway, especially in Dealey Plaza.
Leaving the long wooden fence unguarded was an obvious gap in security, even though no shots came from there. Doesn't matter because at least one police officer should have been behind that fence in case some punk or drunk tries to throw something at the motorcade.
>An article written some years ago by Col. Fletcher Proudy details that the >military support was called off. But no one knows who told the unit to >stand down.
>Army Aid to Help Protect President Kennedy Was Refused
> Trained U.S. Army Intelligence Units were told their assisstance was >not needed in Dallas during the JFK visit. William McKinney, a former >member of the crack 112th Military Intelligence Group at 4th Army >Headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, has revealed that both Col. >Maximillian Reich and his deputy, Lt. Col. Joel Cabaza, protested >violently when they were told to "Stand Down" rather than to report with >their units for duty in augmentation of the Secret Service in Dallas. >McKinney said, "All the Secret Service had to do was nod and these units >[which had been trained at the Army's top Intelligence school at Camp >Holabird, Maryland] would have performed their normal function of >Protection for the President in Dallas."
> The 315th, the Texas unit which would have been involved if its >support had not been turned down, had records in its files, according to >McKinney, on Lee Harvey Oswald. The 315th had a Dallas office and its >records were up to date.
> McKinney added that, "Highly specialized classes were given at Camp >Holabird on the subject of Protection. This included training designed to >prepare this army unit to assist the Secret Service. If our support had >not been refused, we would have been in Dallas."
> On Oct 1, 3:24 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> An article written some years ago by Col. Fletcher Proudy details that the
>> military support was called off. But no one knows who told the unit to
>> stand down.
>> Army Aid to Help Protect President Kennedy Was Refused
>> Trained U.S. Army Intelligence Units were told their assisstance was
>> not needed in Dallas during the JFK visit. William McKinney, a former
>> member of the crack 112th Military Intelligence Group at 4th Army
>> Headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, has revealed that both Col.
>> Maximillian Reich and his deputy, Lt. Col. Joel Cabaza, protested
>> violently when they were told to "Stand Down" rather than to report with
>> their units for duty in augmentation of the Secret Service in Dallas.
>> McKinney said, "All the Secret Service had to do was nod and these units
>> [which had been trained at the Army's top Intelligence school at Camp
>> Holabird, Maryland] would have performed their normal function of
>> Protection for the President in Dallas."
>> The 315th, the Texas unit which would have been involved if its
>> support had not been turned down, had records in its files, according to
>> McKinney, on Lee Harvey Oswald. The 315th had a Dallas office and its
>> records were up to date.
>> McKinney added that, "Highly specialized classes were given at Camp
>> Holabird on the subject of Protection. This included training designed to
>> prepare this army unit to assist the Secret Service. If our support had
>> not been refused, we would have been in Dallas."
>> --L.F.P.
> IIRC, supposedly the offer of more support from both City and County law
> enforcement personnel was also turned down. The Chief and Sheriff should
> have deployed those resources anyway, especially in Dealey Plaza.
> Leaving the long wooden fence unguarded was an obvious gap in security,
> even though no shots came from there. Doesn't matter because at least one
> police officer should have been behind that fence in case some punk or
> drunk tries to throw something at the motorcade.
NO, because you being the security expert said that there could never be a shooter there because that position was so out in the open.
What did Mary Woodward say?
> On 10/1/2012 8:55 PM, claviger wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 3:24 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> An article written some years ago by Col. Fletcher Proudy details that the
> >> military support was called off. But no one knows who told the unit to
> >> stand down.
> >> Army Aid to Help Protect President Kennedy Was Refused
> >> Trained U.S. Army Intelligence Units were told their assisstance was
> >> not needed in Dallas during the JFK visit. William McKinney, a former
> >> member of the crack 112th Military Intelligence Group at 4th Army
> >> Headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, has revealed that both Col.
> >> Maximillian Reich and his deputy, Lt. Col. Joel Cabaza, protested
> >> violently when they were told to "Stand Down" rather than to report with
> >> their units for duty in augmentation of the Secret Service in Dallas.
> >> McKinney said, "All the Secret Service had to do was nod and these units
> >> [which had been trained at the Army's top Intelligence school at Camp
> >> Holabird, Maryland] would have performed their normal function of
> >> Protection for the President in Dallas."
> >> The 315th, the Texas unit which would have been involved if its
> >> support had not been turned down, had records in its files, according to
> >> McKinney, on Lee Harvey Oswald. The 315th had a Dallas office and its
> >> records were up to date.
> >> McKinney added that, "Highly specialized classes were given at Camp
> >> Holabird on the subject of Protection. This included training designed to
> >> prepare this army unit to assist the Secret Service. If our support had
> >> not been refused, we would have been in Dallas."
> >> --L.F.P.
> > IIRC, supposedly the offer of more support from both City and County law
> > enforcement personnel was also turned down. The Chief and Sheriff should
> > have deployed those resources anyway, especially in Dealey Plaza.
> > Leaving the long wooden fence unguarded was an obvious gap in security,
> > even though no shots came from there. Doesn't matter because at least one
> > police officer should have been behind that fence in case some punk or
> > drunk tries to throw something at the motorcade.
> NO, because you being the security expert said that there could never be > a shooter there because that position was so out in the open.
> What did Mary Woodward say?
