Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ed Hoffman's Activities and Observations


Recommended Posts

I’ve been waiting patiently for Miles Scull to respond to my post concerning Dallas Police Officer J.W. Foster’s account of a man running up the railroad tracks from the area of the switch box after the shots were fired. This is a compelling piece of evidence since Miles had contended that there was nothing to support any of Ed Hoffman’s story which included Ed’s recollection of someone running up the railroad tracks from the area of the switch box.

I’ve now learned that Miles’ response has appeared, of all places, in ANOTHER thread where he’s come up with a strange warning known as a Fudge Alert and apparently has included me in a group of “deceitful fudge artists” who will “traduce” a certain other forum member as well as an innocent public.

He goes on to say in his response about Officer Foster:

“A fudge has been attempted by trying to use Foster's report that someone told him that he (someone) had seen a man running up the RR tracks after the assassination. First of all, Ed said & pantomimed that the assistant WALKED away with a tool box. Second, if Ed's story never occurred, as is contended & proved on the logic, then that in no way precludes the occurrence of someone having been seen running along the tracks. Maybe that person was a RR worker or a frightened person or the actual assassin (!), etc., but that person was not an actor as described by Ed's story. That's the point.”

This response by Miles amazes me. He was given, free of charge by JFK Lancer, a copy of Ed’s book so that he would have Ed’s story as told by Ed himself. Miles would then, it was hoped, stop making inaccurate statements about what Ed had said. But Miles hasn’t stopped.

Let’s take a look at the two points Miles is making:

1. “Ed said & pantomimed that the assistant WALKED away with a tool box.”

In his book, Ed says that the “railroad man” RAN along the tracks. Yet Miles has either ignored that statement or failed to read the book since he continues to pass along the incorrect story that Ed’s “railroad man” WALKED away. Miles also fails to acknowledge that the man in Foster’s story began his run from the area of the switch box which further supports Ed’s story.

2. “If Ed's story never occurred, as is contended & proved on the logic, then that in no way precludes the occurrence of someone having been seen running along the tracks. Maybe that person was a RR worker or a frightened person or the actual assassin (!), etc.”

Miles actually admits here that someone still may have been running along the tracks. And he says that person may have been a railroad worker. But that’s just what Ed Hoffman has been saying all along. A person dressed in a railroad outfit was running up the tracks.

So here’s what we have to date:

1. Duke Lane has conceded that there was nothing to obstruct Ed’s view, so he could have seen what he claims to have seen. Miles has yet to acknowledge this as far as I can tell.

2. Seymour Weitzman’s WC testimony supports Ed’s story of a rifle being tossed from “suitman” to “railroad man.”

3. J. C. Foster’s story supports Ed’s story of “railroad man” running from the switch box up the railroad tracks.

4. Numerous witnesses support Ed’s story of a puff of smoke behind the picket fence.

There’s more that can be said about Miles’ misinterpretation of the photographic record, errant timing of film frames and misrepresentation of witness testimony. That will have to come later. But please be aware, nothing will change Miles’ mind. And really, who cares? I don’t. What’s important is to show the Forum membership that Ed’s story does hold up and is supported by the facts and the recollections of others. Thanks to Bill Miller and others for standing behind Ed, and especially to Bill for bringing up valid points and corrections which have not been appreciated or even recognized by Miles.

One more thing. That “deceitful fudge artist” slur and other name calling. They really need to stop.

Ken

Edited by Ken Rheberg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 357
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It is unfortunate that the story of Ed Hoffman raises such high personal emotion. It would be best to confine debate to abstract factual analysis.

Duke said this & he's wrong.

Miles said this & he's wrong.

Why not, instead:

This fact is wrong.

This logic is wrong.

The point I make is: that with so many spectators present at the time in question in very (5 to 15 ft) close proximity to the steam pipe & switch box, as is shown by the Bell film & by an analysis of the Bell film & by assorted other contemporaneous photos, then why did not anyone but Ed Hoffman see anything Ed describes? Ed was 267 yards away. Spectators 15 ft away from the steam pipe & switch box are seen looking at the steam pipe just short seconds after Z-313.

A publication of the Bell film, frame by frame, will prove or disprove the case.

