Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Holland Shooter


Guest Duncan MacRae

Recommended Posts

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

Thanks Chris. This must be the relevant testimony.

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.

Of course, it's pretty clear from Weitzman's language that he's describing a sequence of events; one event leads, in his mind, to the next event, and so forth.

The yardman says he (the yardman) saw somebody throw something through a bush. Upon hearing this information from the yardman, Weitzman goes back over the fence to the plaza. It is plausible to suppose that Weitzman is going back over the fence because someone had said that there was something red in the street. But it is also plausible to suppose that Weitzman is also going back over the fence for a secondary reason: to possibly find what was thrown through the bush. From the Mark Lane - S. M. Holland video you can see that there are no bushes near the steam pipe, nor for that matter anywhere along the north side of the picket fence. The bushes are along the south side of the fence, along the fence. So, if someone, about or around the north side of the fence, had thrown (note action verb: throw) something through a bush, then he had to have thrown "that something" over the fence to the plaza. Thus, as Weitzman explains, he then goes back over the fence, as would be logical, to investigate.

The yardman's observations, therefore, were wholly unrelated to Hoffman's story & in no way verify or validate Hoffman's story. (An ancillary point would be the overwhelming probability that if the yardman had seen a rifle being THROWN THROUGH A BUSH, then he would have identified "the something" as a rifle.)

This analysis refutes Bill's contentions. The hatman resting his barrel theory, ipso facto, thus, goes up in smoke. :o

Miles

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Thanks Chris. This must be the relevant testimony.

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.
Of course, it's pretty clear from Weitzman's language that he's describing a sequence of events; one event leads, in his mind, to the next event, and so forth.

The yardman says he (the yardman) saw somebody throw something through a bush. Upon hearing this information from the yardman, Weitzman goes back over the fence to the plaza. It is plausible to suppose that Weitzman is going back over the fence because someone had said that there was something red in the street. But it is also plausible to suppose that Weitzman is also going back over the fence for a secondary reason: to possibly find what was thrown through the bush. From the Mark Lane - S. M. Holland video you can see that there are no bushes near the steam pipe, nor for that matter anywhere along the north side of the picket fence. The bushes are along the south side of the fence, along the fence. So, if someone, about or around the north side of the fence, had thrown (note action verb: throw) something through a bush, then he had to have thrown "that something" over the fence to the plaza. Thus, as Weitzman explains, he then goes back over the fence, as would be logical, to investigate.

The yardman's observations, therefore, were wholly unrelated to Hoffman's story & in no way verify or validate Hoffman's story. (An ancillary point would be the overwhelming probability that if the yardman had seen a rifle being THROWN THROUGH A BUSH, then he would have identified "the something" as a rifle.)

This analysis refutes Bill's contentions. The hatman resting his barrel theory, ipso facto, thus, goes up in smoke. :ph34r:

Miles

Miles, let me say something that I believe you have missed. It is not Weitzman's actions that I was describing as being of some importance concerning Hoffman, but rather what the RR worker had said that he had seen. This is how I see the situation and someone can correct me if they have information to the contrary. First of all - Where was the yard man? Bowers said there were only two men in the area along the fence out in front of his position for Bowers had a perfect view of the area on the RR yard side of the stockade fence. The RR workers seen in the assasination films and photos are seen scattered along the underpass. As I recall, Holland had to vouch for each person being with the RR company. So it seems that the witness was one of the yard men on the underpass who saw something being tossed near the steam pipe. The phrase 'through the trees' doesn't mean IMO that something was thrown through a tree, but rather someone, while looking through the trees/foliage, had saw something thrown near the steam pipe. Now unless there was a some other activity going on in the RR yard near the steam pipe such as a couple of guys playing catch or anything else that called for things being tossed ... it seems mighty somewhat interesting to me that Hoffman also described something being thrown near the steam pipe while being more specific as to when it occurred. Hoffman could have said he saw someone put something in the trunk of a car, but he said that the man took the weapon to the steam pipe and tossed it off to someone else. Combine this with Hoffman wanting to be given a lie detector examination - which would ruin his credibility if he failed the test - there seems to be evidence that Ed is sincere in his claims.

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

Thanks Chris. This must be the relevant testimony.

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.
Of course, it's pretty clear from Weitzman's language that he's describing a sequence of events; one event leads, in his mind, to the next event, and so forth.