Ooo, pick me, pick me! After all I'm the one who keeps proving and proving and proving, day after day after day, in the thread, "Anthony Marsh says I can't do this ;-)", that I know the Dealey Plaza witness statements at least a hundred times better than you do, and than the only other poster besides you and me who has posted in that thread. :D
Mary Woodward, Dallas Morning News, November 23, 1963:
**********
AFTER ACKNOWLEDGING our cheers, he faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a little to the right. My first reaction, and also my friends', was that as a joke, someone had backfired their car. Apparently the driver and occupants of the President's car had the same impression, because instead of speeding up, the car came almost to a halt.
Things are a little hazy from this point, but I don't believe anyone was hit with the first bullet. The President and Mrs. Kennedy turned and looked around, as if they, too, didn't believe the noise was really coming from a gun.
Then after a moment's pause there was another shot and I saw the President start slumping in the car.
THIS WAS followed rapidly by another shot. Mrs. Kennedy stood up in the car, turned half-way around, then fell on top of her husband's body.
Not until this minute did it sink in what was actually happening. We had witnessed the assassination of the President.
**********
Contrary to your false claim in the other thread of me "cherry-picking" the witness statements, I have just quoted all passage from the article in which anything at all is said about the sounds of the gunfire, no matter what it was, and from the first word to the last word of my quote I did not leave out or change a single word. And anyone and their dog's mother can easily confirm by looking at a photocopy of the complete article online that I have left out none of Woodward's statements about the gunfire.
Now, what did she mean by "behind us and a little to the right"? Well, in the second paragraph of the article, she said that she and her friends decided to watch the motorcade from "the grassy slope just east of the Triple Underpass." So "behind us and a little to the right" obviously meant from the fence.
As I do not see her naming any other direction whatsoever for the sound of any shot, she appears to have thought all of the shots, not just one of them, not just some of them, but all of them, came from the fence, even though she said that about the first shot only. But I don't see her saying that she thought the second and third shots came from somewhere else, do you? I also don't see her saying that any single shot sounded louder, or closer, or farther than the other shots, do you?
So she is yet another witness, to be added to so very many others, to support my claim that,
"More than 90% of all the Dealey Plaza witnesses who said that shots sounded as if they came from the fence on the knoll either specifically said that ALL of the shots sounded as if they came from there, or else named no other direction in their entire statements, no matter how many or how few shots they recalled hearing."
"More than 90%," so you'll be concocting a strawman if you act as if I said "exactly 90%," and also if you act as if I claimed any specific percentage above 90%.
She is also one of the many, many, many witnesses to support my claim that,
"In addition, less than 10% of these witnesses specifically said that any individual shot sounded louder and or closer than any of the other shots, no matter where they were standing, and no matter how many or how few shots they recalled hearing."
My exact words are "less than 10%." So you'll be concocting another strawman if you act as if I said "exactly" rather than "less than," and you'll also be concocting a strawman if you act as if I claimed any specific percentage other than below 10%.
So do you think Mary Woodward was correct, Anthony? Did all of the shots come from the fence, and none from the Depository? Or is there a much more plausible explanation, such as, depending on where a witness was in the Plaza, the same three shots from the same rifle all sounded as if they came from one direction to one witness, and another witness in a different part of the plaza thought all of the same shots from the same rifle sounded as if they were all coming from a different direction?
Bobby Hargis thought all of the shots came from the Triple Underpass.
Who in this newsgroup believes all of the shots came from the Triple Underpass? I cannot at this moment recall a single poster saying that here in the past decade.
James Jarman thought all of the shots came from below and to the east of the Depository. Who in this newsgroup believes all of the shots came from below and to the east of the Depository? I cannot at this moment recall a single poster saying that here in the past decade.
Danny Arce thought all of the shots came from the railroad tracks. Who in this newsgroup believes that all the shots came from the railroad tracks? I cannot at this moment recall a single poster saying that here in the past decade.
Harold Norman thought all of the shots came from the floor above him.
Who in this newsgroup believes that all of the shots came from the floor above him?
Approximately half of the posters here.
Simple, everyday, mundane, common tricks of acoustics, a phenomenon so common that one would have to be an extremely unusual person not to have noticed it at least once in their lives. If a witness was at location A, all the shots sounded as if they came from the TSBD. If a witness was at location B, all the shots sounded as if they came from the knoll.
If a witness was in location C, all the shots sounded as if they came from the Triple Underpass.
Quite obviously all of these shots were being fired from the same rifle in the same location. Otherwise we'd have to claim that three shots were fired from the TSBD, three other shots from the knoll, three other shots from the Triple Underpass, and so forth.
Bobby Hargis could hear the three shots from the Triple Underpass, but couldn't hear the three shots from the knoll or the three shots from the TSBD? Who in this newsgroup believes that? No one.
Mary Woodward could hear the three shots from the fence, but she couldn't hear the other three shots from the Triple Underpass, and three more shots from the TSBD? Who in this newsgroup believes that? No one.
Harold Norman could hear the three shots from the TSBD, but couldn't hear the three other shots from the knoll, and three more shots from the Triple Underpass? Who in this newsgroup believes that? No one.
> In article <506a58d...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/1/2012 8:55 PM, claviger wrote:
>>> On Oct 1, 3:24 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> An article written some years ago by Col. Fletcher Proudy details that the
>>>> military support was called off. But no one knows who told the unit to
>>>> stand down.
>>>> Army Aid to Help Protect President Kennedy Was Refused
>>>> Trained U.S. Army Intelligence Units were told their assisstance was
>>>> not needed in Dallas during the JFK visit. William McKinney, a former
>>>> member of the crack 112th Military Intelligence Group at 4th Army
>>>> Headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, has revealed that both Col.
