Ed Hoffman's Activities and Observations

Miles Scull · June 25, 2007

Some of these may have been seen .... as we have been around this neverending bush before, but for those who may not have seen some of the photos of the parking lot, after the assassination........FWTAW..
B........

Great, B.

As ever you are the cavalry charge to the rescue. Clearly, the parking lot was chock a block with autos, just as Sam Holland reported. After all, why would Sam exaggerate? He had zero motive to do so. So, Ed's account is deeply suspect in regard to his assertion that his sniper had unobstructed movement in his peregrination to the fateful rifle toss. As you say, the neverending fudge.

But, that aside, you made me remember a most remarkable photo which you submitted to a thread awhile back!

Outlined in red (rounded rectangle) at the left are two holes bored into the balustrade pylon or pillar. The steam pipe was attached here.

Now the remarkable discovery is that Sam Holland & company standing on the triple underpass at Z-313 could have seen Ed Hoffman's alleged sniper & his apocryphal assistant after all, had those phantoms been real.

Also, very important to grasp via this photo is the fact that the rifle toss over the steam pipe could not have been seen "through a bush" as has been the false account until now because the toss could not have been seen through a bush (or tree foliage) as THERE IS & WAS NO FOLIAGE intervening. No bush; no tree.

This is refutation added to the many other exposures of inconsistencies found in Ed Hoffman's tale.

Edited June 25, 2007 by Miles Scull

Bill Miller · June 25, 2007

Clearly, the parking lot was chock a block with autos, just as Sam Holland reported. After all, why would Sam exaggerate? He had zero motive to do so.

That seems like silly logic - its like asking why it was that when Holland said 'Connally was driven down into the floor of the limo' ... when no film shows this occurrence, did Holland exaggerate that observation?. The RR yard was sectioned and there were cars parked in each section. The photographs and films give us a glimpse of how they really looked.

BTW, are you done reading Ed's book already? Was there anything that you learned from it that clears up any of the misconceptions that you originally had?

Bill Miller

Edited July 22, 2007 by Bill Miller

Bernice Moore · June 25, 2007

I am no ones cavalry Miles, please do not imply such....I take no ones side in this,

except that Ed should receive the respect he is due, in being a witness...

..Whatever you and others beliefs in his memories are...are your own..........but..

...He is due that respect and it should never be implied that he may be lying by anyone, as has occurred in the

other threads on this same subject..........the witnesses

were there, none of us were......We have no idea, except what they have recorded for us...and they should be

always be respected for such....imo.....

If you look closely at the photos, aerial maps taken that day, you, and others, I believe might see

that there was brush, on the other side of the fence perhaps, as well as, a small tree, in that corner.. whatever was

growing in that area..that you mention above..

... possibley could have blocked the view, could be ?? I do not know for sure...But the photo you have taken was

done so in the 90s.....

Also IMO, those on the overpass, would not be looking towards the end of the overpass, at that time, their

eyes I would think would have been glued to the motorcade travelling below, as some stated, and or some, as mentioned to

the area of where the smoke was seen coming out from under the trees, that did happen, it

was reported by several........and is seen in the Wiegman film........it is real...

Whether some want to believe such or not, that is again their perogative..

The parking lot seems to be quite full IMO also, but there is room as seen to move between and around the

cars, it was not a solid mass, as you seem to want to imply......If so, no-one would ever have been able to proceed

in driving out from such after....which they did....As well we see on Sam Holland's map he has shown that there

was room in front of the cars to maneuver, and he has drawn the footprints in front of such.....showing there was

room to walk back and forth...at least in front of some.......

...Also keep in mind a car is approx five feet wide, and to be able to even open the doors

and get out, there needs to be approx two feet on each side, to do so........If not, no one would have been able to

get out and see any of the motorcade.....in the first place.....

The Harold Cabluck photo was taken from the last bus in the motorcade showing the Officer Haygood, I believe..

....I am under the impression it was the last vehicle in the motorcade.....it also does show a small tree right at the corner....

The overheads were taken by Jerry Cabluck that afternoon......

B..

Edited June 25, 2007 by Bernice Moore

Miles Scull · June 25, 2007

I am no ones cavalry Miles, please do not imply such....
Hi Bernice, oh no, sorry, I must have used inaccurate wording here. I meant that you were MY rescue personally, NOT the rescue of any position pro or contra Hoffman. There have been many times that you have published rare photos here on different threads which I have found personally very helpful in understanding different aspects of the assassination.

