Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Holland Shooter


Guest Duncan MacRae

Recommended Posts

As you can see, by placing the barrel of a rifle "between the fence slats", you effectively restrict the field of fire to a single point. The slat(s) to the left of the barrel will block any visual sight of the target as it moves, however slowly, from left to right (unless you are, absurdly, moving your body from right to left to travel the stock :unsure: ). This means that an accurate sighting of the target, through the rifle sights or through a scope, would require a shooter to adjust for correct alignment up & down in a fraction of a second. Remember a sniper or a hunter always employs a steady, continuous finger squeeze on the trigger to insure an accurate hit. No jerks.

Thus, a placing of the barrel between the slats severely limits a shooter & renders the probability of a fatal hit to nearly zero. Remember a shooter would not know in advance the rate of travel of the limo; the limo could speed up or slow down unpredictably, which in fact it actually did do. A sniper or a hunter would know all of this from training & experience & would never for a second consider such a self-defeating & counter-intuitive nonsense. In other words, a sniper would want to hit his target, not miss it; he, consequently, maximizes his chances & does not deliberately minimize them.

I do not know how the shot was fired, but I stand behind the possibility that with the limo coming down the street and the shooter out in front and to the side that the shot merely needed a bit of timing so to have pulled it off. I have shot at many moving targets by picking a point out ahead of them and waiting for the target to pass a certain point before pulling the trigger. At the time of the kill shot - the limo was moving under 5 mph which is virtually motionless at that angle. I also doubt that the shooter was aiming for the very top of JFK's head because had the bullet have been aimed 2" higher - history may have been recorded differently. The bone plate came off the very top of the head. Shots were not hitting their mark during the assassination unless we are to believe that someone shot JFK in the neck on purpose or had meant to shoot Connally in the armpit for some odd reason. Because of such a botched investigation - we will never know the truth. For me the closest thing to the truth lies with the witnesses who were there.

Bill

I do not know how the shot was fired, but I stand behind the possibility that with the limo coming down the street and the shooter out in front and to the side that the shot merely needed a bit of timing so to have pulled it off.

Well, yes, any shot needs a bit of timing. By fixing a rifle to fire to a predetermined point, which resting its barrel between the slats of the fence necessarily does do, the shooter is gambling that the target will arrive at that predetermined point (and all that is necessary is to "time" the trigger pull). Since the exact movement of the target cannot be predicted with accuracy, this type of shot has a one in a million chance of success.

I have shot at many moving targets by picking a point out ahead of them and waiting for the target to pass a certain point before pulling the trigger.

To repeat, resting the barrel between the slats reduces the rifle to immobility & the shot to a single point. The gamble that the target will come to that point is a recipe for failure. There will not be time for a second shot. Obviously, the correct & standard method should be that of holding the rifle free to move to follow the target in real time while continuously sighting. This method will render the highest probability for success. Obstructing the rifle movement with slats will end in failure & the lowest probability for success.

At the time of the kill shot - the limo was moving under 5 mph which is virtually motionless at that angle.

Even if the limo is moving at 1 mph, the "barrel between the slats" method is still grossly inferior to the standard method.

I also doubt that the shooter was aiming for the very top of JFK's head because had the bullet have been aimed 2" higher - history may have been recorded differently. The bone plate came off the very top of the head. Shots were not hitting their mark during the assassination unless we are to believe that someone shot JFK in the neck on purpose or had meant to shoot Connally in the armpit for some odd reason. Because of such a botched investigation - we will never know the truth. For me the closest thing to the truth lies with the witnesses who were there.

Well, but of course we are forgetting one very important witness who was indubitably there, are we not? In fact, of all the witnesses, he was the one witness who had the truest & most revealing view. Oh, yes: THE GRASSY KNOLL ASSASSIN! His aim was unerring & precisely on target, owing to his immaculate technique!.