For example, it might be argued: the Bell frames show that the nearby balustrade spectators, who were at the balustrade at 7 seconds post Z-313 as seen in the Bell frames, were looking at the steam pipe & switch box at the time point 45 seconds post Z-313. Therefore, is it reasonable to conclude that Ed's sniper took 45 seconds after Z-313 to reach the steam pipe for the alleged rifle toss. Between Z-313 & the closing of the tool box with disassembled rifle inside, what was the time elapse? 2 minutes? The rifle would have been exposed to plain view during this time.

With regard to the man seen running along the RR tracks, no mention is made that that man was carrying a tool box. He could have been anyone.

I would like to point out that in this post I have not mentioned any member's name. An effort is made to put the case neutrally to the general forum only. I hope that this will preclude personal acrimony. I hope all members will do the same.

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is unfortunate that the story of Ed Hoffman raises such high personal emotion. It would be best to confine debate to abstract factual analysis.

I do not think it is Ed's story that raises such high emotions, but rather the same people constantly misstating it that gets under peoples skin.

Duke said this & he's wrong.

Miles said this & he's wrong.

Why not, instead:

This fact is wrong.

This logic is wrong.

If something someone said is found to have been in error, then their information was not "fact". If a person who relied on something that was found not to be factual, then that person's opinion must also be wrong and should be reassessed based on the established fact. I thought Ken was quite clear on this.

The point I make is: that with so many spectators present at the time in question in very (5 to 15 ft) close proximity to the steam pipe & switch box, as is shown by the Bell film & by an analysis of the Bell film & by assorted other contemporaneous photos, then why did not anyone but Ed Hoffman see anything Ed describes? Ed was 267 yards away. Spectators 15 ft away from the steam pipe & switch box are seen looking at the steam pipe just short seconds after Z-313.

Going back to what Ken said ... why continue pushing what has been shown to be faulty logic? Someone beside Ed did see something tossed near the steam pipe and it is mentioned in Weitzman's report. Miles apparently was not even aware of the report, but he has since been made aware of it and yet he continues to ask "why did not anyone but Ed Hoffman see anything Ed describes?" Maybe a better question would be what motive would one have for continually ignoring the evidence presented to them???

For example, it might be argued: the Bell frames show that the nearby balustrade spectators, who were at the balustrade at 7 seconds post Z-313 as seen in the Bell frames, were looking at the steam pipe & switch box at the time point 45 seconds post Z-313.

This point that Miles makes might be argued by using a very poor copy of the Bell Film from Groden's collection, but the 6th Floor Museum who has the original film which is much cleaner and sharper does not show the men in question looking at the steam pipe. So what do we do - go by what the clear film shows or prefer to keep referring to the poor quality fuzzy film so one can keep saying that these men are looking at a steam pipe? I prefer to go with what the clearest images show so to be as accurate as possible with my interpretations, but thats just me.

Therefore, is it reasonable to conclude that Ed's sniper took 45 seconds after Z-313 to reach the steam pipe for the alleged rifle toss. Between Z-313 & the closing of the tool box with disassembled rifle inside, what was the time elapse? 2 minutes? The rifle would have been exposed to plain view during this time.

What was these assertions based on? It took Lane and Holland not 20 seconds to casually and slowly walk from the steam pipe to a position where they were straight out from where the smoke was seen. The question is - would a faster walk even cut the time span down even more ... I think so! Not knowing what kind of gun we are talking about makes it difficult to say how long it would take to break it down. I have a gun that I can break down in a matter of a few seconds. And if someone stopped near the RR box, then if the box was between him and the men on the underpasspass (some with their backs to the RR boxes) - how could they see a gun being taken apart ... especially if they are still watching the confusion going on below in the plaza? Maybe this time I will take Miles advice and say that his logic seems to be wrong.

With regard to the man seen running along the RR tracks, no mention is made that that man was carrying a tool box. He could have been anyone.

Miles, is there any mention that he wasn't carrying a tool box or bag, which the term "bag" is what I thought that Ed used??? And if you admit that this man could have been anyone, then I guess that it could have been the man Ed described and was willing to take a lie detector test over to validate the veracity of his observations.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

overpass2MEN-Sam-Foster2.jpg

Foster is seen to the right of the red line.

Does anyone have any idea what Foster was standing on? This continues to mystify me. There is a person in front of him at the wall, so Foster cannot be standing on any type of railing attached to the wall. He would appear to be hovering in midair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is unfortunate that the story of Ed Hoffman raises such high personal emotion. It would be best to confine debate to abstract factual analysis.