The yardman says he (the yardman) saw somebody throw something through a bush. Upon hearing this information from the yardman, Weitzman goes back over the fence to the plaza. It is plausible to suppose that Weitzman is going back over the fence because someone had said that there was something red in the street. But it is also plausible to suppose that Weitzman is also going back over the fence for a secondary reason: to possibly find what was thrown through the bush. From the Mark Lane - S. M. Holland video you can see that there are no bushes near the steam pipe, nor for that matter anywhere along the north side of the picket fence. The bushes are along the south side of the fence, along the fence. So, if someone, about or around the north side of the fence, had thrown (note action verb: throw) something through a bush, then he had to have thrown "that something" over the fence to the plaza. Thus, as Weitzman explains, he then goes back over the fence, as would be logical, to investigate.

The yardman's observations, therefore, were wholly unrelated to Hoffman's story & in no way verify or validate Hoffman's story. (An ancillary point would be the overwhelming probability that if the yardman had seen a rifle being THROWN THROUGH A BUSH, then he would have identified "the something" as a rifle.)

This analysis refutes Bill's contentions. The hatman resting his barrel theory, ipso facto, thus, goes up in smoke. :ph34r:

Miles

Miles, let me say something that I believe you have missed. It is not Weitzman's actions that I was describing as being of some importance concerning Hoffman, but rather what the RR worker had said that he had seen. This is how I see the situation and someone can correct me if they have information to the contrary. First of all - Where was the yard man? Bowers said there were only two men in the area along the fence out in front of his position for Bowers had a perfect view of the area on the RR yard side of the stockade fence. The RR workers seen in the assasination films and photos are seen scattered along the underpass. As I recall, Holland had to vouch for each person being with the RR company. So it seems that the witness was one of the yard men on the underpass who saw something being tossed near the steam pipe. The phrase 'through the trees' doesn't mean IMO that something was thrown through a tree, but rather someone, while looking through the trees/foliage, had saw something thrown near the steam pipe. Now unless there was a some other activity going on in the RR yard near the steam pipe such as a couple of guys playing catch or anything else that called for things being tossed ... it seems mighty somewhat interesting to me that Hoffman also described something being thrown near the steam pipe while being more specific as to when it occurred. Hoffman could have said he saw someone put something in the trunk of a car, but he said that the man took the weapon to the steam pipe and tossed it off to someone else. Combine this with Hoffman wanting to be given a lie detector examination - which would ruin his credibility if he failed the test - there seems to be evidence that Ed is sincere in his claims.

Bill

Bill, I think you have proved yourself to be in deep error here.

1.) You use the phrase 'through the trees,' but no one ever used this phrase. The phrase used by the yardman was quite specific: "something through a bush." By departing from Weitzman's language, Bill, you are beginning to fudge again, perhaps accidentally. :ice

2.) Hoffman had 20 years to arrange a lie detector examination of himself. But he did NOT arrange such a test. Hoffman knew that such tests are difficult to administer to deaf mutes. He knew that he could run the risk of volunteering to take such a test (which would have exposed him to be a charlatan) because he knew he would never take one. This consideration further discredits Hoffman, who is already a poster boy for "the unreliable witness." For additional discussion of funny fudging , see Jacques Offenbach's "The Tales of Hoffmann."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, I think you have proved yourself to be in deep error here.

1.) You use the phrase 'through the trees,' but no one ever used this phrase. The phrase used by the yardman was quite specific: "something through a bush." By departing from Weitzman's language, Bill, you are beginning to fudge again, perhaps accidentally. :ph34r:

2.) Hoffman had 20 years to arrange a lie detector examination of himself. But he did NOT arrange such a test. Hoffman knew that such tests are difficult to administer to deaf mutes. He knew that he could run the risk of volunteering to take such a test (which would have exposed him to be a charlatan) because he knew he would never take one. This consideration further discredits Hoffman, who is already a poster boy for "the unreliable witness." For additional discussion of funny fudging , see Jacques Offenbach's "The Tales of Hoffmann."

On reconsidering & to take Bill seriously, it might be worth considering, FWIW(?), the interpretation of the yardman's report to Weitzman as proposed by Bill:

The yardman was actually reporting to Weitzman that he, while atop the overpass & from the overpass, had seen through a bush (read "a bush" to mean "a screen of foliage," which reading is clearly a tortured stretch, of course)..., that he the yardman had seen something THROWN by someone.