(Bill, I'm afraid you get Maggie's drawers on this one. ;))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I also doubt that the shooter was aiming for the very top of JFK's head because had the bullet have been aimed 2" higher - history may have been recorded differently. The bone plate came off the very top of the head. Shots were not hitting their mark during the assassination unless we are to believe that someone shot JFK in the neck on purpose or had meant to shoot Connally in the armpit for some odd reason. Because of such a botched investigation - we will never know the truth. For me the closest thing to the truth lies with the witnesses who were there.

Well, but of course we are forgetting one very important witness who was indubitably there, are we not? In fact, of all the witnesses, he was the one witness who had the truest & most revealing view. Oh, yes: THE GRASSY KNOLL ASSASSIN! His aim was unerring & precisely on target, owing to his immaculate technique!.

Well, here is what you have ... Ed Hoffman seeing the man near the fence and turning around with a rifle in his hands. You have the Moorman photo taken 3.6/18s of a second after the head of JFK exploded and in that photo the man at the fence can only be seen from the hat upward. Draw your own conclusions. One final point about the slats ... having been there and considered them - with the limo so far away even at the time of the kill shot - the slightest movement of the rifle between slats could cover a target that has just advanced 10 to 20 feet in a short time. The FBI said that the limo had been traveling about 11 inches per Zframe as the car was traveling down the street following the turn onto Elm. At the time of the kill shot the limo appears to have slowed below half the speed it had been traveling just prior to that point. The feat was not as complicated as it is being made out to be IMO.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also doubt that the shooter was aiming for the very top of JFK's head because had the bullet have been aimed 2" higher - history may have been recorded differently. The bone plate came off the very top of the head. Shots were not hitting their mark during the assassination unless we are to believe that someone shot JFK in the neck on purpose or had meant to shoot Connally in the armpit for some odd reason. Because of such a botched investigation - we will never know the truth. For me the closest thing to the truth lies with the witnesses who were there.

Well, but of course we are forgetting one very important witness who was indubitably there, are we not? In fact, of all the witnesses, he was the one witness who had the truest & most revealing view. Oh, yes: THE GRASSY KNOLL ASSASSIN! His aim was unerring & precisely on target, owing to his immaculate technique!.

Well, here is what you have ... Ed Hoffman seeing the man near the fence and turning around with a rifle in his hands. You have the Moorman photo taken 3.6/18s of a second after the head of JFK exploded and in that photo the man at the fence can only be seen from the hat upward. Draw your own conclusions. One final point about the slats ... having been there and considered them - with the limo so far away even at the time of the kill shot - the slightest movement of the rifle between slats could cover a target that has just advanced 10 to 20 feet in a short time. The FBI said that the limo had been traveling about 11 inches per Zframe as the car was traveling down the street following the turn onto Elm. At the time of the kill shot the limo appears to have slowed below half the speed it had been traveling just prior to that point. The feat was not as complicated as it is being made out to be IMO.

Bill

Well, here is what you have ...

Well, let's see what we really have...

Ed Hoffman seeing the man near the fence and turning around with a rifle in his hands.

No, we don't have that... For an exhaustive discretization of Hoffman see, for example: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hoffman.htm

You have the Moorman photo taken 3.6/18s of a second after the head of JFK exploded and in that photo the man at the fence can only be seen from the hat upward.

And?... This is obviously a case of the tail wagging the dog, or of forcing facts to conform to a preconceived hypothesis. So we see a hat; therefore the sniper is resting his rifle barrel between the stats. Nonsense.

Draw your own conclusions.

Conclusions?... My conclusions: some mighty funny fudging is going on here. :lol:

One final point about the slats ... having been there and considered them - with the limo so far away even at the time of the kill shot - the slightest movement of the rifle between slats could cover a target that has just advanced 10 to 20 feet in a short time.