>>>> Maximillian Reich and his deputy, Lt. Col. Joel Cabaza, protested
>>>> violently when they were told to "Stand Down" rather than to report with
>>>> their units for duty in augmentation of the Secret Service in Dallas.
>>>> McKinney said, "All the Secret Service had to do was nod and these units
>>>> [which had been trained at the Army's top Intelligence school at Camp
>>>> Holabird, Maryland] would have performed their normal function of
>>>> Protection for the President in Dallas."
>>>> The 315th, the Texas unit which would have been involved if its
>>>> support had not been turned down, had records in its files, according to
>>>> McKinney, on Lee Harvey Oswald. The 315th had a Dallas office and its
>>>> records were up to date.
>>>> McKinney added that, "Highly specialized classes were given at Camp
>>>> Holabird on the subject of Protection. This included training designed to
>>>> prepare this army unit to assist the Secret Service. If our support had
>>>> not been refused, we would have been in Dallas."
>>>> --L.F.P.
>>> IIRC, supposedly the offer of more support from both City and County law
>>> enforcement personnel was also turned down. The Chief and Sheriff should
>>> have deployed those resources anyway, especially in Dealey Plaza.
>>> Leaving the long wooden fence unguarded was an obvious gap in security,
>>> even though no shots came from there. Doesn't matter because at least one
>>> police officer should have been behind that fence in case some punk or
>>> drunk tries to throw something at the motorcade.
>> NO, because you being the security expert said that there could never be
>> a shooter there because that position was so out in the open.
>> What did Mary Woodward say?
> Ooo, pick me, pick me! After all I'm the one who keeps proving and
> proving and proving, day after day after day, in the thread, "Anthony
> Marsh says I can't do this ;-)", that I know the Dealey Plaza witness
> statements at least a hundred times better than you do, and than the
> only other poster besides you and me who has posted in that thread. :D
> Mary Woodward, Dallas Morning News, November 23, 1963:
> **********
> AFTER ACKNOWLEDGING our cheers, he faced forward again and suddenly
> there was a horrible, ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a
> little to the right. My first reaction, and also my friends', was that
> as a joke, someone had backfired their car. Apparently the driver and
> occupants of the President's car had the same impression, because
> instead of speeding up, the car came almost to a halt.
> Things are a little hazy from this point, but I don't believe anyone was
> hit with the first bullet. The President and Mrs. Kennedy turned and
> looked around, as if they, too, didn't believe the noise was really
> coming from a gun.
> Then after a moment's pause there was another shot and I saw the
> President start slumping in the car.
> THIS WAS followed rapidly by another shot. Mrs. Kennedy stood up in the
> car, turned half-way around, then fell on top of her husband's body.
> Not until this minute did it sink in what was actually happening. We
> had witnessed the assassination of the President.
> **********
> Contrary to your false claim in the other thread of me "cherry-picking"
> the witness statements, I have just quoted all passage from the article
> in which anything at all is said about the sounds of the gunfire, no
> matter what it was, and from the first word to the last word of my quote
> I did not leave out or change a single word. And anyone and their dog's
> mother can easily confirm by looking at a photocopy of the complete
> article online that I have left out none of Woodward's statements about
> the gunfire.
This is why you'll always be a WC defender. Because you only know about the cover-up version of events, not the original version.
Mary Woodward was ordered by her editor to rewrite her story because the first version sounded too conspiratorial.
Various conspiracy authors have written about what she actually said. One of them actually used to post here, but I think you scared him away.
Mary E. Woodward: The First Dissenting Witness
Peter Whitmey
A149-1909 Salton Road,
Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada V2S 5B6
The Third Decade, July 1992, pp. 24-26
One of the many witnesses to the assassination of President Kennedy was a young junior reporter from the DALLAS MORNING NEWS named Mary Elizabeth Woodward, who was standing on the north side of Elm St. with three other female colleagues (Maggie Brown, Aurelia Lorenzo and Ann Donaldson) next to the large sign that momentarily impaired Abraham Zapruder�s view of the motorcade. Despite being close to the Lincoln convertible carrying the Kennedys and the Connallys, none of the four women were interviewed by either the Dallas County Sheriff�s Department or by the Warren Commission itself. The only official statement given by Miss Woodward was to the FBI on December 6, 1963, published as Commission Exhibit No. 2084.[1]
However, since she was a reporter from the DMN, Mary quickly ran back to their offices only a few blocks from the assassination site, as she described during a 1988 interview for �The Men Who Killed Kennedy.�[2] Upon reaching the newsroom, she was given a tranquillizer by an office nurse, because other members of the staff thought she was �somewhat hysterical�, although, in retrospect, Mary feels she was behaving �quite rationally under the circumstances.� Her report, entitled �Witness from the NEWS Describes the Assassination,� was, in fact, written almost immediately following the shooting, prior to the official announcement that the President was dead.
Because the DMN was a morning paper, Mary�s account was not circulated until the next day, November 23, appearing on page 3 of section 1 on the right-hand side below a large photo of the alleged assassin�s view of Elm St. from the sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. On the left-hand side of the page were photos of the �sniper�s nest� and the entire building, with an article entitled �Kennedy Killer Hid in Area Used Little� in the bottom left corner, accompanied by a floor plan showing �the assassin�s hideout.� (It should be noted that a close-up of Miss Woodward�s article during �The Men Who Killed Kennedy� is somewhat misleading, in that it was taken from a booklet entitled �The Assassination Story� by Robert Surrey of American Eagle Publishing Co. in early 1964. It is quite clear that he cut the articles out and assembled them by date but not necessarily in their original locations.)
