Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ed Hoffman's Activities and Observations


Recommended Posts

After a lengthy delay for proofing and fact-checking, the final word on Ed Hoffman's supposed whereabouts on November 22, 1963, is this: anywhere else but where he says he was.

The proof is in the fact that, as and after the motorcade was entering Stemmons Freeway, there was a traffic jam on the highway directly in front of Ed, and between him and Dealey Plaza. It was created by no fewer than a dozen police officers on motorcycles holding traffic at the railroad overpass beyond which Ed had parked his car.

For Ed to have been where he claimed, he would have had to have been not seen by an officer on a three-wheeler almost directly across the highway from him for 40-50 minutes, whose job was specifically to see to it that nobody was doing what Ed claims he was. Additionally, two other motorcycle officers about 200 yards from him on the same side of the highway would also have had to not see Ed.

More to the point, however, is that for Ed to have reached his car, he would have had to run by these dozen officers holding traffic, and they, too, would have had to ignore a man running and waving his arms, then running right past them, jumping into his car, and taking off - from their point of view - after the motorcade at a high rate of speed. This right after a President had been shot just a few hundred yards away, at that!

For the full story, read my article Freeway Man, currently online as a PDF. Unfortunately, while it is heavily annotated, the links to the documents cited do not presently work in the Acrobat file. This will be corrected in a later HTML version.

Your article is an important contribution to the analysis of Ed Hoffman's alleged account, which is now demonstrated to be not credible.

Your article ( http://www.dfwvirtualtours.net/jfkstuff/freewayman.pdf ) stands almost alone as a study, for its careful impartiality & depth of analysis.

Just as a small side note I'd like to emphasise one point regarding:

The testimony of Joe E. Murphy taken at 9:50 a.m., on April 8, 1964, in the office of U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Joseph A. Ball, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Murphy-1-1.jpg

Mr. BALL. Did the men who were on the overpass at Position (5) do anything?

Mr. MURPHY. I don't recall - on that overpass - right after the shots, I did see then a group of people running up the side of this embankment on Elm and running. That would be here - right in here.

Mr. BALL. To the north of Elm?

Mr. MURPHY. To the north of Elm.

Mr. BALL. Would you put an arrow showing the direction they were running and mark that arrow as "7" - that's the direction you saw people running?

Mr. MURPHY. (Marked diagram as requested by Counsel Ball.) Yes, they were running up in this direction and then in behind this Book Depository. Oh, I could tell a lot of them were photographers, because I could see their cameras in their hands and then a number of other people, and then I did see some officers also running in that direction.

Mr. BALL. Did you see what the railroad men did who were at Position (6) on your map?

Mr. MURPHY. No; because right at that time that traffic began backing up on the freeway and I had turned in to try to keep them moving, but I found that I couldn't move them because It was blocked down below me, north of me and there was traffic just stacked up from where the other officers had it stopped there.

Note that Officer Murphy was looking in the same direction & at the same area (the Steam Pipe) that Hoffman was looking at the same time that Hoffman was looking in that direction at that area.

Murphy & Hoffman were sitting in theatre seats watching a stage play.

Hoffman was two rows back from Murphy & four seats to Murphy's left.

Murphy does not see & report what Hoffman alleges that he, Hoffman, saw. :huh:

Murphy, who sees & reports individuals with cameras in their hands, does not see & report any individuals carrying a rifle & tossing a rifle.

Why?

That did not happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 357
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ed pantomimed the sniper shooting over the picket fence with the rifle butt to his... LEFT ...shoulder in The Men Who Killed Kennedy 1988.

Ed pantomimed the sniper shooting over the picket fence with the rifle butt to his... RIGHT ...shoulder in the video tape documentary "Beyond JFK" 1992.

Anyone trying to make something big of the above is IMO just being mean and unfair. I think it is not even worth a lot of effort.....one could forget, be nervous during the re-enactment given the circumstances...the effect is the same...i.e. he saw a man at that location put a gun to his shoulder and point it at JFK!.....next you'll be looking at the angle of his elbow and if he puts his pinky finger out while pantomiming the shot or not..... There was four years between the two and he may even [if asked] been able to say which shoulder was used, but not have felt that was important to get exact..or he may have forgotten or as I said, just been flustered....give the man [and the truth] a break.