I take no ones side in this,

except that Ed should receive the respect he is due, in being a witness...

..Whatever you and others beliefs in his memories are...are your own..........but..

Right B., as I recently said on this thread: "For my part, I would like to stress that even if problems are still found with Ed's story, it should be understood that that fact in no way reflects on Ed as a well meaning & sincere person who is only telling it like he saw it."

If you look closely at the photos, aerial maps taken that day, you, and others, I believe might see

that there was brush, on the other side of the fence perhaps, as well as, a small tree, in that corner.. whatever was

growing in that area..that you mention above..

... possibley could have blocked the view, could be ?? I do not know for sure...But the photo you have taken was

done so in the 90s.....

Good point, but the photo below is conclusive as it was shot on either 11-23-63 or, as Gary says, on 11-24-63. There is zero vegetation growth at the area in question at the time in question!

Also IMO, those on the overpass, would not be looking towards the end of the overpass, at that time, their

eyes I would think would have been glued to the motorcade travelling below, as some stated, and or some, as mentioned to

the area of where the smoke was seen coming out from under the trees, that did happen, it

was reported by several........and is seen in the Wiegman film........it is real...

Whether some want to believe such or not, that is again their perogative..

Correct again B., no, I mean only that, contrary to what has been maintained for decades, that it was impossible for San Holland & fellows on the underpass to see Ed's alleged "rifle toss," is now disproved by your photo. Persons (17 in number!), had any of them looked, could & would have seen the "toss." No one there saw the "toss," just as no one standing at the balustrade immediately adjacent to the switch box saw the alleged "rifle toss." The "toss" (unfortunately) did not occur. Also disproved is the oft repeated story that a "something" (a rifle) was seen (from the underpass location where Sam was at Z-313) through a bush being thrown. That someone saw "something" may have been true, but that "something" could not have been the rifle because, as the photos clearly show, there was NO BUSH intervening between the men on the top of the underpass & the steam pipe where Ed's rifle toss occurs.

The parking lot seems to be quite full IMO also, but there is room as seen to move between and around the

cars, it was not a solid mass, as you seem to want to imply......If so, no-one would ever have been able to proceed

in driving out from such after....which they did....As well we see on Sam Holland's map he has shown that there

was room in front of the cars to maneuver, and he has drawn the footprints in front of such.....showing there was

room to walk back and forth...at least in front of some.......

Agreed. But Sam said:

1.) The cars were up close to the fence (& Sam's map shows only the three cars.)

2.) That every inch of the lot was automobiles.

Therefore Ed's sniper's movement to the steam pipe would have been difficult.

...Also keep in mind a car is approx five feet wide, and to be able to even open the doors

and get out, there needs to be approx two feet on each side, to do so........If not, no one would have been able to

get out and see any of the motorcade.....in the first place.....

Good point. But Sam was there as an eyewitness. He said that he had to jump over & around cars.

The overheads were taken by Jerry Cabluck that afternoon......

Right B., AFTER most of the cars had left the lot.

Once again, Bernice, no one is purposely & callously casting doubt on Ed Hoffman's sincerity or honesty. Understand that! Remember Ed was 267 yards away from the scene.

B..

Edited June 25, 2007 by Miles Scull

Miles Scull · June 25, 2007

See post at bottom:

Right B., as I recently said on this thread: "For my part, I would like to stress that even if problems are still found with Ed's story, it should be understood that that fact in no way reflects on Ed as a well meaning & sincere person who is only telling it like he saw it."

If you look closely at the photos, aerial maps taken that day, you, and others, I believe might see

that there was brush, on the other side of the fence perhaps, as well as, a small tree, in that corner.. whatever was

growing in that area..that you mention above..

... possibley could have blocked the view, could be ?? I do not know for sure...But the photo you have taken was

done so in the 90s.....

Good point, but the photo below is conclusive as it was shot on either 11-23-63 or, as Gary says, on 11-24-63. There is zero vegetation growth at the area in question at the time in question!

Also IMO, those on the overpass, would not be looking towards the end of the overpass, at that time, their

eyes I would think would have been glued to the motorcade travelling below, as some stated, and or some, as mentioned to

the area of where the smoke was seen coming out from under the trees, that did happen, it

was reported by several........and is seen in the Wiegman film........it is real...