Since Miss Woodward�s report was prepared so soon after the assassination by an actual eyewitness, it was certainly an important account of the events. As she emphasized in her 1988 interview, the story was �absolutely my own impressions; it was not from anything anyone had said or what I had read or heard��[3] The most significant statement in her report, which was quoted by UPI later that day, was her recollection as to the direction from which one or more shots originated:
��After acknowledging our cheers he [Kennedy] faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a little to our right.�[4]
Although Miss Woodward didn�t specifically state what was �behind�and a little to our right�, which many readers probably assumed was the TSBD, clearly she was describing the grassy knoll, as it came to be known. The fact that the sound of gunfire was so painful to the ear strongly suggests the sonic wave preceding at least one of the shots travelled closely by and not from high above [had its source been the TSBD].
According to her interview in 1988, Woodward�s immediate recollection of hearing shots from somewhere other than the TSBD did not sit well with the managing editor and city officials, since it strongly suggested the possibility of more than one gunman being involved. However, there is no evidence that it was removed in that the microfiche copy of the page I received from the Dallas Public Library is a five star (*****) edition. Certainly the content of her article gave no hints of shots being fired from behind the motorcade, except for the first being described as sounding like a firecracker, which Miss Woodward believed had missed its target altogether. Both in her report and during the 1988 interview, Mary was quite emphatic that three shots had been fired, with the last shot �rapidly� following the second.
In stark contrast to Miss Woodward�s account was another reporter�s story entitled �Assassin Crouched and Took Deadly Aim,� written by Kent Biffle, today a senior
> In article <506a58d...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/1/2012 8:55 PM, claviger wrote:
>> > On Oct 1, 3:24 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> An article written some years ago by Col. Fletcher Proudy details that >> >> the
>> >> military support was called off. But no one knows who told the unit to
>> >> stand down.
>> >> Army Aid to Help Protect President Kennedy Was Refused
>> >> Trained U.S. Army Intelligence Units were told their >> >> assisstance was
>> >> not needed in Dallas during the JFK visit. William McKinney, a former
>> >> member of the crack 112th Military Intelligence Group at 4th Army
>> >> Headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, has revealed that both Col.
>> >> Maximillian Reich and his deputy, Lt. Col. Joel Cabaza, protested
>> >> violently when they were told to "Stand Down" rather than to report >> >> with
>> >> their units for duty in augmentation of the Secret Service in Dallas.
>> >> McKinney said, "All the Secret Service had to do was nod and these >> >> units
>> >> [which had been trained at the Army's top Intelligence school at Camp
>> >> Holabird, Maryland] would have performed their normal function of
>> >> Protection for the President in Dallas."
>> >> The 315th, the Texas unit which would have been involved if its
>> >> support had not been turned down, had records in its files, according >> >> to
>> >> McKinney, on Lee Harvey Oswald. The 315th had a Dallas office and its
>> >> records were up to date.
>> >> McKinney added that, "Highly specialized classes were given at >> >> Camp
>> >> Holabird on the subject of Protection. This included training designed >> >> to
>> >> prepare this army unit to assist the Secret Service. If our support >> >> had
>> >> not been refused, we would have been in Dallas."
>> >> --L.F.P.
>> > IIRC, supposedly the offer of more support from both City and County >> > law
>> > enforcement personnel was also turned down. The Chief and Sheriff >> > should
>> > have deployed those resources anyway, especially in Dealey Plaza.
>> > Leaving the long wooden fence unguarded was an obvious gap in security,
>> > even though no shots came from there. Doesn't matter because at least >> > one
>> > police officer should have been behind that fence in case some punk or
>> > drunk tries to throw something at the motorcade.
>> NO, because you being the security expert said that there could never be
>> a shooter there because that position was so out in the open.
>> What did Mary Woodward say?
> proving and proving, day after day after day, in the thread, "Anthony
> Marsh says I can't do this ;-)", that I know the Dealey Plaza witness
> statements at least a hundred times better than you do, and than the
> only other poster besides you and me who has posted in that thread. :D
> Mary Woodward, Dallas Morning News, November 23, 1963:
> **********
> AFTER ACKNOWLEDGING our cheers, he faced forward again and suddenly
> there was a horrible, ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a
> little to the right. My first reaction, and also my friends', was that
> as a joke, someone had backfired their car. Apparently the driver and
> occupants of the President's car had the same impression, because
> instead of speeding up, the car came almost to a halt.
> Things are a little hazy from this point, but I don't believe anyone was
> hit with the first bullet. The President and Mrs. Kennedy turned and
> looked around, as if they, too, didn't believe the noise was really
> coming from a gun.
> Then after a moment's pause there was another shot and I saw the
> President start slumping in the car.
> THIS WAS followed rapidly by another shot. Mrs. Kennedy stood up in the
> car, turned half-way around, then fell on top of her husband's body.
> Not until this minute did it sink in what was actually happening. We
> had witnessed the assassination of the President.
> **********
> Contrary to your false claim in the other thread of me "cherry-picking"
> the witness statements, I have just quoted all passage from the article
> in which anything at all is said about the sounds of the gunfire, no
> matter what it was, and from the first word to the last word of my quote
> I did not leave out or change a single word. And anyone and their dog's
> mother can easily confirm by looking at a photocopy of the complete
> article online that I have left out none of Woodward's statements about
> the gunfire.