This line of conjecture contains a flaw. The verb ''THROWN" is the operative action verb. How did the yardman know something had been THROWN? From the view point of the overpass, judging from the Nix film, it would have been possible to see, through the foliage, a person walking west along the fence & to see such a person throw (or toss as Hoffman might say) a rifle, or something (!), to another man. If the viewer told Weitzman that he had seen something thrown by someone, then Hoffman's characterization of a two handed toss forward at a height below shoulder height becomes dubious as the fence is 5 feet. Would the assassin want to advertise his presence by tossing a rifle higher than the fence height, so it could be seen sailing through the air? Ah, the flying rifle theory! This would be foolhardy, as the overpass spectators had a view from elevation. Was there a toss?

Richard C. Dodd, who had been standing with Holland atop the overpass at the time of Z-313, ran to the steamline pipe & electrical boxes & there met a RR special agent who had been in that area & not on the overpass at Z-313. This means that this agent could have been the yardman who reported to Weitzman he had seen something thrown. Since the agent was in the yard area at Z-313, then it is logical to suppose that other yardmen were in that area, working, at Z-313. Any of these could have reported to Weitzman seeing some thing thrown; their view would have been from the north side of the fence.

Something else to consider is the timing. If the sniper tossed his rifle to an assistant, then where exactly did the toss occur? If it was east of the steamline pipe, then did the assistant jump over the steam line to get to the electrical box; or did he duck under the steamline with the rifle in hand. Did the toss occur at the steamline, the rifle being tossed over the line? A lot of time is being consumed. Why then would not the RR agent Dodd met have seen the assistant carrying a rifle, breaking down a rifle & walking away with a bag? Indeed, why would not the running Holland have seen the assistant or any yardman working in the yard not have seen the assistant? Why would a professional sniper team run such a risk of exposure, even if the assistant was dressed yardman cloths? Wasn't Lee Bowers staring at the fence? Was it because there never was an assistant? :ice

One thing I find puzzling & incredible in Hoffman's testimony. He says that shortly after the assassination he approached FBI & DP to tell them what he had seen. He says he had great difficulty communicating to them his knowledge in his excited state. Hoffman says these men didn't seen to want to understand him & that they offered him money to go away. Offered him money to go away? :ph34r:

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, I think you have proved yourself to be in deep error here.

1.) You use the phrase 'through the trees,' but no one ever used this phrase. The phrase used by the yardman was quite specific: "something through a bush." By departing from Weitzman's language, Bill, you are beginning to fudge again, perhaps accidentally. :D

Possibly, but I am certain that I have read a report - not WC testimony - where the word "trees" was used.
2.) Hoffman had 20 years to arrange a lie detector examination of himself. But he did NOT arrange such a test. Hoffman knew that such tests are difficult to administer to deaf mutes. He knew that he could run the risk of volunteering to take such a test (which would have exposed him to be a charlatan) because he knew he would never take one. This consideration further discredits Hoffman, who is already a poster boy for "the unreliable witness." For additional discussion of funny fudging, see Jacques Offenbach's "The Tales of Hoffmann."

But Hoffman DID want to be given a test from the beginning, but he was told that it was not possible to test a deaf mute. How many times have you spoken to Ed Hoffman and/or his immediate family?

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] The phrase 'through the trees' doesn't mean IMO that something was thrown through a tree, but rather someone, while looking through the trees/foliage, had (seen) something thrown[...]
(emphasis added)

_________________

Good point.

_________________

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miles: "One thing I find puzzling & incredible in Hoffman's testimony. He says that shortly after the assassination he approached FBI & DP to tell them what he had seen. He says he had great difficulty communicating to them his knowledge in his excited state. Hoffman says these men didn't seen to want to understand him & that they offered him money to go away. Offered him money to go away?"

FWIW

This is one I think I can possibly understand having worked with people with various disabilities and seeing them interact with people who have little such experience. A deaf mute, with difficulties making him/her self understood, excited and wanting to communicate could very well simply come across as someone who 'wants'. People tend to project their own 'want reasons', so this may simply be a wrong judgement on the part of these people that this (to them) apparently 'defective' individual expressing an agitated 'want' is in need, in this case, of money.