Duke said this & he's wrong.

Miles said this & he's wrong.

Why not, instead:

This fact is wrong.

This logic is wrong.

The point I make is: that with so many spectators present at the time in question in very (5 to 15 ft) close proximity to the steam pipe & switch box, as is shown by the Bell film & by an analysis of the Bell film & by assorted other contemporaneous photos, then why did not anyone but Ed Hoffman see anything Ed describes? Ed was 267 yards away. Spectators 15 ft away from the steam pipe & switch box are seen looking at the steam pipe just short seconds after Z-313.

A publication of the Bell film, frame by frame, will prove or disprove the case.

For example, it might be argued: the Bell frames show that the nearby balustrade spectators, who were at the balustrade at 7 seconds post Z-313 as seen in the Bell frames, were looking at the steam pipe & switch box at the time point 45 seconds post Z-313. Therefore, is it reasonable to conclude that Ed's sniper took 45 seconds after Z-313 to reach the steam pipe for the alleged rifle toss. Between Z-313 & the closing of the tool box with disassembled rifle inside, what was the time elapse? 2 minutes? The rifle would have been exposed to plain view during this time.

With regard to the man seen running along the RR tracks, no mention is made that that man was carrying a tool box. He could have been anyone.

I would like to point out that in this post I have not mentioned any member's name. An effort is made to put the case neutrally to the general forum only. I hope that this will preclude personal acrimony. I hope all members will do the same.

This capture shows men (red oval) who are looking at the switch box & steam pipe at 40 seconds after Z-313.

BellRunningMan2-3.png[/size]

Sam Holland is on record that the parking lot was a sea of cars parked bumper to bumper at various angles requiring a person to thread his way through as passage. Sam said that he had to jump & vault over cars to make his way to the spot where he saw the smoke. Does it seem logical that Hoffman's alleged sniper would have an easier time navigating through this sea of cars than did Sam Holland, WHEN HOFFMAN'S SNIPER WAS CARRYING A RIFLE AT PORT ARMS as Hoffman pantomimes he did? :lol:

People were standing within 5 to 15 feet away the steam pipe & switch box at Z-313 & these people stayed in that position for 2 minutes. Hoffman was 225 YARDS away from the steam pipe at Z-313 & the for 2 minutes after z-313.

Ed's alleged sniper at Z-313 begins, at Z-313, to move down through the sea of cars with his rifle in plain view. Seconds are slowly ticking by. After 40 seconds he reaches the steam pipe. Now people watch him toss his rifle into the air. Seconds are ticking by. 60 seconds? The standing spectators watch a man catch a rifle & then with this rifle in plain view these spectators watch this man walk to the switch box carrying this rifle. Seconds tick by. 90 seconds? Now, let's watch the rifle being broken down. Seconds tick by. Now, close the tool box. There he goes now, running (?) up the tracks tool box in hand. Bye now, see you later, next assassination. :lol:

Of course, NO ONE PERSON saw any of this except Ed, 220 YARDS away.

Of course, this is just one of the many reasons that Gary Mack & other prominent researchers have decided that Hoffman's story is not credible. QED

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

overpass2MEN-Sam-Foster2.jpg

Foster is seen to the right of the red line.

Does anyone have any idea what Foster was standing on? This continues to mystify me. There is a person in front of him at the wall, so Foster cannot be standing on any type of railing attached to the wall. He would appear to be hovering in midair.

Ron,

Go to post #101 of this thread and look at the third photo down from the top .... I believe that it will answer your question.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go to post #101 of this thread and look at the third photo down from the top .... I believe that it will answer your question.

[/b]

Thanks. I assume you mean Foster was standing on one of the white objects, whatever they are, spaced along the ground between the balustrade and the tracks. That seems dubious to me, because he looks so high in the upward angle of the Altgens (?) photo. Those objects don't look very high, and aren't that close to the balustrade. Standing on one of them, he would have to be 20 feet tall or so to show up as he does in the Altgens photo.

Do you know when that aerial photo in post #101 was taken? It also relates to the question of the tracks ever being raised to any significant degree above ground level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go to post #101 of this thread and look at the third photo down from the top .... I believe that it will answer your question.