> Now, what did she mean by "behind us and a little to the right"? Well,
> in the second paragraph of the article, she said that she and her
> friends decided to watch the motorcade from "the grassy slope just east
> of the Triple Underpass." So "behind us and a little to the right"
> obviously meant from the fence.
> As I do not see her naming any other direction whatsoever for the sound
> of any shot, she appears to have thought all of the shots, not just one
> of them, not just some of them, but all of them, came from the fence,
> even though she said that about the first shot only. But I don't see
> her saying that she thought the second and third shots came from
> somewhere else, do you? I also don't see her saying that any single
> shot sounded louder, or closer, or farther than the other shots, do you?
> So she is yet another witness, to be added to so very many others, to
> support my claim that,
> "More than 90% of all the Dealey Plaza witnesses who said that shots
> sounded as if they came from the fence on the knoll either specifically
> said that ALL of the shots sounded as if they came from there, or else
> named no other direction in their entire statements, no matter how many
> or how few shots they recalled hearing."
> "More than 90%," so you'll be concocting a strawman if you act as if I
> said "exactly 90%," and also if you act as if I claimed any specific
> percentage above 90%.
I din't say that. But here you are again claiming sombody said... against your theory, who really didn't say that at all.
> She is also one of the many, many, many witnesses to support my claim
> that,
> "In addition, less than 10% of these witnesses specifically said that
> any individual shot sounded louder and or closer than any of the other
> shots, no matter where they were standing, and no matter how many or how
> few shots they recalled hearing."
> My exact words are "less than 10%." So you'll be concocting another
> strawman if you act as if I said "exactly" rather than "less than," and
> you'll also be concocting a strawman if you act as if I claimed any
> specific percentage other than below 10%.
Hey this is your strawman theory.
> So do you think Mary Woodward was correct, Anthony? Did all of the
> shots come from the fence, and none from the Depository? Or is there a
> much more plausible explanation, such as, depending on where a witness
> was in the Plaza, the same three shots from the same rifle all sounded
> as if they came from one direction to one witness, and another witness
> in a different part of the plaza thought all of the same shots from the
> same rifle sounded as if they were all coming from a different direction?
> Bobby Hargis thought all of the shots came from the Triple Underpass.
> Who in this newsgroup believes all of the shots came from the Triple
> Underpass? I cannot at this moment recall a single poster saying that
> here in the past decade.
The shooter must have had remarkable skill. Bouncing a bullet off the depository to strick Kennedy in the back. Now that is a magic bullet?
> James Jarman thought all of the shots came from below and to the east of
> the Depository. Who in this newsgroup believes all of the shots came
> from below and to the east of the Depository? I cannot at this moment
> recall a single poster saying that here in the past decade.
The head shot could have been fired from the Del-Tex building. Didn't Jarman say he heard the shots coming from above? Just like the other two ear witnesses? What about the dust falling from the ceiling into his eyes?
> Danny Arce thought all of the shots came from the railroad tracks. Who
> in this newsgroup believes that all the shots came from the railroad
> tracks? I cannot at this moment recall a single poster saying that here
> in the past decade.
> Harold Norman thought all of the shots came from the floor above him.
> Who in this newsgroup believes that all of the shots came from the floor
> above him?
> Approximately half of the posters here.
> Simple, everyday, mundane, common tricks of acoustics, a phenomenon so
> common that one would have to be an extremely unusual person not to have
> noticed it at least once in their lives. If a witness was at location
> A, all the shots sounded as if they came from the TSBD. If a witness
> was at location B, all the shots sounded as if they came from the knoll.
> If a witness was in location C, all the shots sounded as if they came
> from the Triple Underpass.
> Quite obviously all of these shots were being fired from the same rifle
> in the same location. Otherwise we'd have to claim that three shots
> were fired from the TSBD, three other shots from the knoll, three other
> shots from the Triple Underpass, and so forth.
> Bobby Hargis could hear the three shots from the Triple Underpass, but
> couldn't hear the three shots from the knoll or the three shots from the
> TSBD? Who in this newsgroup believes that? No one.
> On 10/2/2012 5:35 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <506a58d...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/1/2012 8:55 PM, claviger wrote:
> >>> On Oct 1, 3:24 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> An article written some years ago by Col. Fletcher Proudy details that > >>>> the
> >>>> military support was called off. But no one knows who told the unit to
> >>>> stand down.
> >>>> Army Aid to Help Protect President Kennedy Was Refused
> >>>> Trained U.S. Army Intelligence Units were told their assisstance > >>>> was
> >>>> not needed in Dallas during the JFK visit. William McKinney, a former
> >>>> member of the crack 112th Military Intelligence Group at 4th Army
> >>>> Headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, has revealed that both Col.
> >>>> Maximillian Reich and his deputy, Lt. Col. Joel Cabaza, protested
> >>>> violently when they were told to "Stand Down" rather than to report with
> >>>> their units for duty in augmentation of the Secret Service in Dallas.
> >>>> McKinney said, "All the Secret Service had to do was nod and these units
> >>>> [which had been trained at the Army's top Intelligence school at Camp
> >>>> Holabird, Maryland] would have performed their normal function of
> >>>> Protection for the President in Dallas."