I agree with Peter. It is too bad however that the forum rules will not allow me to say it words more appropriate for such nonsense.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. BALL. Did the men who were on the overpass at Position (5) do anything?

Mr. MURPHY. I don't recall - on that overpass - right after the shots, I did see then a group of people running up the side of this embankment on Elm and running. That would be here - right in here.

Mr. BALL. To the north of Elm?

Mr. MURPHY. To the north of Elm.

Mr. BALL. Would you put an arrow showing the direction they were running and mark that arrow as "7" - that's the direction you saw people running?

Mr. MURPHY. (Marked diagram as requested by Counsel Ball.) Yes, they were running up in this direction and then in behind this Book Depository. Oh, I could tell a lot of them were photographers, because I could see their cameras in their hands and then a number of other people, and then I did see some officers also running in that direction.

Mr. BALL. Did you see what the railroad men did who were at Position (6) on your map?

Mr. MURPHY. No; because right at that time that traffic began backing up on the freeway and I had turned in to try to keep them moving, but I found that I couldn't move them because It was blocked down below me, north of me and there was traffic just stacked up from where the other officers had it stopped there.

Note that Officer Murphy was looking in the same direction & at the same area (the Steam Pipe) that Hoffman was looking at the same time that Hoffman was looking in that direction at that area.

Murphy & Hoffman were sitting in theatre seats watching a stage play.

Hoffman was two rows back from Murphy & four seats to Murphy's left.

Murphy does not see & report what Hoffman alleges that he, Hoffman, saw. :huh:

Murphy, who sees & reports individuals with cameras in their hands, does not see & report any individuals carrying a rifle & tossing a rifle.

Why?

That did not happen.

Miles, maybe your question can be answered by making two points here. First of all, Murphy didn't see the guy that you have claimed to believe fired a shot from the RR yard either. In fact, if one supports the Duncan Mcrae shooter as you had applauded for so long, then that guy was elevated high into the air and Murphy missed him, as well. Could it be that Murphy was out getting popcorn instead of being in his theater seat??? Think about this - you are using Murphy to validate there being no Hoffman shooter while at the same time not seeing that this also invalidates there being a shooter that you believe was in the RR yard.

But don't give up on either alleged shooter just yet because where Murphy was said to be stationed would not give him a view of the walkway down the fence line. A carefully drawn straight line to the corner of the fence would be drawn on an angle. And with JFK coming towards Murphy and with the rolling stop just out in front of him that occurred as the Curry's car gave Greer directions to Parkland - it just may be that Murphy saw this and was not even looking at the RR boxes at that given point in time. I know that had it of been me ... I could not have helped by look down into the limo if for no other reason than out of human curiosity in wanting to know what has happened.

And if Murphy's attention was drawn to the people merging up the incline, then how long after the assassination that this occurred may give you an idea as to when Murphy finally got back into his theater seat.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. BALL. Did the men who were on the overpass at Position (5) do anything?

Mr. MURPHY. I don't recall - on that overpass - right after the shots, I did see then a group of people running up the side of this embankment on Elm and running. That would be here - right in here.

Mr. BALL. To the north of Elm?

Mr. MURPHY. To the north of Elm.

Mr. BALL. Would you put an arrow showing the direction they were running and mark that arrow as "7" - that's the direction you saw people running?

Mr. MURPHY. (Marked diagram as requested by Counsel Ball.) Yes, they were running up in this direction and then in behind this Book Depository. Oh, I could tell a lot of them were photographers, because I could see their cameras in their hands and then a number of other people, and then I did see some officers also running in that direction.

Mr. BALL. Did you see what the railroad men did who were at Position (6) on your map?

Mr. MURPHY. No; because right at that time that traffic began backing up on the freeway and I had turned in to try to keep them moving, but I found that I couldn't move them because It was blocked down below me, north of me and there was traffic just stacked up from where the other officers had it stopped there.

Note that Officer Murphy was looking in the same direction & at the same area (the Steam Pipe) that Hoffman was looking at the same time that Hoffman was looking in that direction at that area.

Murphy & Hoffman were sitting in theatre seats watching a stage play.

Hoffman was two rows back from Murphy & four seats to Murphy's left.