[/b]

Thanks. I assume you mean Foster was standing on one of the white objects, whatever they are, spaced along the ground between the balustrade and the tracks. That seems dubious to me, because he looks so high in the upward angle of the Altgens (?) photo. Those objects don't look very high, and aren't that close to the balustrade. Standing on one of them, he would have to be 20 feet tall or so to show up as he does in the Altgens photo.

Do you know when that aerial photo in post #101 was taken? It also relates to the question of the tracks ever being raised to any significant degree above ground level.

Ron,

I don't know when that photo was taken because I didn't post it, but a similar view can be seen in Squire Haskins photo which shows up on about page 350 in Trask's book "Pictures of the Pain. Haskins also took several other photos and if I remember correctly - some of them were zoom shots showing the boxes better. Haskins took his photos on the afternoon of the assassination.

As far as how high the boxes look ... I believe I can see the white box through the gaps between the concrete sections of the underpass railing. From what I can tell ... they look to be as high as where the guys feet would start. Take a closer look and see if you do not agree.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is unfortunate that the story of Ed Hoffman raises such high personal emotion. It would be best to confine debate to abstract factual analysis.

Duke said this & he's wrong.

Miles said this & he's wrong.

Why not, instead:

This fact is wrong.

This logic is wrong.

The point I make is: that with so many spectators present at the time in question in very (5 to 15 ft) close proximity to the steam pipe & switch box, as is shown by the Bell film & by an analysis of the Bell film & by assorted other contemporaneous photos, then why did not anyone but Ed Hoffman see anything Ed describes? Ed was 267 yards away. Spectators 15 ft away from the steam pipe & switch box are seen looking at the steam pipe just short seconds after Z-313.

A publication of the Bell film, frame by frame, will prove or disprove the case.

For example, it might be argued: the Bell frames show that the nearby balustrade spectators, who were at the balustrade at 7 seconds post Z-313 as seen in the Bell frames, were looking at the steam pipe & switch box at the time point 45 seconds post Z-313. Therefore, is it reasonable to conclude that Ed's sniper took 45 seconds after Z-313 to reach the steam pipe for the alleged rifle toss. Between Z-313 & the closing of the tool box with disassembled rifle inside, what was the time elapse? 2 minutes? The rifle would have been exposed to plain view during this time.

With regard to the man seen running along the RR tracks, no mention is made that that man was carrying a tool box. He could have been anyone.

I would like to point out that in this post I have not mentioned any member's name. An effort is made to put the case neutrally to the general forum only. I hope that this will preclude personal acrimony. I hope all members will do the same.

This capture shows men (red oval) who are looking at the switch box & steam pipe at 40 seconds after Z-313.

BellRunningMan2-3.png[/size]

Sam Holland is on record that the parking lot was a sea of cars parked bumper to bumper at various angles requiring a person to thread his way through as passage. Sam said that he had to jump & vault over cars to make his way to the spot where he saw the smoke. Does it seem logical that Hoffman's alleged sniper would have an easier time navigating through this sea of cars than did Sam Holland, WHEN HOFFMAN'S SNIPER WAS CARRYING A RIFLE AT PORT ARMS as Hoffman pantomimes he did? :huh:

People were standing within 5 to 15 feet away the steam pipe & switch box at Z-313 & these people stayed in that position for 2 minutes. Hoffman was 225 YARDS away from the steam pipe at Z-313 & the for 2 minutes after z-313.

Ed's alleged sniper at Z-313 begins, at Z-313, to move down through the sea of cars with his rifle in plain view. Seconds are slowly ticking by. After 40 seconds he reaches the steam pipe. Now people watch him toss his rifle into the air. Seconds are ticking by. 60 seconds? The standing spectators watch a man catch a rifle & then with this rifle in plain view these spectators watch this man walk to the switch box carrying this rifle. Seconds tick by. 90 seconds? Now, let's watch the rifle being broken down. Seconds tick by. Now, close the tool box. There he goes now, running (?) up the tracks tool box in hand. Bye now, see you later, next assassination. :up

Of course, NO ONE PERSON saw any of this except Ed, 220 YARDS away.

Of course, this is just one of the many reasons that Gary Mack & other prominent researchers have decided that Hoffman's story is not credible. QED

Miles,

I mentioned in my last post that your timing of film frames was in error. Please explain how you came up with 40 seconds as the time of the Bell frame you posted above showing Tom Atkins running down Elm Street after camera car #1 (the same frame where you claim two men on the overpass were looking in the direction of the steam pipe).