> >>>> The 315th, the Texas unit which would have been involved if its
> >>>> support had not been turned down, had records in its files, according to
> >>>> McKinney, on Lee Harvey Oswald. The 315th had a Dallas office and its
> >>>> records were up to date.
> >>>> McKinney added that, "Highly specialized classes were given at > >>>> Camp
> >>>> Holabird on the subject of Protection. This included training designed > >>>> to
> >>>> prepare this army unit to assist the Secret Service. If our support had
> >>>> not been refused, we would have been in Dallas."
> >>>> --L.F.P.
> >>> IIRC, supposedly the offer of more support from both City and County law
> >>> enforcement personnel was also turned down. The Chief and Sheriff should
> >>> have deployed those resources anyway, especially in Dealey Plaza.
> >>> Leaving the long wooden fence unguarded was an obvious gap in security,
> >>> even though no shots came from there. Doesn't matter because at least > >>> one
> >>> police officer should have been behind that fence in case some punk or
> >>> drunk tries to throw something at the motorcade.
> >> NO, because you being the security expert said that there could never be
> >> a shooter there because that position was so out in the open.
> >> What did Mary Woodward say?
> > Ooo, pick me, pick me! After all I'm the one who keeps proving and
> > proving and proving, day after day after day, in the thread, "Anthony
> > Marsh says I can't do this ;-)", that I know the Dealey Plaza witness
> > statements at least a hundred times better than you do, and than the
> > only other poster besides you and me who has posted in that thread. :D
> > Mary Woodward, Dallas Morning News, November 23, 1963:
> > **********
> > AFTER ACKNOWLEDGING our cheers, he faced forward again and suddenly
> > there was a horrible, ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a
> > little to the right. My first reaction, and also my friends', was that
> > as a joke, someone had backfired their car. Apparently the driver and
> > occupants of the President's car had the same impression, because
> > instead of speeding up, the car came almost to a halt.
> > Things are a little hazy from this point, but I don't believe anyone was
> > hit with the first bullet. The President and Mrs. Kennedy turned and
> > looked around, as if they, too, didn't believe the noise was really
> > coming from a gun.
> > Then after a moment's pause there was another shot and I saw the
> > President start slumping in the car.
> > THIS WAS followed rapidly by another shot. Mrs. Kennedy stood up in the
> > car, turned half-way around, then fell on top of her husband's body.
> > Not until this minute did it sink in what was actually happening. We
> > had witnessed the assassination of the President.
> > **********
> > Contrary to your false claim in the other thread of me "cherry-picking"
> > the witness statements, I have just quoted all passage from the article
> > in which anything at all is said about the sounds of the gunfire, no
> > matter what it was, and from the first word to the last word of my quote
> > I did not leave out or change a single word. And anyone and their dog's
> > mother can easily confirm by looking at a photocopy of the complete
> > article online that I have left out none of Woodward's statements about
> > the gunfire.
> This is why you'll always be a WC defender.
Please explain how my article, "The final photographs of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1)," shows me to be a WC defender, when I plainly say in it that certain things were covered up to give the appearance of fitting the WC scenario better. Please explain how I'm a WC defender when I have said in several recent articles that the WC may well have been mistaken in saying that Victoria Adams reached the first floor several minutes later than she said she did. Please explain how I'm a WC defender when I have been criticizing the WC for nearly a decade regarding the woefully inept case they made for the shot that missed, and for the single bullet.
> Because you only know about > the cover-up version of events, not the original version.
Wrong. I already read the article you quoted below some time ago, and you cannot prove otherwise. You aren't sitting here beside me seeing what I do and do not read. The fact that I did not *mention* having read it before now does not prove that I didn't.
> Mary Woodward was ordered by her editor to rewrite her story because the > first version sounded too conspiratorial.
Wrong. It is simply said that her account did not sit well with the managing editor and city officials. Nowhere does it say that her editor ordered her to rewrite the story. Obviously she didn't rewrite the story, or else I would not have been able to quote her verbatim above from that same story *as* *printed* stating that she thought the shots came from behind her and a little to the right.
> Various conspiracy authors have written about what she actually said. > One of them actually used to post here, but I think you scared him away.
> Peter Whitmey
> A149-1909 Salton Road,
> Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada V2S 5B6
> The Third Decade, July 1992, pp. 24-26
> One of the many witnesses to the assassination of President > Kennedy was a young junior reporter from the DALLAS MORNING NEWS named > Mary Elizabeth Woodward, who was standing on the north side of Elm St. > with three other female colleagues (Maggie Brown, Aurelia Lorenzo and > Ann Donaldson) next to the large sign that momentarily impaired Abraham > Zapruder�s view of the motorcade. Despite being close to the Lincoln > convertible carrying the Kennedys and the Connallys, none of the four > women were interviewed by either the Dallas County Sheriff�s Department > or by the Warren Commission itself. The only official statement given by > Miss Woodward was to the FBI on December 6, 1963, published as > Commission Exhibit No. 2084.[1]
> However, since she was a reporter from the DMN, Mary quickly ran > back to their offices only a few blocks from the assassination site, as > she described during a 1988 interview for �The Men Who Killed > Kennedy.�[2] Upon reaching the newsroom, she was given a tranquillizer > by an office nurse, because other members of the staff thought she was > �somewhat hysterical�, although, in retrospect, Mary feels she was > behaving �quite rationally under the circumstances.� Her report, > entitled �Witness from the NEWS Describes the Assassination,� was, in > fact, written almost immediately following the shooting, prior to the > official announcement that the President was dead.
