Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ed Hoffman's Activities and Observations


Recommended Posts

What is not debatable is a report made by Weitzman who relayed the information that a witness gave him. I also think the guy meant that he saw through a bush an object being thrown. And the last point is that it seems pretty weak to claim that because others didn't see something that it must not have happened. No one reported seeing Zapruder filming the assassination - does this mean that he and Sitzman were not on the pedestal? Not everyone on the underpass mentioned seeing the smoke come through the trees - not everyone on the underpass claimed to see a bullet spark off the street - does this mean it didn't happen? No one claimed to see Tague struck in the face - does that mean it didn't happen?

A rather weak argument given that there is corroboration for most if not all of these other things.

As I'd said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. At the very least, some corroboration would be useful.

You are defending the indefensible and attempting to refute it with the irrefutable. Photos are not articles of faith ... unless, of course, they've all been altered or faked ... in which case, there is nothing at all on which to base any fact.

Edited by Duke Lane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 357
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Duke often makes sense in his better writings. The above mishmash makes no sense at all.

Jack

You give me 'way too much credit!

But I'll take it!! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I'd said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. At the very least, some corroboration would be useful.

You are defending the indefensible and attempting to refute it with the irrefutable. Photos are not articles of faith ... unless, of course, they've all been altered or faked ... in which case, there is nothing at all on which to base any fact.

I for one was impressed that an independent witness told Weitzman that he saw something tossed near the steam pipe following the shooting. Also, it is said that a picture is worth a thousand words ... in this case a thousand words to anyone who knows how to read them. To date it has seemed that the alteration claims presented have been nothing more than someones way of passing the buck because they couldn't properly read the images before them.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, therefore, would like to assist you with your research, but I do not have the time to do the research for you, as I think I pointed out to you before. You will have to do that for yourself from now on.

Hope that's clear.

Wow, no time to answer Ken's question, but you have had plenty of time to xxxxx the forum with ridiculous replies that didn't address anything to do with the JFK assassination case.

As to the published names of the score or so of nearby witnesses who did not see Ed's toss (but who would have seen it, had it occurred), etc., see "Six Seconds in Dallas" & also the plat John got from me to give to Robin Unger to put up on his excellent site & research treasure trove.

Again, Ken, you can look this up for yourself, without further help.

For people to have seen something happen - would they not have to actually be in a position to have witnessed something like that? That's like saying that no reported zseeing the guy who picked your pocket, so it must not have happened. Can we assume that Ken's question to you was one that you really had no legitimate answer for?

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is proper to question Ed's story, as it is with any witness.

It is improper to question his veracity. He is telling the truth as he believes it.

It is not improper to question his INTERPRETATION of what he saw. He has reported WHAT HE SAW to the best of his ability. The possibility exists that what he saw was some activity unrelated to the assassination, as suspicious as it seemed to him.

Jack

Well said Jack!

I have repeatedly said that Ed is telling the truth as he saw it.

The only reason or purpose to examine Ed's story is to establish the verifiability of the implications of certain aspects of Ed's account.

You & I agree, don't we, that Sarti shot a frangible at 33 ft from the fence corner? :D

M

I believe Ed's story.

I do not believe ANYTHING about Sarti.

Jack

So, let me see if I understand this:

If someone claims to witness something, regardless of whether it squares with any other witnesses' statements, observations, testimony or anything, the only thing that we can do is evaluate what Witness A says versus what Witnesses B through Z have to say, but we cannot question whether they were actually a witness?

So if I read something in the newspaper and then come forward to say that I was actually there and then get muddled in the details of what I saw (or, really, didn't see!), you have absolutely no right to question whether I'm lying, but only to try to square my inaccurate and unwitnessed claims into the whole of the story?

The possibility exists that Ed Hoffman was not where he says he was and did not see what he claims to have seen, yet because you choose to believe it, it has to be true and nobody can question the truth as you want to know it?

Gosh, I feel terrible now for having debunked the whole "David Atlee Phillips Under Arrest in Fort Worth" thing, the photos of him that had "mysteriously disappeared from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's archives" (because they were taken by the Fort Worth Press and were never in the S-T's archives!), and for having found the "missing" arrest records of the man whose photo was actually taken.

Damn, it sucks to be a "plant" who continually pokes holes in the things we'd like to believe! Who was it who'd once admonished not to "let facts get in the way of a good story?"