Murphy does not see & report what Hoffman alleges that he, Hoffman, saw. :huh:

Murphy, who sees & reports individuals with cameras in their hands, does not see & report any individuals carrying a rifle & tossing a rifle.

Why?

That did not happen.

Miles, maybe your question can be answered by making two points here. First of all, Murphy didn't see the guy that you have claimed to believe fired a shot from the RR yard either. In fact, if one supports the Duncan Mcrae shooter as you had applauded for so long, then that guy was elevated high into the air and Murphy missed him, as well. Could it be that Murphy was out getting popcorn instead of being in his theater seat??? Think about this - you are using Murphy to validate there being no Hoffman shooter while at the same time not seeing that this also invalidates there being a shooter that you believe was in the RR yard.

But don't give up on either alleged shooter just yet because where Murphy was said to be stationed would not give him a view of the walkway down the fence line. A carefully drawn straight line to the corner of the fence would be drawn on an angle. And with JFK coming towards Murphy and with the rolling stop just out in front of him that occurred as the Curry's car gave Greer directions to Parkland - it just may be that Murphy saw this and was not even looking at the RR boxes at that given point in time. I know that had it of been me ... I could not have helped by look down into the limo if for no other reason than out of human curiosity in wanting to know what has happened.

And if Murphy's attention was drawn to the people merging up the incline, then how long after the assassination that this occurred may give you an idea as to when Murphy finally got back into his theater seat.

Bill Miller

Sorry, but this is why, after this reply from me, I will not continue to answer your ridiculous nonsense. It's a waste of time.

Miles, maybe your question can be answered by making two points here. First of all, Murphy didn't see the guy that you have claimed to believe fired a shot from the RR yard either.

Yes, of course.

In fact, if one supports the Duncan Mcrae shooter as you had applauded for so long, then that guy was elevated high into the air and Murphy missed him, as well.

Yes, of course.

Could it be that Murphy was out getting popcorn instead of being in his theater seat???

1.) No, Murphy was not looking at the parking lot at the time Duncan's sniper fired his one & only shot.

2.) To have seen Duncan's sniper, had Murphy looked to his spot at the fence which he did not, Murphy's line of sight would have had to have been clear & NOT blocked by the angle of the fence, the dense foliage layers hanging over the fence and the massed cars abutting the fence.

Apparently, you have not looked at the aerial photo I posted. Or, if you have, you have not understood it.

Think about this - you are using Murphy to validate there being no Hoffman shooter while at the same time not seeing that this also invalidates there being a shooter that you believe was in the RR yard.

I have thought about this & have concluded it to be silly nonsense. The rifle activity of Hoffman's tale takes place at the steam pipe & the switch box, both of which were in plain view to Murphy & Hoffman. Duncan's sniper is hidden to Murphy but not to Hoffman. Go figure.

But don't give up on either alleged shooter just yet because where Murphy was said to be stationed would not give him a view of the walkway down the fence line. A carefully drawn straight line to the corner of the fence would be drawn on an angle. And with JFK coming towards Murphy and with the rolling stop just out in front of him that occurred as the Curry's car gave Greer directions to Parkland - it just may be that Murphy saw this and was not even looking at the RR boxes at that given point in time.

That is completely correct. Murphy, as he says in his testimony, looked to the area of the steam pipe & the switch box AFTER the shots were fired. He was looking in this area at exactly the same time that Hoffman's tale has the rifle toss there & the secreting of the rifle there.

I know that had it of been me ...

This is your fatal flaw. You imagine to yourself what you would do & then it turns out & proves to be silly nonsense.

I could not have helped by look down into the limo if for no other reason than out of human curiosity in wanting to know what has happened.

After the shots the limo was hidden to Murphy by the underpass. I have to think that you have read Murphy's testimony.

And if Murphy's attention was drawn to the people merging up the incline, then how long after the assassination that this occurred may give you an idea as to when Murphy finally got back into his theater seat.

You have not read Murphy's testimony. When the limo disappeared under the underpass, Murphy started to look not at the limo, but at other places. Guess where.

Bill Miller

Just because YOU have held misconceptions & misunderstandings for 20 years about:

Arnold

Bowers

and most glaringly about

Hoffman

20 years does NOT mean that these misconception & misunderstandings are not what they are, unwitting delusions.