> Because the DMN was a morning paper, Mary�s account was not > circulated until the next day, November 23, appearing on page 3 of > section 1 on the right-hand side below a large photo of the alleged > assassin�s view of Elm St. from the sixth-floor window of the Texas > School Book Depository. On the left-hand side of the page were photos of > the �sniper�s nest� and the entire building, with an article entitled > �Kennedy Killer Hid in Area Used Little� in the bottom left corner, > accompanied by a floor plan showing �the assassin�s hideout.� (It should > be noted that a close-up of Miss Woodward�s article during �The Men Who > Killed Kennedy� is somewhat misleading, in that it was taken from a > booklet entitled �The Assassination Story� by Robert Surrey of American > Eagle Publishing Co. in early 1964. It is quite clear that he cut the > articles out and assembled them by date but not necessarily in their > original locations.)
> Since Miss Woodward�s report was prepared so soon after the > assassination by an actual eyewitness, it was certainly an important > account of the events. As she emphasized in her 1988 interview, the > story was �absolutely my own impressions; it was not from anything > anyone had said or what I had read or heard��[3] The most significant > statement in her report, which was quoted by UPI later that day,
> In article <506ba9e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/2/2012 5:35 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>> In article <506a58d...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>>> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 10/1/2012 8:55 PM, claviger wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 1, 3:24 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> An article written some years ago by Col. Fletcher Proudy details that
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> military support was called off. But no one knows who told the unit to
>>>>>> stand down.
>>>>>> Army Aid to Help Protect President Kennedy Was Refused
>>>>>> Trained U.S. Army Intelligence Units were told their assisstance
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> not needed in Dallas during the JFK visit. William McKinney, a former
>>>>>> member of the crack 112th Military Intelligence Group at 4th Army
>>>>>> Headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, has revealed that both Col.
>>>>>> Maximillian Reich and his deputy, Lt. Col. Joel Cabaza, protested
>>>>>> violently when they were told to "Stand Down" rather than to report with
>>>>>> their units for duty in augmentation of the Secret Service in Dallas.
>>>>>> McKinney said, "All the Secret Service had to do was nod and these units
>>>>>> [which had been trained at the Army's top Intelligence school at Camp
>>>>>> Holabird, Maryland] would have performed their normal function of
>>>>>> Protection for the President in Dallas."
>>>>>> The 315th, the Texas unit which would have been involved if its
>>>>>> support had not been turned down, had records in its files, according to
>>>>>> McKinney, on Lee Harvey Oswald. The 315th had a Dallas office and its
>>>>>> records were up to date.
>>>>>> McKinney added that, "Highly specialized classes were given at
>>>>>> Camp
>>>>>> Holabird on the subject of Protection. This included training designed
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> prepare this army unit to assist the Secret Service. If our support had
>>>>>> not been refused, we would have been in Dallas."
>>>>>> --L.F.P.
>>>>> IIRC, supposedly the offer of more support from both City and County law
>>>>> enforcement personnel was also turned down. The Chief and Sheriff should
>>>>> have deployed those resources anyway, especially in Dealey Plaza.
>>>>> Leaving the long wooden fence unguarded was an obvious gap in security,
>>>>> even though no shots came from there. Doesn't matter because at least
>>>>> one
>>>>> police officer should have been behind that fence in case some punk or
>>>>> drunk tries to throw something at the motorcade.
>>>> NO, because you being the security expert said that there could never be
>>>> a shooter there because that position was so out in the open.
>>>> What did Mary Woodward say?
>>> Ooo, pick me, pick me! After all I'm the one who keeps proving and
>>> proving and proving, day after day after day, in the thread, "Anthony
>>> Marsh says I can't do this ;-)", that I know the Dealey Plaza witness
>>> statements at least a hundred times better than you do, and than the
>>> only other poster besides you and me who has posted in that thread. :D
>>> Mary Woodward, Dallas Morning News, November 23, 1963:
>>> **********
>>> AFTER ACKNOWLEDGING our cheers, he faced forward again and suddenly
>>> there was a horrible, ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a
>>> little to the right. My first reaction, and also my friends', was that
>>> as a joke, someone had backfired their car. Apparently the driver and
>>> occupants of the President's car had the same impression, because
>>> instead of speeding up, the car came almost to a halt.
>>> Things are a little hazy from this point, but I don't believe anyone was
>>> hit with the first bullet. The President and Mrs. Kennedy turned and
>>> looked around, as if they, too, didn't believe the noise was really
>>> coming from a gun.
>>> Then after a moment's pause there was another shot and I saw the
>>> President start slumping in the car.
>>> THIS WAS followed rapidly by another shot. Mrs. Kennedy stood up in the
>>> car, turned half-way around, then fell on top of her husband's body.
>>> Not until this minute did it sink in what was actually happening. We
>>> had witnessed the assassination of the President.
>>> **********
>>> Contrary to your false claim in the other thread of me "cherry-picking"
>>> the witness statements, I have just quoted all passage from the article
>>> in which anything at all is said about the sounds of the gunfire, no
>>> matter what it was, and from the first word to the last word of my quote
>>> I did not leave out or change a single word. And anyone and their dog's
>>> mother can easily confirm by looking at a photocopy of the complete
>>> article online that I have left out none of Woodward's statements about
>>> the gunfire.
>> This is why you'll always be a WC defender.