Correct again B., no, I mean only that, contrary to what has been maintained for decades, that it was impossible for San Holland & fellows on the underpass to see Ed's alleged "rifle toss," is now disproved by your photo. Persons (17 in number!), had any of them looked, could & would have seen the "toss." No one there saw the "toss," just as no one standing at the balustrade immediately adjacent to the switch box saw the alleged "rifle toss." The "toss" (unfortunately) did not occur. Also disproved is the oft repeated story that a "something" (a rifle) was seen (from the underpass location where Sam was at Z-313) through a bush being thrown. That someone saw "something" may have been true, but that "something" could not have been the rifle because, as the photos clearly show, there was NO BUSH intervening between the men on the top of the underpass & the steam pipe where Ed's rifle toss occurs.

Once again, Bernice, no one is purposely & callously casting doubt on Ed Hoffman's sincerity or honesty. Understand that! Remember Ed was 267 yards away from the scene.

[/color]

B..

Duncan,

Got it & thanks.

While working on some photos of Duncan Man at the fence, came across this & added some lines in red which show witness spectators

at the balustrade nearby (15 to 10 feet) the switch box who certainly would have seen Ed Hoffman's sniper & his assistant were

same there at the steam pipe & switch box at the time in question. Of course, these witnesses didn't report seeing anyone per Ed's description.

Thought you might be interested, for your archive.

Note the limo passing through the underpass for a timing marker.

The switch box in question is here, with red arrows to the spectators:

Thx again, Duncan.

Edited June 25, 2007 by Miles Scull

Bill Miller · June 25, 2007

Good point. But Sam was there as an eyewitness. He said that he had to jump over & around cars.

The next thing someone will do is start visualizing Holland actually jumping over cars like a super hero. Sam's terminology was just a figure of speech that has been used to mislead people as to whether Hoffman could have seen someone walk the fence line to the steam pipe. The diagram posted showing the distance between the fence and the car bumpers certainly doesn't support there being cars butted up to the fence, thus making someone walking the fence line impossible as earlier post was trying to lead us to believe.

Once again, Bernice, no one is purposely & callously casting doubt on Ed Hoffman's sincerity or honesty. Understand that! Remember Ed was 267 yards away from the scene.
[/color]

As stated before - the distance being discussed is a 'par four' on a golf course whereas the flag can be seen when Tee'ing off. And as I recall, it wasn't just the idea that Ed could not have seen a gun from that distance, but that he could not have seen the assassin walk the fence line either. thus Ed's honesty and sincerity was called into question IMO.

Bill Miller

Miles Scull · June 25, 2007

While working on some photos of Duncan Man at the fence, came across this & added some lines in red which show witness spectators

at the balustrade nearby (15 to 10 feet) the switch box who certainly would have seen Ed Hoffman's sniper & his assistant were

same there at the steam pipe & switch box at the time in question. Of course, these witnesses didn't report seeing anyone per Ed's description.

Thought you might be interested, for your archive.

Note the limo passing through the underpass for a timing marker.

The switch box in question is here, with red arrows to the spectators:

Debra Conway gave me permission to make small quotes from Ed Hoffman's Eye Witness

Ed's Eye Witness is a great book & a must have for anyone interested in the assassination. It has many excellent diagrams which make clear what Ed is describing.

I should repeat again a statement I have made before: "For my part, I would like to stress that even if problems are still found with Ed's story, it should be understood that that fact in no way reflects on Ed as a well meaning & sincere person who is only telling it like he saw it." No one is purposely & callously casting doubt on Ed Hoffman's sincerity or honesty, if they honestly analyze Ed's story, looking at certain aspects of Ed's story to gage & weigh implications for aspects of the assassination which are external to Ed's story per se. A certain individual who posts on this & other threads consistently adopts a sarcastic, insulting tone; this tone poisons & corrupts what should be a neutrally charged academic analysis process & nothing more. In an effort to avoid acrimony, which is invariably created by this individual, I have adopted a policy of simply not replying to this individual. The idea is to avoid useless, irrelevant conflict & waste of time.

Anyway, here is a quote from Ed's book:

This is from a list of things under a list heading which reads: "While Ed was waiting for the President, he saw the following": a, b, c..., etc.

Here is a series of jpgs which explore Ed's story. The map excerpts are from Dealey Plaza map by Ciccone & Brooks:

Edited June 25, 2007 by Miles Scull

Miles Scull · June 25, 2007

Continuation of series.

Foster is seen to the right of the red line.

End of series.