Remember, in future I'll not be wasting time on this kind of silly nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miles, maybe your question can be answered by making two points here. First of all, Murphy didn't see the guy that you have claimed to believe fired a shot from the RR yard either. In fact, if one supports the Duncan Mcrae shooter as you had applauded for so long, then that guy was elevated high into the air and Murphy missed him, as well. Could it be that Murphy was out getting popcorn instead of being in his theater seat??? Think about this - you are using Murphy to validate there being no Hoffman shooter while at the same time not seeing that this also invalidates there being a shooter that you believe was in the RR yard.

But don't give up on either alleged shooter just yet because where Murphy was said to be stationed would not give him a view of the walkway down the fence line. A carefully drawn straight line to the corner of the fence would be drawn on an angle. And with JFK coming towards Murphy and with the rolling stop just out in front of him that occurred as the Curry's car gave Greer directions to Parkland - it just may be that Murphy saw this and was not even looking at the RR boxes at that given point in time. I know that had it of been me ... I could not have helped by look down into the limo if for no other reason than out of human curiosity in wanting to know what has happened.

And if Murphy's attention was drawn to the people merging up the incline, then how long after the assassination that this occurred may give you an idea as to when Murphy finally got back into his theater seat.

Bill Miller

Sorry, but this is why, after this reply from me, I will not continue to answer your ridiculous nonsense. It's a waste of time.

I am sure that my asking logical questions and pointing out flaws in your conclusions do make you uncomfortable.

Miles, maybe your question can be answered by making two points here. First of all, Murphy didn't see the guy that you have claimed to believe fired a shot from the RR yard either.

Yes, of course.

In fact, if one supports the Duncan Mcrae shooter as you had applauded for so long, then that guy was elevated high into the air and Murphy missed him, as well.

Yes, of course.

Could it be that Murphy was out getting popcorn instead of being in his theater seat???

1.) No, Murphy was not looking at the parking lot at the time Duncan's sniper fired his one & only shot.

2.) To have seen Duncan's sniper, had Murphy looked to his spot at the fence which he did not, Murphy's line of sight would have had to have been clear & NOT blocked by the angle of the fence, the dense foliage layers hanging over the fence and the massed cars abutting the fence.

Ok, I agree that Murphy was not looking at the area behind the fence when the shots were fired, but if it is true that a shot was fired from behind the fence - why would Murphy not look there then so to see the Duncan McCrae shooter ... any explanation that you can give for this not have happened? I mean, Holland's attention was drawn to the fence which allowed him to see the smoke come through the trees. Bowers attention was immediately drawn to the flash of light and/or smoke. So even if Murphy had been checking out some hot chick driving by in a convertible - why would he not then had his attention drawn to the fence/RR yard area in order to see Duncan's guy (presumably standing on a car or ladder to achieve such elevation as Duncan's claim shows) ... can you please offer some sort of sensible response to account for this? Could it be that Murphy was unaware that any shots had been fired from the RR yard??

Apparently, you have not looked at the aerial photo I posted. Or, if you have, you have not understood it.[/b]

Oh but I did look at your aerial illustration and that's how I knew that if Murphy was where he is shown on that photo, then a straight line from his position to the corner of the fence would not have allowed him to see Duncan or Hoffman's alleged shooters.

I have thought about this & have concluded it to be silly nonsense. The rifle activity of Hoffman's tale takes place at the steam pipe & the switch box, both of which were in plain view to Murphy & Hoffman. Duncan's sniper is hidden to Murphy but not to Hoffman. Go figure.

The act of someone shooting and their positions would have made Duncan's shooter more noticeable to Murphy had he even been at the proper angle to have seen down the fence line, but Murphy wasn't. And if you are talking about the few quick seconds it would take for Ed's man to toss a rifle to someone else, then please tell this forum how you would know that Murphy was looking at the location of the steam pipe at a moment in time that the President's limo would be just out in front of Murphy and at a near rolling stop? Is it your position that a shot fired from the fence would not get Murphy's attention, but a man appearing from down the fence line for a brief few seconds would get Murphy's attention over and above the limo being right there barely rolling before getting onto the onramp to Stemmons Freeway ... is that what you are trying to sell here???

That is completely correct. Murphy, as he says in his testimony, looked to the area of the steam pipe & the switch box AFTER the shots were fired. He was looking in this area at exactly the same time that Hoffman's tale has the rifle toss there & the secreting of the rifle there.