"...the slightest movement..."? If the barrel is resting between the slats, then it is resting on one slat to its left high up near the pointed apex of that (left) slat. The other point of contact the barrel has with a slat must be with a slat to its right high up near the pointed apex of that (right) slat. In other words, the barrel is wedged between to points, which points are NOT on a plane intersecting the barrel at a right angle, but which points are instead touching the barrel at loci at different lengths down the barrel from the the front sight. Thus, a movement of the barrel shot alignment down or up (or left or right) causes the stock to rise or lower, AND THE CONTACT POINTS TO MOVE, with the certain result that the expected adjustment is spoiled by the slippages. Any like slight movement brings like unexpected & unanticipated surprises which move the the shot to a miss point OR to a non-fatal point. This is what the profession sniper will seek to avoid like the plague. He does not gamble.

The FBI said that the limo had been traveling about 11 inches per Zframe as the car was traveling down the street following the turn onto Elm. At the time of the kill shot the limo appears to have slowed below half the speed it had been traveling just prior to that point.

Exactly! Proves the case: the sniper has no way of anticipating the movement speed of the limo or of the move shifts of the target inside the moving limo. Therefore, he does not adopt the self-defeating, low probability of success maneuver of resting the barrel. He knows that he must keep the rifle away from restricting impediments.

The feat was not as complicated as it is being made out to be IMO.

The feat was accomplished by the virtuosity of an expert, who handled the variables with masterful skill. This sniper was not a amateur who might consider a preposterous maneuver such as resting the barrel. Maybe Hoffman was the shooter? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, we don't have that... For an exhaustive discretization of Hoffman see, for example: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hoffman.htm

You have the Moorman photo taken 3.6/18s of a second after the head of JFK exploded and in that photo the man at the fence can only be seen from the hat upward.

And?... This is obviously a case of the tail wagging the dog, or of forcing facts to conform to a preconceived hypothesis. So we see a hat; therefore the sniper is resting his rifle barrel between the stats. Nonsense.

I will share this information with you and attempt to clarify what has been said. Interpreters used to try and get Ed's story have failed him miserably. One can get three such individuals to write down what Ed is telling them and all three may have written something differently from each other. It is also worth considering that Ed has a very poor understanding concerning the use of the English language. I learned these things from the family and witnessed myself the frustration of Ed's daughter and Ed trying to get straight what Ed was trying to relay to her. Is anyone aware that Ed had volunteered to take a lie detector test so to prove that the things he has said is true? Even in recent years Ed was still wanting to take such an exam and had been told that it could not be done to deaf mutes. The information Ed was given was wrong and I, with Ed's permission went to a lot of trouble to see what could be done in fulfilling Ed's wish. The end result was that Ed could not be tested accurately at this time due to a heart medication he is forced to take. I have often thought it would be interesting to question and give an examintion to Ed's critics to see just how honest they have been concerning the truth when it has come to Ed Hoffman.

"...the slightest movement..."? If the barrel is resting between the slats, then it is resting on one slat to its left high up near the pointed apex of that (left) slat. The other point of contact the barrel has with a slat must be with a slat to its right high up near the pointed apex of that (right) slat. In other words, the barrel is wedged between to points, which points are NOT on a plane intersecting the barrel at a right angle, but which points are instead touching the barrel at loci at different lengths down the barrel from the the front sight. Thus, a movement of the barrel shot alignment down or up (or left or right) causes the stock to rise or lower, AND THE CONTACT POINTS TO MOVE, with the certain result that the expected adjustment is spoiled by the slippages. Any like slight movement brings like unexpected & unanticipated surprises which move the the shot to a miss point OR to a non-fatal point. This is what the profession sniper will seek to avoid like the plague. He does not gamble.