Perhaps they had prior experiences of people approaching them like this begging, and since they were focusing totally elsewhere (the assassination) just jumped to the simplest conclusion that seemed to resolve a situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miles: "One thing I find puzzling & incredible in Hoffman's testimony. He says that shortly after the assassination he approached FBI & DP to tell them what he had seen. He says he had great difficulty communicating to them his knowledge in his excited state. Hoffman says these men didn't seen to want to understand him & that they offered him money to go away. Offered him money to go away?"

FWIW

This is one I think I can possibly understand having worked with people with various disabilities and seeing them interact with people who have little such experience. A deaf mute, with difficulties making him/her self understood, excited and wanting to communicate could very well simply come across as someone who 'wants'. People tend to project their own 'want reasons', so this may simply be a wrong judgment on the part of these people that this (to them) apparently 'defective' individual expressing an agitated 'want' is in need, in this case, of money.

Perhaps they had prior experiences of people approaching them like this begging, and since they were focusing totally elsewhere (the assassination) just jumped to the simplest conclusion that seemed to resolve a situation.

___________________________________

John,

Very astute observation on your part. Makes Hoffman even more credible to me simply because he included this potentially "unbelievable" detail in his testimony! (Why? Well, because it was true!)

A long time ago I came to the conclusion that although a deaf mute like Hoffman wouldn't necessarily make a great witness (difficulty in communicating with authorities after an incident), he or she would make one hell of a good observer and rememberer of visual phenomena which "normal" people might miss due to their being distracted by loud sounds (like gunshots and shouting and screaming, for example)...

--Thomas

___________________________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Hoffman DID want to be given a test from the beginning, but he was told that it was not possible to test a deaf mute.

Bill

Polygraphing techniques for the deaf have been around since the 60s & have been refined over the years (Dr. Matte: "A Technique for Polygraphing the Deaf." Polygraph, Vol. 2, Nr.3, 1980. Journal of the American Polygraph Association.)

Ed, in The Men Who Killed Kennedy(1988), looked intelligent, prosperous & well educated, driving a not inexpensive car.

Deaf mutes use sign language which enables them to communicate very effectively with non-signing hearing & speaking people. Why? Just to give only one reason, deaf mutes are introduced to non-signing hearing & speaking people from their earliest years & learn ways & means to communicate with same. It becomes a life study.

For example, Ed, on approaching an FBI or DPD officer would have showed a posture of someone shooting a rifle & then he would have pointed to the RR yard & then perhaps he would have pointed to his eye suggesting that he had seen a marksman. The officer, having the recent gunfire on his mind, would not think this pantomime was a request for alms, would he? The officer might have been in a hurry. But would he have said: Here, take $5.00 & good day to you? :huh: True, the FBI officer might have been thinking: Oh, no, an eyewitness, better lose this guy, but fast... he could blow the lid on the whole op.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miles: "One thing I find puzzling & incredible in Hoffman's testimony. He says that shortly after the assassination he approached FBI & DP to tell them what he had seen. He says he had great difficulty communicating to them his knowledge in his excited state. Hoffman says these men didn't seen to want to understand him & that they offered him money to go away. Offered him money to go away?"

FWIW

This is one I think I can possibly understand having worked with people with various disabilities and seeing them interact with people who have little such experience. A deaf mute, with difficulties making him/her self understood, excited and wanting to communicate could very well simply come across as someone who 'wants'. People tend to project their own 'want reasons', so this may simply be a wrong judgement on the part of these people that this (to them) apparently 'defective' individual expressing an agitated 'want' is in need, in this case, of money.

Perhaps they had prior experiences of people approaching them like this begging, and since they were focusing totally elsewhere (the assassination) just jumped to the simplest conclusion that seemed to resolve a situation.

Consider as well that witnesses who were not deaf mutes also found the FBI and other branches of the investigation team uninterested in hearing what they had to say. Hoffman's circumstances just made it easier to blow him off.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miles: "One thing I find puzzling & incredible in Hoffman's testimony. He says that shortly after the assassination he approached FBI & DP to tell them what he had seen. He says he had great difficulty communicating to them his knowledge in his excited state. Hoffman says these men didn't seen to want to understand him & that they offered him money to go away. Offered him money to go away?"