So tell me again how the sworn testimony of James Richard Worrell Jr. fits into the whole thing when in fact the man was not in Dealey Plaza when he said he was and didn't see a damned thing he claimed to have? He lied, but was "telling the truth as he believed it?" Hogwash. Maybe he convinced himself it was true, and convinced everyone around him that it was, but the simple fact is that it wasn't and there ain't no gettin' 'round it, no-how, no way.

But you think we need to believe it because you think he does? Hardly a good qualification for "facts!"

I think it is valid if those of you, for whatever reasons, want to challenge or 'vet' Hoffman's statements and the likelihood of it being valid...this should be done with all the evidence and withness statements by mulitple persons and then re-evaluated by yet other multiple persons - granted. I must say, however, that having met Ed Hoffman several times, watched him explain his story and have it interpreted into English by a sign-language translator on many occassions, I find him MOST honest, credible, modest and self-effacing, not seeking the limelight he was thrust in in a mnor way, and that his story is consistant and has been from [as far as I can tell] the get-go until today. Add to that that those with the loss of one sense usually have the other senses better developed, as compensation.......it is going to be a 'hard sell' IMO to discredti his testimony...but you are free to try. I'v not yet seen anything to shake my general belief in what he said he saw. NO one ever can remember a scene exactly as it happened - as each of us who have returned to a grade school or place from the past after many years knows...it is always a little different than we remembered it...and that is true for action as well as physical objects. I think your time could be better spent trying to find out  why he may 

have been offered money 

to just go 'away' or told to just forget it and sent away, rather than his testimony taken at the time...but that is just my opinion and intuition.

Excellent assessment, Peter. He tells the truth as he knows it, to the best of his ability.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is valid if those of you, for whatever reasons, want to challenge or 'vet' Hoffman's statements and the likelihood of it being valid...this should be done with all the evidence and withness statements by mulitple persons and then re-evaluated by yet other multiple persons - granted. I must say, however, that having met Ed Hoffman several times, watched him explain his story and have it interpreted into English by a sign-language translator on many occassions, I find him MOST honest, credible, modest and self-effacing, not seeking the limelight he was thrust in in a mnor way, and that his story is consistant and has been from [as far as I can tell] the get-go until today. Add to that that those with the loss of one sense usually have the other senses better developed, as compensation.......it is going to be a 'hard sell' IMO to discredti his testimony...but you are free to try. I'v not yet seen anything to shake my general belief in what he said he saw. NO one ever can remember a scene exactly as it happened - as each of us who have returned to a grade school or place from the past after many years knows...it is always a little different than we remembered it...and that is true for action as well as physical objects. I think your time could be better spent trying to find out  why he may 

have been offered money 

to just go 'away' or told to just forget it and sent away, rather than his testimony taken at the time...but that is just my opinion and intuition.

Excellent assessment, Peter. He tells the truth as he knows it, to the best of his ability.

Jack

Agreed.

But here's Larry Hancock, May 14 2004, 05:23 AM :

Lee, Ed's pastor and sign language interpreter addresses many of those issues in the booklet "Eye Witness", anyone seriously interested in Ed's story and what he has described over time should get a copy. Specifically the booklet deals with Ed's observation of a policeman up by the fence after the shooting (in something that sounds much like the "Baker - unidentified man with SS credentials encounter" wjocj Ed simply did not interpret as important) especially when first trying to tell his story to the FBI) as well as his observation of a train passing over the overpass shortly after the limo passed by him.

However, there is still considerable controversy over how much detail Ed really could see at that distance, how he could see the figures up by the fence given the number of cars and how they were parked up against the fence. The fact that the running man would have had to be behind those cars and the issue of how much depth perception Ed would have had at that distance to accurately call out specific locations. I've personally watched Ed locate the men behind the fence, trace their steps and describe his observations and there is no doubt in my mind of his sincerety. And he does describe the running men going out of sight behind the parked rail cars as he ran north into the rail yard.

However in attempting to duplicate his specific observations last year on a DP tour (the same way we attempted to see the detail Carr describes for a man with glasses on an upper floor), the whole tour group and myself were hard pressed to see how Ed could have seen that amount of detail pertaining to the "suit man" shooter that he describes ...especially given the parked cars.

Again, personally, I have no doubt Ed saw something going on behind the fence and saw multiple people......beyond that I just don't know. But you should get hold of the booklet by Ron Fredrich and give it a read for reference.

-- Larry

This is equitable comment.