Edited June 25, 2007 by Miles Scull

Ken Rheberg · June 25, 2007

I am no ones cavalry Miles, please do not imply such....
Hi Bernice, oh no, sorry, I must have used inaccurate wording here. I meant that you were MY rescue personally, NOT the rescue of any position pro or contra Hoffman. There have been many times that you have published rare photos here on different threads which I have found personally very helpful in understanding different aspects of the assassination.

I take no ones side in this,

except that Ed should receive the respect he is due, in being a witness...

..Whatever you and others beliefs in his memories are...are your own..........but..

Right B., as I recently said on this thread: "For my part, I would like to stress that even if problems are still found with Ed's story, it should be understood that that fact in no way reflects on Ed as a well meaning & sincere person who is only telling it like he saw it."

If you look closely at the photos, aerial maps taken that day, you, and others, I believe might see

that there was brush, on the other side of the fence perhaps, as well as, a small tree, in that corner.. whatever was

growing in that area..that you mention above..

... possibley could have blocked the view, could be ?? I do not know for sure...But the photo you have taken was

done so in the 90s.....

Good point, but the photo below is conclusive as it was shot on either 11-23-63 or, as Gary says, on 11-24-63. There is zero vegetation growth at the area in question at the time in question!

Also IMO, those on the overpass, would not be looking towards the end of the overpass, at that time, their

eyes I would think would have been glued to the motorcade travelling below, as some stated, and or some, as mentioned to

the area of where the smoke was seen coming out from under the trees, that did happen, it

was reported by several........and is seen in the Wiegman film........it is real...

Whether some want to believe such or not, that is again their perogative..

Correct again B., no, I mean only that, contrary to what has bee maintained for decades, that it was impossible for San Holland & fellows on the underpass to see Ed's alleged "rifle toss," is now disproved by your photo. Persons (17 in number!), had any of them he looked, could & would have seen the "toss." No one there saw the "toss," just as no one standing at the balustrade immediately adjacent to the switch box saw the alleged "rifle toss." The "toss" (unfortunately) did not occur. Also disproved is the oft repeated story that a "something" (a rifle) was seen (from the underpass location where Sam was at Z-313) through a bush being thrown. That someone saw "something" may have been true, but that "something" could not have been the rifle because, as the photos clearly show, there was NO BUSH intervening between the men on the top of the underpass & the steam pipe where Ed's rifle toss occurs.

The parking lot seems to be quite full IMO also, but there is room as seen to move between and around the

cars, it was not a solid mass, as you seem to want to imply......If so, no-one would ever have been able to proceed

in driving out from such after....which they did....As well we see on Sam Holland's map he has shown that there

was room in front of the cars to maneuver, and he has drawn the footprints in front of such.....showing there was

room to walk back and forth...at least in front of some.......

Agreed. But Sam said:

1.) The cars were up close to the fence (& Sam's map shows only the three cars.)

2.) That every inch of the lot was automobiles.

Therefore Ed's sniper's movement to the steam pipe would have been difficult.

...Also keep in mind a car is approx five feet wide, and to be able to even open the doors

and get out, there needs to be approx two feet on each side, to do so........If not, no one would have been able to

get out and see any of the motorcade.....in the first place.....

Good point. But Sam was there as an eyewitness. He said that he had to jump over & around cars.

The overheads were taken by Jerry Cabluck that afternoon......

Right B., AFTER most of the cars had left the lot.

Once again, Bernice, no one is purposely & callously casting doubt on Ed Hoffman's sincerity or honesty. Understand that! Remember Ed was 267 yards away from the scene.

B..

Miles,

You've come up with quite a conclusion here, i.e. that spectators watching the motorcade in the area adjacent to the switch box did not report seeing anyone that fit Ed's description nor did they see the alleged "rifle toss."

Let's walk through this step by step. First. . .

What were the names of these specific spectators, the ones standing adjacent to the switch box?

Ken

Miles Scull · June 25, 2007

Miles,

You've come up with quite a conclusion here, i.e. that spectators watching the motorcade in the area adjacent to the switch box did not report seeing anyone that fit Ed's description nor did they see the alleged "rifle toss."

Let's walk through this step by step. First. . .

What were the names of these specific spectators, the ones standing adjacent to the switch box?

Ken

Ken,

Thx for facilitating my aquiring Eye Witness, which is a great resouce.

Have you read the thread: Close-up of Duncan MacRae's Knoll shooter, Close-up of Duncan MacRae's Knoll shooter?

If you have not examined this thread, you will gain by its content on points you may be interested in. Be warned, though, the tone of this thread has been poisoned & is fairly distasteful.