We are not talking about a quick moving left to right target here, but rather a target out in front of you that is getting closer, but not varying much off its line of travel. Say what you like, but I have stood in DP with a carcano and tried it myself.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti
"...the slightest movement..."? If the barrel is resting between the slats, then it is resting on one slat to its left high up near the pointed apex of that (left) slat. The other point of contact the barrel has with a slat must be with a slat to its right high up near the pointed apex of that (right) slat. In other words, the barrel is wedged between to points, which points are NOT on a plane intersecting the barrel at a right angle, but which points are instead touching the barrel at loci at different lengths down the barrel from the the front sight. Thus, a movement of the barrel shot alignment down or up (or left or right) causes the stock to rise or lower, AND THE CONTACT POINTS TO MOVE, with the certain result that the expected adjustment is spoiled by the slippages. Any like slight movement brings like unexpected & unanticipated surprises which move the the shot to a miss point OR to a non-fatal point. This is what the profession sniper will seek to avoid like the plague. He does not gamble.

Exactly! Proves the case: the sniper has no way of anticipating the movement speed of the limo or of the move shifts of the target inside the moving limo. Therefore, he does not adopt the self-defeating, low probability of success maneuver of resting the barrel. He knows that he must keep the rifle away from restricting impediments.

The feat was accomplished by the virtuosity of an expert, who handled the variables with masterful skill. This sniper was not a amateur who might consider a preposterous maneuver such as resting the barrel. Maybe Hoffman was the shooter? :eek

Miles,

You seem to know a lot about snipers. I'm interested in your theory about the rifle and the slats. Do you have military training?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will share this information with you and attempt to clarify what has been said. Interpreters used to try and get Ed's story have failed him miserably. One can get three such individuals to write down what Ed is telling them and all three may have written something differently from each other. It is also worth considering that Ed has a very poor understanding concerning the use of the English language. I learned these things from the family and witnessed myself the frustration of Ed's daughter and Ed trying to get straight what Ed was trying to relay to her. Is anyone aware that Ed had volunteered to take a lie detector test so to prove that the things he has said is true? Even in recent years Ed was still wanting to take such an exam and had been told that it could not be done to deaf mutes. The information Ed was given was wrong and I, with Ed's permission went to a lot of trouble to see what could be done in fulfilling Ed's wish. The end result was that Ed could not be tested accurately at this time due to a heart medication he is forced to take. I have often thought it would be interesting to question and give an examintion to Ed's critics to see just how honest they have been concerning the truth when it has come to Ed Hoffman.

Being soft hearted about Hoffman does not validate his story. Conversely, being hard hearted about James Files does not disprove his story. Speaking of Files, of course there are inconsistencies in his story, but at least his ad hoc account of his fireball usage has the ring of truth to it. For that matter Hoffman's account of tossing of the rifle to a "spotter" suggests that military training was at play; and military training precludes the elementary mistake of resting the barrel between the slats.

We are not talking about a quick moving left to right target here, but rather a target out in front of you that is getting closer, but not varying much off its line of travel.

I regret to say that this completely misses the point. No matter what movements were taken by the limo or by the target within the limo on Nov. 22, the critical, paramount consideration - the point - is this: the sniper at 12:20 PM had no way to anticipate what those movements of limo & target within the limo wold be. Therefore as a professional, highly trained master marksman, the sniper would know that he must not assume that the movements of limo & target within Will be this or that. To do so would be to violate the cardinal rule of the art.

Take just one simple example of an unexpected occurrence. What if the driver of the limo was shot in the hand before the Knoll shooter fired? Of course the limo could have the veered sharply. Then the resting barrel is useless. And here you have the core reason that the resting barrel theory is nonsense.

Say what you like, but I have stood in DP with a carcano and tried it myself.

Bill, take a look here:

arm109.jpg

Are you saying that you placed the barrel of this type of rifle between the slats? :huh: Notice that you must have been resting the barrel on its left side at a point very near the front sight on the barrel. If so, then, any slightest movement of the stock would have (per force) thrown off the shot alignment big time. :blink: [by the way, are you suggesting that the Knoll assassin used this type of rifle?]

QED, ol' fella.

Miles

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti
For that matter Hoffman's account of tossing of the rifle to a "spotter" suggests that military training was at play; and military training precludes the elementary mistake of resting the barrel between the slats.