Here you go again - painting with a broad brush just as you did when claiming that Holland "IMMEDIATELY" ran behind the fence. The word "AFTER" could go right through to the late afternoon of the 22nd. Is there more you can give in support of your conclusion? Could it be that Murphy didn't look to the steam pipe until after the President's car had left the area right out in front of him???

This is your fatal flaw. You imagine to yourself what you would do & then it turns out & proves to be silly nonsense.

So far I have not seen where that has happened, but you can point out such an occurrence if you like so to refresh my mind.

I could not have helped by look down into the limo if for no other reason than out of human curiosity in wanting to know what has happened.

After the shots the limo was hidden to Murphy by the underpass. I have to think that you have read Murphy's testimony.

Oh come now, Miles ... you are smarter than this. Watch the Zapruder and Nix films and see just how quick the limo got into that underpass. The time passing through the underpass couldn't have been but about two to three seconds tops. Hoffman never said that the man he saw had sprinted to the steam pipe - now did he. If you are trying to sell the idea that Hoffman's guy made it to the steam pipe before JFK's limo had cleared the underpass, then good luck selling that one!

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a lengthy delay for proofing and fact-checking, the final word on Ed Hoffman's supposed whereabouts on November 22, 1963, is this: anywhere else but where he says he was.

The proof is in the fact that, as and after the motorcade was entering Stemmons Freeway, there was a traffic jam on the highway directly in front of Ed, and between him and Dealey Plaza. It was created by no fewer than a dozen police officers on motorcycles holding traffic at the railroad overpass beyond which Ed had parked his car.

For Ed to have been where he claimed, he would have had to have been not seen by an officer on a three-wheeler almost directly across the highway from him for 40-50 minutes, whose job was specifically to see to it that nobody was doing what Ed claims he was. Additionally, two other motorcycle officers about 200 yards from him on the same side of the highway would also have had to not see Ed.

More to the point, however, is that for Ed to have reached his car, he would have had to run by these dozen officers holding traffic, and they, too, would have had to ignore a man running and waving his arms, then running right past them, jumping into his car, and taking off - from their point of view - after the motorcade at a high rate of speed. This right after a President had been shot just a few hundred yards away, at that!

For the full story, read my article Freeway Man, currently online as a PDF. Unfortunately, while it is heavily annotated, the links to the documents cited do not presently work in the Acrobat file. This will be corrected in a later HTML version.

Your article is an important contribution to the analysis of Ed Hoffman's alleged account, which is now demonstrated to be not credible.

Your article ( http://www.dfwvirtualtours.net/jfkstuff/freewayman.pdf ) stands almost alone as a study, for its careful impartiality & depth of analysis.

Just as a small side note I'd like to emphasise one point regarding:

The testimony of Joe E. Murphy taken at 9:50 a.m., on April 8, 1964, in the office of U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Joseph A. Ball, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Murphy-1-1.jpg

Mr. BALL. Did the men who were on the overpass at Position (5) do anything?

Mr. MURPHY. I don't recall - on that overpass - right after the shots, I did see then a group of people running up the side of this embankment on Elm and running. That would be here - right in here.

Mr. BALL. To the north of Elm?

Mr. MURPHY. To the north of Elm.

Mr. BALL. Would you put an arrow showing the direction they were running and mark that arrow as "7" - that's the direction you saw people running?

Mr. MURPHY. (Marked diagram as requested by Counsel Ball.) Yes, they were running up in this direction and then in behind this Book Depository. Oh, I could tell a lot of them were photographers, because I could see their cameras in their hands and then a number of other people, and then I did see some officers also running in that direction.

Mr. BALL. Did you see what the railroad men did who were at Position (6) on your map?

Mr. MURPHY. No; because right at that time that traffic began backing up on the freeway and I had turned in to try to keep them moving, but I found that I couldn't move them because It was blocked down below me, north of me and there was traffic just stacked up from where the other officers had it stopped there.

Note that Officer Murphy was looking in the same direction & at the same area (the Steam Pipe) that Hoffman was looking at the same time that Hoffman was looking in that direction at that area.

Murphy & Hoffman were sitting in theatre seats watching a stage play.

Hoffman was two rows back from Murphy & four seats to Murphy's left.