However, Gary Mack does not accord credibility to Ed's story. :D

Hancock & Mack? I think Mr. Limkin & others of us can accept their credentials as researchers we can revere & rely upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is equitable comment.

However, Gary Mack does not accord credibility to Ed's story. :D

Hancock & Mack? I think Mr. Limkin & others of us can accept their credentials as researchers we can revere & rely upon.

Good of you to mention Mack and Hancock ... neither of which believe in Duncan's alleged floating torso claim. Guess there is no need to look into that claim any further - right? After all, Gary is a seasoned researcher who we can revere and rely upon, not to mention that he has the best collection of original and copy prints of the assassination images. So when Gary says that the area that Duncan calls a 'wash-out' is actually the Dallas sky seen above the fence, I guess that we can rely on Gary's observation. Is this the point you were trying to make?

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read Bowers' WC testimony, which I recall is very explicit about what he saw.

Jack

Lane wasn't happy with that testimony & that is why he re-interviewed the man.

What Lane got as a result was a clear message from Bowers that he saw no one behind the fence.

Now I hate to link to to someone that has already made his mind up on this case like Myers but he is the only one to have produced parts of the unpublished transcripts from "RTJ".

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm

Even without Myer's commentary it is obvious from the bites of transcript there, that Bowers is giving Lane a different insight than what he got when he read the WC testimony.

Like I said, this did not make it in the film & it was rather naughty of Lane to use Bowers since it is clear in the transcript that Bowers is not referring to men behind the fence.

How can you not be interested in a more indepth interview of Bowers whatever the outcome?

Bill,

take another look

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/5478.jpg

If we can see the street in this photo taken from the tower, then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that we would also see the upper portions of two men standing halfway down the steps?

I think we would easilly but maybe there is something I haven't considered.

The point on the descriptions of the men by Bowers is well taken, it doesn't match I've noted that before. I haven't made my mind up completely as you probably gathered, I'm just leaning towards one explaination over the other.

I cannot fully trust anything that has been edited by Myers & I wouldn't ask anyone else to, I just think that it's a reasonable explaination & the unedited transcript should be invaluable to any researcher.

It would be nice if they were made available so we could at least check to see if Dale has left anything "suspiscious" out..

Alan

Alan Healy,

I've talked to Dale Myers a couple of times this past spring on a couple of issues.

Whereas I completely disagree with Dale in a number of his conclusions, I would contend that he has been scrupulously accurate in these Bowers quotes, even laboriously accurate & precise & overwrought, if you will.

Dale's passion, so to speak, is to avoid fuzzy logic & anything remotely smelling like fudge. If anything, Dale is a precision hound!

Just my opinion.

Miles

Bump for Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dale's passion, so to speak, is to avoid fuzzy logic & anything remotely smelling like fudge. If anything, Dale is a precision hound!

Just my opinion.

Miles

Is that the Dale Myers who said Badge Man would have been 40 feet back in the RR yard and standing on a ladder to replicate the individuals seen in Jack's Badge Man images? I wonder how Jack could have stand-ins on the knoll and at the fence match the people in the Badge Man images and yet Dale (Mr. Precision) has them on ladders deep into the RR yard. I should also mention that Gorden and I also matched them figures up without anyone being 40 feet into the RR yard and on ladders. Anyway, try taking one of Dales 3D animations that is supposed to replicate the Zapruder film and just try overlaying it onto a corresponding film frame and see how precise it is.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to add one "reservation" I have, not with Ed, but the logic of two points of

what he saw.

1. He describes a rifle being broken down into smaller pieces. Seems to me

that would be an unconventional weapon not likely to have been used.

2, He describes a man in a suit handing the rifle to a railroad worker, who then

hides it in a signal box. It is not logical to have an extra accomplice on hand

just to hide the weapon. I have always suspected that any knoll shooter simply

put his gun in a car trunk and walked away. Or what if he was a policeman

who might not seem suspicious carrying a weapon?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to add one "reservation" I have, not with Ed, but the logic of two points of

what he saw.

1. He describes a rifle being broken down into smaller pieces. Seems to me

that would be an unconventional weapon not likely to have been used.

2, He describes a man in a suit handing the rifle to a railroad worker, who then

hides it in a signal box. It is not logical to have an extra accomplice on hand

just to hide the weapon. I have always suspected that any knoll shooter simply

put his gun in a car trunk and walked away. Or what if he was a policeman

who might not seem suspicious carrying a weapon?