Therefore as a professional, highly trained master marksman, the sniper would know that he must not assume that the movements of limo & target within Will be this or that. To do so would be to violate the cardinal rule of the art.

Miles,

Your statements suggest enhanced knowledge about snipers in general or personal experience as a sniper. If true, this would bolster your theory. Otherwise it would be prudent to conclude that your comments are merely opinion, informed though they may be.

Do you have military training as a sniper? Or have you studied the art?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being soft hearted about Hoffman does not validate his story. Conversely, being hard hearted about James Files does not disprove his story. Speaking of Files, of course there are inconsistencies in his story, but at least his ad hoc account of his fireball usage has the ring of truth to it. For that matter Hoffman's account of tossing of the rifle to a "spotter" suggests that military training was at play; and military training precludes the elementary mistake of resting the barrel between the slats.

I believe that the tossing of something near the steam pipe was witnessed by another triple underpass witness named Austin Miller. If I recall the name correctly, Austin saw someone toss and object as he looked through the foliage to see something going on. And to be honest, I carry no soft spot for Ed Hoffman. Ed would be the first to tell you that he doesn't ask for special treatment or consideration. What Ed has done was offer to have his accounting of what he witnessed to be subject to a polygraoh examination while knowing it could hurt him if it shown him to be lying.

I regret to say that this completely misses the point. No matter what movements were taken by the limo or by the target within the limo on Nov. 22, the critical, paramount consideration - the point - is this: the sniper at 12:20 PM had no way to anticipate what those movements of limo & target within the limo wold be. Therefore as a professional, highly trained master marksman, the sniper would know that he must not assume that the movements of limo & target within Will be this or that. To do so would be to violate the cardinal rule of the art.

Take just one simple example of an unexpected occurrence. What if the driver of the limo was shot in the hand before the Knoll shooter fired? Of course the limo could have the veered sharply. Then the resting barrel is useless. And here you have the core reason that the resting barrel theory is nonsense.

I must be off my rocker for no one in the plaza where ever they chose to try and shoot the President form could know what evasive action Greer would have taken once aware that the shooting had started. And what if the driver was shot in the hand as you mentioned - so what? JFK was shot non-fatally in the throat between Z186 to Z202. Connaklly was shot through the armpit and chest at Z224. Bullets seemed to have hit the street which a few people saw, bullets may have struck the car, as well .... all before the fatal shot. So what I am saying is that missed shots didn't seem to hamper anyone from continuing to shoot at the President.

Are you saying that you placed the barrel of this type of rifle between the slats? :huh: Notice that you must have been resting the barrel on its left side at a point very near the front sight on the barrel. If so, then, any slightest movement of the stock would have (per force) thrown off the shot alignment big time. :rolleyes: [by the way, are you suggesting that the Knoll assassin used this type of rifle?]

QED, ol' fella.

Miles

I am saying that 'I did place a rifle barrel between the slats of the fence' and imagined how it may have looked to an asassin in that location at the time of the assassination. I do not recall it ever falling down into the narrow channel, but rather because the target was southest of my position - I angled the barrel towards the kill shot location and I did so with the barrel resting between the slats. I also think Tony Cummings was with me when we both were working in the plaza.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being soft hearted about Hoffman does not validate his story. Conversely, being hard hearted about James Files does not disprove his story. Speaking of Files, of course there are inconsistencies in his story, but at least his ad hoc account of his fireball usage has the ring of truth to it. For that matter Hoffman's account of tossing of the rifle to a "spotter" suggests that military training was at play; and military training precludes the elementary mistake of resting the barrel between the slats.

I believe that the tossing of something near the steam pipe was witnessed by another triple underpass witness named Austin Miller. If I recall the name correctly, Austin saw someone toss and object as he looked through the foliage to see something going on. And to be honest, I carry no soft spot for Ed Hoffman. Ed would be the first to tell you that he doesn't ask for special treatment or consideration. What Ed has done was offer to have his accounting of what he witnessed to be subject to a polygraoh examination while knowing it could hurt him if it shown him to be lying.