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been waiting patiently for Miles Scull to respond to my post concerning Dallas Police Officer J.W. Foster's account of a man running up the railroad tracks from the area of the switch box after the shots were fired. This is a compelling piece of evidence since Miles had contended that there was nothing to support any of Ed Hoffman's story which included Ed's recollection of someone running up the railroad tracks from the area of the switch box.

It would be more compelling if it could be found. Foster's testimony runs for 5½ pages (6H248-53), and nowhere does he mention any such thing. Neither does Officer JC White, who was stationed on the west side of the overpass and whose testimony immediately follows Foster's. There is no report filed by him in any of the available WC evidence that I've been able to find.

As close as Foster gets to testifying to such an event is this exchange on page 251 (which doesn't say he saw anyone running "from the area of the switch box" at all):

Mr. FOSTER. After he came onto Elm I was watching the men up on the track more than I was him. Then I heard a loud noise, sound like a large firecracker. Kind of dumbfounded at first, and then heard the second one. I moved to the banister of the overpass to see what was happening. Then the third explosion, and they were beginning to move around. I ran after I saw what was happening.

Mr. BALL. What did you see was happening?

Mr. FOSTER. Saw the President slump over in the car, and his head looked just like it blew up.

Mr. BALL. You saw that, did you?

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. And what did you do then?

Mr. FOSTER. Well, at that time
I broke and ran around to my right--to the left--around to the bookstore
.

Mr. BALL. Now, did you have any opinion at that time as to the source of the sounds,
the direction of the sounds?

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What?

Mr. FOSTER. It came from
back in toward the corner of Elm and Houston Streets.

Mr. BALL. That was your impression at that time?

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL.
Was any shot fired from the overpass?

Mr. FOSTER. No, sir.

Mr. BALL.
Did you see anyone with a weapon there?

Mr. FOSTER. No, sir.

Mr. BALL.
Or did you hear any sound that appeared to come from the overpass?

Mr. FOSTER. No, sir.

Mr. BALL.
Where did you go from there?

Mr. FOSTER. Went on around the back side of the bookstore.

Mr. BALL.
Immediately?

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Did you see anybody coming out of that side of the bookstore?

Mr. FOSTER. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. Back side? What do you mean by that?

Mr. FOSTER. Well, I guess you would say the northwest side of it.

Mr. BALL. Were there any people in the railroad yards around the bookstore at that time?

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. There was a pretty good crowd beginning to gather back in that area.

Mr. BALL. At that time?

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Had you seen anybody over at the railroad yard north and west of the bookstore before you heard the shots fired?

Mr. FOSTER. No; other than people that had come up there and I sent them back down the roadway.

Mr. BALL. I See. People had attempted to get on the overpass there?

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. And you had sent them away?

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. When you got over to the School Book Depository Building, what did you do? ....

Perhaps I've missed something, or maybe you're thinking of someone else?

So here's what we have to date:

1. Duke Lane has conceded that there was nothing to obstruct Ed's view, so he could have seen what he claims to have seen. Miles has yet to acknowledge this as far as I can tell. ...

Let's be careful with the "conceded" bit. I never stated one way or the other if anyone could've seen from one point to the other in 1963. I may have said that you cannot today, and only used a current sat-pic to show the locations of where Ed was supposed to have been, not to "prove" that there was no line of sight 45 years ago.

2. Seymour Weitzman's WC testimony supports Ed's story of a rifle being tossed from "suitman" to "railroad man."

Weitzman testified for four pages. His entire testimony about anything that occurred within Ed's sight is found at 7H106-107, it being in full:

Mr. BALL. What did you do then?

Mr. WEITZMAN. I immediately ran toward the President's car. Of course, it was speeding away and somebody said the shots or the firecrackers, whatever it was at that time, we still didn't know the President was shot, came from the wall. I immediately scaled that wall.

Mr. BALL. What is the location of that wall?

Mr. WEITZMAN. It would be between the railroad overpass and I can't remember the name of that little street that runs off Elm; it's cater-corner--the section there between the--what do you call it--the monument section?

Mr. BALL. That's where Elm actually dead ends?

Mr. WEITZMAN. Yes, sir; I scaled the wall and, apparently, my hands grabbed steampipes. I burned them.

Mr. BALL. Did you go into the railroad yards?