> Please explain how my article, "The final photographs of John Fitzgerald
> Kennedy (1)," shows me to be a WC defender, when I plainly say in it
> that certain things were covered up to give the appearance of fitting
> the WC scenario better. Please explain how I'm a WC defender when I
> have said in several recent articles that the WC may well have been
> mistaken in saying that Victoria Adams reached the first floor several
> minutes later than she said she did. Please explain how I'm a WC
> defender when I have been criticizing the WC for nearly a decade
> regarding the woefully inept case they made for the shot that missed,
> and for the single bullet.
Because, as I said, you only cite the WC testimony, never books, never interviews, never statements from that day, never affidavits.
Just because you realize that the WC does not mean you aren't a WC defender. You just forgive them their lies because you truly think it was for the good of the country.
>> Because you only know about
>> the cover-up version of events, not the original version.
> Wrong. I already read the article you quoted below some time ago, and
> you cannot prove otherwise. You aren't sitting here beside me seeing
> what I do and do not read. The fact that I did not *mention* having
> read it before now does not prove that I didn't.
I don't have to be sitting there beside you to see what you are doing. And you frequent admit these things even it it takes years to come out.
>> Mary Woodward was ordered by her editor to rewrite her story because the
>> first version sounded too conspiratorial.
> Wrong. It is simply said that her account did not sit well with the
> managing editor and city officials. Nowhere does it say that her editor
> ordered her to rewrite the story. Obviously she didn't rewrite the
Does it? What is the IT you are citing?
You have no way to watch her speaking about it on the Journalists Remember symposium. And you certainly wouldn't be able to read any book which discusses it and quotes her.
> story, or else I would not have been able to quote her verbatim above
> from that same story *as* *printed* stating that she thought the shots
> came from behind her and a little to the right.
What same story? Oh, you mean the rewritten story. Not the original story.
>> Various conspiracy authors have written about what she actually said.
>> One of them actually used to post here, but I think you scared him away.
> Who would that be?
Again you prove how clueless you are. You can't even figure who that author is that I am quoting. Maybe because you don't understand that some people have used aliases here. So if I quote something that was written by some guy using the alias Careulo you'd say you have no idea who that is.
Canuck.
Gee, I wonder why he is called Canuck? Is that a slur? Or is it that he's a Canadian.
>> Peter Whitmey
>> A149-1909 Salton Road,
>> Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada V2S 5B6
>> The Third Decade, July 1992, pp. 24-26
>> One of the many witnesses to the assassination of President
>> Kennedy was a young junior reporter from the DALLAS MORNING NEWS named
>> Mary Elizabeth Woodward, who was standing on the north side of Elm St.
>> with three other female colleagues (Maggie Brown, Aurelia Lorenzo and
>> Ann Donaldson) next to the large sign that momentarily impaired Abraham
>> Zapruder¹s view of the motorcade. Despite being close to the Lincoln
>> convertible carrying the Kennedys and the Connallys, none of the four
>> women were interviewed by either the Dallas County Sheriff¹s Department
>> or by the Warren Commission itself. The only official statement given by
>> Miss Woodward was to the FBI on December 6, 1963, published as
>> Commission Exhibit No. 2084.[1]
>> However, since she was a reporter from the DMN, Mary quickly ran
>> back to their offices only a few blocks from the assassination site, as
>> she described during a 1988 interview for ³The Men Who Killed
>> Kennedy.²[2] Upon reaching the newsroom, she was given a tranquillizer
>> by an office nurse, because other members of the staff thought she was
>> ³somewhat hysterical², although, in retrospect, Mary feels she was
>> behaving ³quite rationally under the circumstances.² Her report,
>> entitled ³Witness from the NEWS Describes the Assassination,² was, in
>> fact, written almost immediately following the shooting, prior to the
>> official announcement that the President was dead.
>> Because the DMN was a morning paper, Mary¹s account was not
>> circulated until the next day, November 23, appearing on page 3 of
>> section 1 on the right-hand side below a large photo of the alleged
>> assassin¹s view of Elm St. from the sixth-floor
In article <506f881...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Because, as I said, you only cite the WC testimony, never books, never > interviews, never statements from that day, never affidavits.
Another false statement. I've quoted interviews here lots of times and affidavits here many, many times. You've even replied directly to several articles of mine recently in which I've quoted affidavits.
Remember when you replied to me quoting Amos Euins's affidavit and we talked about whether or not he wrote it by hand first and then it was typed? That was only a few weeks ago. Jeez, your memory is *that* short? Don't you know how to use the Internet? Afraid to look through the archives?
And of course nothing you say should ever be taken seriously again until you man up about your obvious mistake. I'll quote your mistake yet again and right below quote what I really said. Nothing in my text said that JFK already had his fists up by Z225:
**********
I am pointing out the incongruity of your ever changing frames. You have JFK"s fists up by Z-225 and then the bullet hitting Connally at Z-226.
You need to move your SBT back to Z-221.
Interesting that you make no mention that Connally begins to jerk violently at almost exactly the same frame you give above for the beginning of JFK's visible reaction. Really it's Z226 rather than Z225 for both men, but that's trivial. But I'm not going to believe you or anyone else who says they "don't see" the flip of Connally's hat that clearly begins no later than Z226.
I don't even see the word "fists" there anywhere in my text.
But of course you'll just continue to waste everyone's time by frequently claiming that other posters said things they never said, and then refusing to admit your mistakes when they're pointed out to you. How does this nonsense serve any constructive purpose in discussing the JFK assassination, Anthony?