FWIW

This is one I think I can possibly understand having worked with people with various disabilities and seeing them interact with people who have little such experience. A deaf mute, with difficulties making him/her self understood, excited and wanting to communicate could very well simply come across as someone who 'wants'. People tend to project their own 'want reasons', so this may simply be a wrong judgement on the part of these people that this (to them) apparently 'defective' individual expressing an agitated 'want' is in need, in this case, of money.

Perhaps they had prior experiences of people approaching them like this begging, and since they were focusing totally elsewhere (the assassination) just jumped to the simplest conclusion that seemed to resolve a situation.

Consider as well that witnesses who were not deaf mutes also found the FBI and other branches of the investigation team uninterested in hearing what they had to say. Hoffman's circumstances just made it easier to blow him off.

Bill

Good point.

My critique of Ed is that given his scenario, the assistanant would have been seen & caught in the act by a special agent of the Katy RR whom R. C. Dodd met as he ran to the north of the overpass immediately after the limo passed under the overpass.

Ed also counted only 4 figures on the overpass, when there were actually many more. :huh:

See: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hoffman.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My critique of Ed is that given his scenario, the assistanant would have been seen & caught in the act by a special agent of the Katy RR whom R. C. Dodd met as he ran to the north of the overpass immediately after the limo passed under the overpass.

Ed also counted only 4 figures on the overpass, when there were actually many more. :huh:

I have to smile when watching your responses. Despite what anyone says ... the assasination films and photos do not show anyone hurrying off the underpas following the shooting. In fact, I believe that either Simmons or Holland told Lane that it took about two minutes for them to get to the spot where they found the cigarette butts on the ground. The word "immediately" is a type of word that offers a wide variety of interpretations pertaining to spaces in time ... none being specific.

I think that I would not want to bet on the accuracy of second hand accounts, especially if written by law officials. Mrs. Hartman tells the FBI that the furrow in the grass that she saw led back to the large tree on the knoll ... the report says that Mrs. Hartman claimed the furrow led back to the TSBD. Rowland tells the FBI that he also saw a black man on the snipers floor and the FBI tells a little different version. By the way, Ed is intelligent, but because of his handicap ... he had trouble getting his messages out because of his poor use of the English language. Then interpreters repeated what they often think Ed was saying and it is then that the truth starts getting lost in my opinion. Just as an example is the alleged different versions Ed is supposed to have given. Most anyone can keep a story straight, thus what I see in Ed's case is constant miscommunications, but not so much due to Ed, but rather by those who are trying to interpret his words and repeating them incorrectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My critique of Ed is that given his scenario, the assistant would have been seen & caught in the act by a special agent of the Katy RR whom R. C. Dodd met as he ran to the north of the overpass immediately after the limo passed under the overpass.

Ed also counted only 4 figures on the overpass, when there were actually many more. :lol:

I have to smile when watching your responses. Despite what anyone says ... the assasination films and photos do not show anyone hurrying off the underpas following the shooting. In fact, I believe that either Simmons or Holland told Lane that it took about two minutes for them to get to the spot where they found the cigarette butts on the ground. The word "immediately" is a type of word that offers a wide variety of interpretations pertaining to spaces in time ... none being specific.

I think that I would not want to bet on the accuracy of second hand accounts, especially if written by law officials. Mrs. Hartman tells the FBI that the furrow in the grass that she saw led back to the large tree on the knoll ... the report says that Mrs. Hartman claimed the furrow led back to the TSBD. Rowland tells the FBI that he also saw a black man on the snipers floor and the FBI tells a little different version. By the way, Ed is intelligent, but because of his handicap ... he had trouble getting his messages out because of his poor use of the English language. Then interpreters repeated what they often think Ed was saying and it is then that the truth starts getting lost in my opinion. Just as an example is the alleged different versions Ed is supposed to have given. Most anyone can keep a story straight, thus what I see in Ed's case is constant miscommunications, but not so much due to Ed, but rather by those who are trying to interpret his words and repeating them incorrectly.

Yeah, I too have a soft spot in my heart for good ol' Ed, but, unfortunately, the bumper to bumper parked cars parked adjacent to & along the north side of the picket fence, the fact that the switch boxes were so close to the north side of the overpass, the presence of the Katy RR agent already standing by the switch boxes at Z-313, even the intervening trains blocking Ed's view, and all the other contradictions in Ed's story indicate what Ed's father knew about his son: that he could make up stories & often did, as in this case.