I regret to say that this completely misses the point. No matter what movements were taken by the limo or by the target within the limo on Nov. 22, the critical, paramount consideration - the point - is this: the sniper at 12:20 PM had no way to anticipate what those movements of limo & target within the limo wold be. Therefore as a professional, highly trained master marksman, the sniper would know that he must not assume that the movements of limo & target within Will be this or that. To do so would be to violate the cardinal rule of the art.

Take just one simple example of an unexpected occurrence. What if the driver of the limo was shot in the hand before the Knoll shooter fired? Of course the limo could have the veered sharply. Then the resting barrel is useless. And here you have the core reason that the resting barrel theory is nonsense.

I must be off my rocker for no one in the plaza where ever they chose to try and shoot the President form could know what evasive action Greer would have taken once aware that the shooting had started. And what if the driver was shot in the hand as you mentioned - so what? JFK was shot non-fatally in the throat between Z186 to Z202. Connaklly was shot through the armpit and chest at Z224. Bullets seemed to have hit the street which a few people saw, bullets may have struck the car, as well .... all before the fatal shot. So what I am saying is that missed shots didn't seem to hamper anyone from continuing to shoot at the President.

Are you saying that you placed the barrel of this type of rifle between the slats? :huh: Notice that you must have been resting the barrel on its left side at a point very near the front sight on the barrel. If so, then, any slightest movement of the stock would have (per force) thrown off the shot alignment big time. :huh: [by the way, are you suggesting that the Knoll assassin used this type of rifle?]

QED, ol' fella.

Miles

I am saying that 'I did place a rifle barrel between the slats of the fence' and imagined how it may have looked to an asassin in that location at the time of the assassination. I do not recall it ever falling down into the narrow channel, but rather because the target was southest of my position - I angled the barrel towards the kill shot location and I did so with the barrel resting between the slats. I also think Tony Cummings was with me when we both were working in the plaza.

I believe that the tossing of something near the steam pipe was witnessed by another triple underpass witness named Austin Miller. If I recall the name correctly, Austin saw someone toss and object as he looked through the foliage to see something going on. And to be honest,...

Never doubted your honesty, Bill... Austin Miller? Not your relative? :rolleyes: Ha, just kidding.

Austin Miller?

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that the tossing of something near the steam pipe was witnessed by another triple underpass witness named Austin Miller. If I recall the name correctly, Austin saw someone toss and object as he looked through the foliage to see something going on. And to be honest,...
Never doubted your honesty, Bill... Austin Miller? Not your relative? :ph34r: Ha, just kidding.

Austin Miller?

Bill

Just checked the Warren Commission testimony of Austin Miller ( http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol6_0117a.htm ) & do not find any reference to "Austin saw someone toss an object" which would have verified or supported Hoffman's account.

The absence of corroboration weakens Hoffman's story. Is your recollection of Austin Miller's testimony only wishful or hopeful? It seems to be false. :rolleyes:

Miles

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just checked the Warren Commission testimony of Austin Miller ( http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol6_0117a.htm ) & do not find any reference to "Austin saw someone toss an object" which would have verified or supported Hoffman's account.

The absence of corroboration weakens Hoffman's story. Is your recollection of Austin Miller's testimony only wishful or hopeful? It seems to be false.

Miles

I am pretty sure that Seymour Weitzman wrote a report which mentioned Miller telling him what he saw. The Commission did not interview all the DP witnesses, thus one should expand their research to the witness reports and statements taken as well. And no, I am not related to Austin Miller as far as I know. Try a search on this forum or Lancer's under his name and the report may come up because I seem to recall posting it on one of these two sites a long time ago.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just checked the Warren Commission testimony of Austin Miller ( http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol6_0117a.htm ) & do not find any reference to "Austin saw someone toss an object" which would have verified or supported Hoffman's account.