Mr. WEITZMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What did you notice in the railroad yards?

Mr. WEITZMAN. We noticed numerous kinds of footprints that did not make sense because they were going different directions.

Mr. BALL. Were there other people there besides you?

Mr. WEITZMAN. Yes, sir; other officers, Secret Service as well, and somebody started, there was something red in the street and I went back over the wall and somebody brought me a piece of what he thought to be a firecracker and it turned out to be, I believe, I wouldn't quote this, but I turned it over to one of the Secret Service men and I told them it should go to the lab because it looked to me like human bone. I later found out it was supposedly a portion of the President's skull.

Mr. BALL. That you picked up off the street?

Mr. WEITZMAN. Yes.

Mr. BALL. What part of the street did you pick this up?

Mr. WEITZMAN. As the President's car was going off, it would be on the left-hand side of the street. It would be the--

Again, perhaps I've missed something, or maybe you're thinking of someone else, but I don't see anything about a "rifle being tossed" - or anything at all being tossed, passed, handed off, or anything like that - in Seymour Weitzman's testimony, or any "support" for Ed's story ... except maybe that there were steam pipes in the railroad yard, which I don't think anyone is debating.

Or are you suggesting that the "numerous kinds of footprints ... going different directions" somehow relates to two particular people doing a particular thing in a particular place? He didn't even say where in the railroad yards he noticed them, so there's no "support" for Ed's story there other than that, at some point, two ... or three ... or four ... or more ("numerous") people were somewhere behind the fence or "in the railroad yards."

Help me out here ....

There's more that can be said about Miles' misinterpretation of the photographic record, errant timing of film frames and misrepresentation of witness testimony. ... What's important is to show the Forum membership that Ed's story does hold up and is supported by the facts and the recollections of others. Thanks to Bill Miller and others for standing behind Ed, and especially to Bill for bringing up valid points and corrections which have not been appreciated or even recognized by Miles.

One more thing. That "deceitful fudge artist" slur and other name calling. They really need to stop.

With absolutely every bit of respect that is due, I'm not certain that there's a lot of room for complaint about "misrepresentation of witness testimony" by Miles, or much of a case to be made for your "show[ing] the Forum membership that Ed's story does hold up and is supported by the facts," at least not the ones you've referenced in this post.

If you have a moment, please dig up the correct references and let me know who they were since they're clearly not Foster and Weitzman, and then we'll see what they've got to say.

... And by the way, what exactly does a "fudge artist" do, anyway? Is it anything like a "spinmeister?"

I have been dutifully silent about my criticisms of what Ed actually said in his book pending a response to the questions I'd posed to the publisher, presumably to be relayed to Ed for response and explanation. I'll give it a couple of more weeks, and then we'll deal with what's IN ED'S BOOK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be careful with the "conceded" bit. I never stated one way or the other if anyone could've seen from one point to the other in 1963. I may have said that you cannot today, and only used a current sat-pic to show the locations of where Ed was supposed to have been, not to "prove" that there was no line of sight 45 years ago.

Post #102 of this thread -

Duke Lane: This is also one that shows the lack of vegetation (trees) between the highway (behind McIntyre as he shot this photo, and ahead of the motorcycles in the foreground) and the railroad yards beside the TSBD. This at least proves that Ed Hoffman would've been able to see what he claimed to see if he was where he claims he was.

It would be the-- [/indent]Again, perhaps I've missed something, or maybe you're thinking of someone else, but I don't see anything about a "rifle being tossed" - or anything at all being tossed, passed, handed off, or anything like that - in Seymour Weitzman's testimony, or any "support" for Ed's story ... except maybe that there were steam pipes in the railroad yard, which I don't think anyone is debating.

I can go look for my post if need be, but I am certain that I referenced WEITZMAN'S REPORT. It was in the REPORT where it was said that Weitzman was told by a witness that they seen SOMETHING tossed through the trees over near the steam pipe. It could have been a gun - a broom - a mop - or what ever, but the point I made is that something was seen being tossed by someone other than Ed Hoffman.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can go look for my post if need be, but I am certain that I referenced WEITZMAN'S REPORT. It was in the REPORT where it was said that Weitzman was told by a witness that they seen SOMETHING tossed through the trees over near the steam pipe. It could have been a gun - a broom - a mop - or what ever, but the point I made is that something was seen being tossed by someone other than Ed Hoffman.