Don't forget the "resting the barrel" theory is apocryphal in a Hoffman kind of way. Snake oil huckstering in ol' Texas days gone by. :lol:

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I too have a soft spot in my heart for good ol' Ed, but, unfortunately, the bumper to bumper parked cars parked adjacent to & along the north side of the picket fence, the fact that the switch boxes were so close to the north side of the overpass, the presence of the Katy RR agent already standing by the switch boxes at Z-313, even the intervening trains blocking Ed's view, and all the other contradictions in Ed's story indicate what Ed's father knew about his son: that he could make up stories & often did, as in this case.
Miles, have you ev er been to Dealey Plaza to know whether or not the criticisms you cite are valid or not???
Don't forget the "resting the barrel" theory is apocryphal in a Hoffman kind of way. Snake oil huckstering in ol' Texas days gone by.

Your position that we are talking about highly trained marksmen and what they nwould and would not do doesn't wash with me, thus none of us have any idea as to how they used their weapons. My biggest hang-up is that the car was never moving more than 11 mph on Elm Street and we have witnesses to bullets hitting JFK in the throat - Connally near his armpit - dings off the chrome strip and possibly the windshield - bullets sparking off the street or furrowing into the south pasture - and a bullet missing the limo altogether and striking the curb near James Tague. These are the types of missed shots that I would expect an experienced shooter to screw up and is why I think that your idea as to how a shot was fired from the knoll is only a guess on your part and nothing more.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I too have a soft spot in my heart for good ol' Ed, but, unfortunately, the bumper to bumper parked cars parked adjacent to & along the north side of the picket fence, the fact that the switch boxes were so close to the north side of the overpass, the presence of the Katy RR agent already standing by the switch boxes at Z-313, even the intervening trains blocking Ed's view, and all the other contradictions in Ed's story indicate what Ed's father knew about his son: that he could make up stories & often did, as in this case.

Don't forget the "resting the barrel" theory is apocryphal in a Hoffman kind of way. Snake oil huckstering in ol' Texas days gone by.

Your position that we are talking about highly trained marksmen and what they nwould and would not do doesn't wash with me, thus none of us have any idea as to how they used their weapons. My biggest hang-up is that the car was never moving more than 11 mph on Elm Street and we have witnesses to bullets hitting JFK in the throat - Connally near his armpit - dings off the chrome strip and possibly the windshield - bullets sparking off the street or furrowing into the south pasture - and a bullet missing the limo altogether and striking the curb near James Tague. These are the types of missed shots that I would expect an experienced shooter to screw up and is why I think that your idea as to how a shot was fired from the knoll is only a guess on your part and nothing more.

Bill

Take a look:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/dpmap63.htm

On the third map down down the page you can see where Ed claims he was positioned to see the assassin shoot:

On March 28, 1977, Virgil E. Hoffman accompanied Special Agent [REDACTED]to Stemmons Freeway, also known as Interstate Highway 35 North, Dallas, Texas.

Hoffman communicated that he was driving a 1962 Ford Falcon on November 22, 1963. He parked his car on the west shoulder of Stemmons Freeway at the northbound lane near the Texas and Pacific Railroad overpass that crosses Stemmons Freeway.

Thus, Ed's field of vision was over the intervening RR tracks. As can be seen in the third aerial photo shown on the page shown there is a train on the tracks blocking Ed's view of the picket fence. At Z-313 there were trains on the same tracks which blocked Ed's view of the picket fence & the assassin.

Film footage shot immediately after the assassination shows trains blocking Ed's view. See: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/film/yard.wmv

Accounts by Chauncey Holt, et al., attest to the trains on the tracks. There is additional photographic evidence posted here on the forum showing trains seen through the pergola & behind the pergola. Etc... Was Ed ever there?

...and is why I think that your idea as to how a shot was fired from the knoll is only a guess on your part and nothing more.

The "resting the barrel theory" is a quess & a bad one. The experienced sniper, cautiously & on fundamental operating procedure grounds, holding his rifle free from contact with any limiting obstructions is the reality. Remember, the sniper does not know how the car & the target within the car will move. He must give himself optimum chances to succeed. The sniper is not an amatuer.

Edited by Miles Scull
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...