Murphy does not see & report what Hoffman alleges that he, Hoffman, saw. :unsure:

Murphy, who sees & reports individuals with cameras in their hands, does not see & report any individuals carrying a rifle & tossing a rifle.

Why?

That did not happen.

Addendum:

Duke's article breaks new ground & makes discoveries, especially about the actions of the Dallas Police on Nov. 22, 1963, which reverse long held popular beliefs.

http://www.dfwvirtualtours.net/jfkstuff/freewayman.pdf

A respected luminary, Gary Mack, has abandoned Ed Hoffman's tale as not being credible. Why?

Here is Duke's startling conclusion:

HoffmanConclusion.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is Duke's startling conclusion: ...

I don't make "startling conclusions." It sounds great for a blurb on the back of a book, but otherwise is a useless phrase as far as I'm concerned.

It'll be interesting to see when there's commentary on what's actually in the article rather than ancillary issues and on-going "partisan" debates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is Duke's startling conclusion: ...

I don't make "startling conclusions." It sounds great for a blurb on the back of a book, but otherwise is a useless phrase as far as I'm concerned.

It'll be interesting to see when there's commentary on what's actually in the article rather than ancillary issues and on-going "partisan" debates.

Just so, Duke.

I haven't seen any on your article as yet.

Wonder why?

Maybe eveytbody agrees with you now.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miles,

You said:

"A respected luminary, Gary Mack, has abandoned Ed Hoffman's tale as not being credible. Why?"

I'd love to respond. First please advise where this alleged tale of Gary Mack's can be found. Thanks.

Ken

Sorry, Ken.

Nice try, but no dice.

No deflection from Duke's article.

Deal with that.

You mean you can't?

Oh.

(Later, if there is any need to, then I'll tell you exactly what I know about Gary Mack's opinion of Hoffman's alleged tale. Don't worry.)

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miles,

You said:

"A respected luminary, Gary Mack, has abandoned Ed Hoffman's tale as not being credible. Why?"

I'd love to respond. First please advise where this alleged tale of Gary Mack's can be found. Thanks.

Ken

Sorry, Ken.

Nice try, but no dice.

No deflection from Duke's article.

Deal with that.

You mean you can't?

Oh.

(Later, if there is any need to, then I'll tell you exactly what I know about Gary Mack's opinion of Hoffman's alleged tale. Don't worry.)

:)

Miles,

You said:

"Nice try, but no dice. No deflection from Duke's article."

Excuse me, Miles. But the name of this thread is "Ed Hoffman's Activities and Observations," not "Duke's Article." Duke has now started a separate thread devoted to his article and his conclusions.

So let's have it. Where can we find Gary Mack's abandonment of Ed Hoffman's story?

Thanks.

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miles,

You said:

"A respected luminary, Gary Mack, has abandoned Ed Hoffman's tale as not being credible. Why?"

I'd love to respond. First please advise where this alleged tale of Gary Mack's can be found. Thanks.

Ken

Sorry, Ken.

Nice try, but no dice.

No deflection from Duke's article.

Deal with that.

You mean you can't?

Oh.

(Later, if there is any need to, then I'll tell you exactly what I know about Gary Mack's opinion of Hoffman's alleged tale. Don't worry.)

:)

Miles,

You said:

"Nice try, but no dice. No deflection from Duke's article."

Excuse me, Miles. But the name of this thread is "Ed Hoffman's Activities and Observations," not "Duke's Article." Duke has now started a separate thread devoted to his article and his conclusions.

So let's have it. Where can we find Gary Mack's abandonment of Ed Hoffman's story?

Thanks.

Ken

No kiddie games, Ken.

As expected, you are trying to evade Duke's article because you know that it demonstrates that Hoffman's tale is apocryphal nonsense & that you have zero defence.

Gary Mack has told me directly that he does not think Hoffman's story is credible.

But, in addition to that I have e-mails from Gary Mack in which he outlines the reasons that he does not think Hoffman's story is credible.

I am not going to discuss this issue with you any further, or post Gary's e-mails which are highly interesting, until you reply to Duke's article.

Of course, you need not reply to Duke's article if you choose not to.

But, then, what will that say about you & Hoffman?

I think you know what you need to do now.

No more kiddie games, please.

Thanks

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...