Jack

Was not the Oswald rifle alleged to have been broken down and taken into the TSBD by Lee on the morning of the assassination.

I don't believe Ed said that the RR worker hid the rifle in the signal box, but rather he put it into a bag and walked away with it. I am not sure just why you think it would be unlikely to have an accomplice to hide a weapon, but I can see someone doing it. The RR yard was not completely hidden to everyone and I am sure that is why the man with the fake SS badge was around so to bail out his partner if things got a little too close for comfort. Now having just fired a shot - why would someone not want to toss the gun off to someone else so they can stroll off without any weapon rifle in their possession? It boils down to plausible denial IMO. If someone thinks they saw a man in a hat shoot a rifle at the President and it is found that the man was stopped and had no such gun on him - who is the wiser??

I have heard people say that there were RR workers close by, but who were they and were they affiliated with the conspiracy in any way? I bet if one looked into it further - they might be surprised to find that there were even people on the police force who would just as soon someone shot Kennedy over anyone else. Racial lines drawn, the John Birch Society members and so on .... assuming that anyone wearing a RR workers clothing that day must be on the up and up is not necessarily a comfortable position to take for me. If the fake SS agent taught me nothing else - it is not to think that just because someone appeared to be on the up and up that day didn't necessarily make it so.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to add one "reservation" I have, not with Ed, but the logic of two points of

what he saw.

1. He describes a rifle being broken down into smaller pieces. Seems to me

that would be an unconventional weapon not likely to have been used.

2, He describes a man in a suit handing the rifle to a railroad worker, who then

hides it in a signal box. It is not logical to have an extra accomplice on hand

just to hide the weapon. I have always suspected that any knoll shooter simply

put his gun in a car trunk and walked away. Or what if he was a policeman

who might not seem suspicious carrying a weapon?

Jack

Was not the Oswald rifle alleged to have been broken down and taken into the TSBD by Lee on the morning of the assassination.

I don't believe Ed said that the RR worker hid the rifle in the signal box, but rather he put it into a bag and walked away with it. I am not sure just why you think it would be unlikely to have an accomplice to hide a weapon, but I can see someone doing it. The RR yard was not completely hidden to everyone and I am sure that is why the man with the fake SS badge was around so to bail out his partner if things got a little too close for comfort. Now having just fired a shot - why would someone not want to toss the gun off to someone else so they can stroll off without any weapon rifle in their possession? It boils down to plausible denial IMO. If someone thinks they saw a man in a hat shoot a rifle at the President and it is found that the man was stopped and had no such gun on him - who is the wiser??

I have heard people say that there were RR workers close by, but who were they and were they affiliated with the conspiracy in any way? I bet if one looked into it further - they might be surprised to find that there were even people on the police force who would just as soon someone shot Kennedy over anyone else. Racial lines drawn, the John Birch Society members and so on .... assuming that anyone wearing a RR workers clothing that day must be on the up and up is not necessarily a comfortable position to take for me. If the fake SS agent taught me nothing else - it is not to think that just because someone appeared to be on the up and up that day didn't necessarily make it so.

Bill

Only LNers believe that ...

"Was not the Oswald rifle alleged to have been broken down and taken into the TSBD by Lee on the morning of the assassination."

LHO took no package into the TSBD...and the package he did not take

did not contain a disassembled MC rifle. ;)

Perhaps I misremember what Ed said. He mentioned A BAG, but then I

thought he said the RR man put the bag into the signal box. My memory

is hazy on this.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your memory isn't hazy on this Jack. He did say that the RR man put the bag in the signal box. If my memory serves me correctly, it's on tmwkk interview.

Duncan

Edited correction. The translater said that Ed said the RR man put the bag in the signal box.

Well boys - get out your MWKK series and watch it again. Ed shows the man breaking down a gun - opening a bag and placing it inside - closing the bag - and picking it up and walking out across the RR yard. Now my recollection is based on my memory .... see if I don't have it correct.

Thanks,

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed Hoffman, through an interpreter:

"The train man was still standing there. I could see him very plainly. I watched him take the gun apart. I don't know how he did it because I don't know anything about guns, but he dismantled it and put it inside the brown suitcase. Then he started running, too. He ran off to the north, into the railroad yards. I managed to keep him in sight until he ran behind a train. He ran right around the caboose and disappeared, and after that I couldn't see him anymore."

From Breaking the Silence by Bill Sloan, page 19.

Edited by Michael Hogan
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...