The absence of corroboration weakens Hoffman's story. Is your recollection of Austin Miller's testimony only wishful or hopeful? It seems to be false.

Miles

I am pretty sure that Seymour Weitzman wrote a report which mentioned Miller telling him what he saw. The Commission did not interview all the DP witnesses, thus one should expand their research to the witness reports and statements taken as well. And no, I am not related to Austin Miller as far as I know. Try a search on this forum or Lancer's under his name and the report may come up because I seem to recall posting it on one of these two sites a long time ago.

Bill

Austin Miller was watching from the Triple Underpass when he heard shots. HE immediately looked "toward the --- there is a little plaza sitting on the hill. I looked over there to see if anything was there, who threw the firecracker or whatever it was ..." (VI, 225). In his affidavit of 11/22/1963, he also swore that "I saw something which I thought was smoke or steam coming from a group of trees north of Elm off the Railroad tracks" (XIX, 485).

Well, Bill, I followed your suggestions & performed a variety of (google) searches, including a search of your posts with Austin Miller as the key words.

No soap! I think your memory is playing tricks (dirty tricks :ice ) with you.

Austin Miller, nor anyone else, never saw what Hoffman says Hoffman saw.

Hoffman's testimony is contradictory & cannot be relied upon.

In general, therefore, hat man, via your construction of the resting barrel, was not a shooter.

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Bill, I followed your suggestions & performed a variety of (google) searches, including a search of your posts with Austin Miller as the key words.

No soap! I think your memory is playing tricks (dirty tricks :o ) with you.

Austin Miller, nor anyone else, ever saw what Hoffman says Hoffman saw.

Hoffman's testimony is contradictory & cannot be relied upon.

In general, therefore, hat man, via your construction of the resting barrel, was not a shooter.

Miles, there is an old saying that 'everyone is entitled to their opinion, but no one has the right to be wrong about the facts, that if you do not have all the facts, then your opinion can be of no value'. The Weitzman report stating that he meet a worker or who he thought to be a worker on the underpass and had told him that he saw something through the trees near the steam pipe being tossed following the assassination has been posted several times by myself alone. At some point i recall a connection to that person and Miller, but if I am wrong about the exact person - then so be it. However, I am not in error about Weitzman's report and someone on the ynderpass telling they saw something tossed near the steam pipe.

As far as Hoffman goes ... his biggest critics are those who have never got close enough to him or his family to know what Ed has actually said. What is ridiculous about Hoffman, if anything, is that to test a deaf mute - it is expensive just considering the travel alone and it was Ed who has pushed for a polygraph and not his critics. I would think that if I was so sure Ed is lying, then I'd be trying to see what I could do to expose him instead if it being the other way around. When I get time ... I will look foir Weitzman's report concerning the man he met on the underpass who saw something tossed near the steam pipe ... the same steam pipe that had refers to by the way.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it helps.

Mr. Ball.

Didn't you, when you went over to the railroad yard, talk to some yardman?

Mr. Weitzman.

I asked a yardman if he had seen or heard anything during the passing of the President. He said he thought he saw somebody throw something through a bush and that's when I went back over the fence and that's when I found the portion of the skull. I thought it was a firecracker portion; that's what we first were looking for. This was before we knew the President was dead.

Mr. Ball.

Did the yardman tell you where he thought the noise came from?

Mr. Weitzman.

Yes, sir; he pointed out the wall section where there was a bunch of shrubbery and I believe that's to the right where I went over the wall where the steampipe was; that would be going north back toward the jail.

Mr. Ball.

I think that's all. Do you have any desire to read this over and sign it or will you waive signature?

Mr. Weitzman.

I will waive my signature. I don't think the Government is going to alter my statement any.

Source:

Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VII, p. 105.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/history/wc_pe...t/Weitzman.html

chris

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...