Preliminarily, you might want to note these posts:

To all posters of this thread.

I have received 2 moderation reports concerning this thread. I honestly hope I won't receive any more.

Members who result in insulting others, cursing or otherwise repeatedly fail to follow Forum rules will be placed on "permanent moderation". This means their posts will be revised by administrators and or moderators before they will be posted (if at all). The following step will be even more severe.

I suggest a rapid change in the tone of posts and language that has been used here. Respect each other and address each other in an appropriate way.

Thank you.

Antti Hynonen

Moderator

JFK Forum

and

Antti Hynonen,

Thank you for your admonition.

If you review this thread you will see that after the initial incident, for which I have apologized, I have realized that the best policy for me, in order to always be in conformity with forum rules, is to simply disengage from debate with Bill Miller.

I have pointed out to Bill Miller that I will not reply to his posts here on the forum. I have pointed out to Miller that such a course should result in a cessation of conflict. I have pointed out also to Miller that if he does not reply to my posts and/or not even read my posts, then there will be no occasion for conflict.

As you can see from Miller's post No. 152, which was posted subsequent to your post of admonition, post No. 151, that Miller continues to insult me. I believe that he is insulting me with the purpose of provoking me to counter insult him & so by this ploy to inveigle me to be in violation of the very forum rules that he is braking. This is clearly a taunting & baiting of me by Miller. And rather strange, in my view.

It was my mistake, an innocent one, to refer to Bill Miller as "Bilbo." I assumed that everyone knew of Tolkien's famous character the Hobbit named Bilbo Baggins. ( see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilbo_Baggins ) from Tolkien's classic The Lord of the Rings. The name "Bilbo"" is a universally known name which is even found in my Internet Explorer spell checker utility called ieSpell. ( http://www.iespell.com/ )

You can see from Miller's post No. 152 how Miller treats the innocent name Bilbo. The sexual slur is obvious.

You can see from Miller's post No. 152 that Miller maneuvers to provoke a continuation of conflict even after your admonition.

I'd like to go on the record here that I am requesting that you monitor Miller's posts in future & mine as well for forum rule violation.

Thanks for your patience!

Miles Scull

This post has been edited by Miles Scull: Jun 22 2007, 12:27 PM

and

Good Duncan

Glad you agree. Interesting about the dvd you mention where Hudson talks about the smoke. Which dvd is that?

Duncan, a word with you on the subject of Bill Miller. As you will know from several posts of mine on this thread I have stated that I have undertaken, as a matter of policy, to not engage in forum post exchanges with Miller for these reasons:

1.) I do not consider that what Miller says is fact based in a sense of rigor & exactitude. Thus, my arguing with Miller about his nonsense is profitless & a waste of my time.

2.) I want to avoid being inveigled, as I have been by Miller, into a trade of insults which is a violation of forum rules.

In order to avoid conflict I have not replied to any of Miller's recent posts. Miller knows that I will not do so. I have invited Miller to not address any posts directly to me, again for the purpose of avoiding conflict.

Unfortunately, Miller continues to seek confrontation & conflict with me as can be seen in his post on this thread, No. 176, where again I find his statements specious & provably wrong & not meriting my waste of time in reply.

Why, knowing my position, does Miller continue his sarcastic insults when I have stated repeatedly to him & to the forum moderator, Antti Hynonen, that I will not be drawn out to wasting my time?

There is something that I should point out to the moderators & to Antti Hynonen in particular:

There is currently a thread on the forum which is titled : I'm really disgusted with having to constantly LOG IN

In this thread Miller accuses a member participating on this thread, Michael Hogan, of being guilty of "something" which Miller has personally observed Hogan do, which if known to the forum would bring shame to Hogan. Miller is elaborate & pointedly insinuating in his intimidation of Michael Hogan by this brute force MaCarthyism which condemns Hogan of some nameless moral turpitude. Miller proclaims that as an angel, he, Miller will not publish Hogan's sin to the forum, but taunts Hogen to reveal Hogan's horrid secret, which secret Hogan does not have any knowledge of so says Hogan.

This gross, repetitious, insulting, obscene abuse of Hogan ( a kindly, helpful forum member) by Miller is the primary reason motivating me to avoid Miller.

I would invite John Simkin & Andy Walker to take close notice this outrage, which has become the hallmark & signature of Miller's forum behavior.

I invite Antti Hynonen to make good on his admonition.

Miles

Edited June 25, 2007 by Miles Scull

Ken Rheberg · June 25, 2007