Bill Miller[/b]

WEITZMAN'S REPORT ?

What Report?

Let's see this "REPORT", which you constantly refer to but never produce.

Where is it?

Let's see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be careful with the "conceded" bit. I never stated one way or the other if anyone could've seen from one point to the other in 1963. I may have said that you cannot today, and only used a current sat-pic to show the locations of where Ed was supposed to have been, not to "prove" that there was no line of sight 45 years ago.

Post #102 of this thread -

Duke Lane: This is also one that shows the lack of vegetation (trees) between the highway (behind McIntyre as he shot this photo, and ahead of the motorcycles in the foreground) and the railroad yards beside the TSBD. This at least proves that Ed Hoffman would've been able to see what he claimed to see if he was where he claims he was.

Concede: (1) To acknowledge, often reluctantly, as being true, just, or proper; admit. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004)

There was no reluctance about it. I'll concede*, however, to having "agreed" or "acknowledged." :huh:

* (2) to make concession; yield; admit (ibid.)

It would be the--
Again, perhaps I've missed something, or maybe you're thinking of someone else, but I don't see anything about a "rifle being tossed" - or anything at all being tossed, passed, handed off, or anything like that - in Seymour Weitzman's testimony, or any "support" for Ed's story ... except maybe that there were steam pipes in the railroad yard, which I don't think anyone is debating.

I can go look for my post if need be, but I am certain that I referenced WEITZMAN'S REPORT. It was in the REPORT where it was said that Weitzman was told by a witness that they seen SOMETHING tossed through the trees over near the steam pipe. It could have been a gun - a broom - a mop - or what ever, but the point I made is that something was seen being tossed by someone other than Ed Hoffman.

Rather than quoting your reference to a report, can you quote and source the report itself? I don't find anything about Weitzman's report in either Walt Brown's Global Index or Sylvia Meagher's. I'll check CE2003, but it doesn't ring a bell as having been there either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than quoting your reference to a report, can you quote and source the report itself? I don't find anything about Weitzman's report in either Walt Brown's Global Index or Sylvia Meagher's. I'll check CE2003, but it doesn't ring a bell as having been there either.

That is a fair request, Duke .... and I can tell you that it is in the 26 Volumes for I have read it several times in the past. I have spent the better part of the morning doing searchers and I have found references to it, but no the report itself. Seymour Weitzman gave a report telling of this meeting with the man who saw something tossed near the steam pipe. Here is a link for those who wish to look for it ... I will continue to search for it as time allows.

http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/...Vol24_0111a.htm

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than quoting your reference to a report, can you quote and source the report itself? I don't find anything about Weitzman's report in either Walt Brown's Global Index or Sylvia Meagher's. I'll check CE2003, but it doesn't ring a bell as having been there either.

That is a fair request, Duke .... and I can tell you that it is in the 26 Volumes for I have read it several times in the past. I have spent the better part of the morning doing searchers and I have found references to it, but no the report itself. Seymour Weitzman gave a report telling of this meeting with the man who saw something tossed near the steam pipe. Here is a link for those who wish to look for it ... I will continue to search for it as time allows.

http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/...Vol24_0111a.htm

Bill Miller

Is this it?

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol7/page109.php

Kathy

Hi Kathy,

Thanks a bunch for your link! :up Been looking for this exact testimony. :idea This got me thinking, so cobbled some ideas together for you & Duke. What do you guys & Duncan think about this?

The testimony of Seymour Weitzman & that of Austin Miller does not establish that anyone

saw anything thrown near the steam pipe.

Weitzman said:

Mr. BALL - Did you go into the railroad yards?

Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - What did you notice in the railroad yards?

Mr. WEITZMAN - We noticed numerous kinds of footprints that did not make sense because they were going different directions.

Mr. BALL - Were there other people there besides you?

Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; other officers, Secret Service as well, and somebody started, there was something red in the street and I went back over the wall and somebody brought me a piece of what he thought to be a firecracker and it turned out to be, I believe, I wouldn't quote this, but I turned it over to one of the Secret Service men and I told them it should go to the lab because it looked to me like human bone. I later found out it was supposedly a portion of the President's skull.

Mr. BALL - That you picked up off the street?

Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes.

Mr. BALL - What part of the street did you pick this up?

Mr. WEITZMAN - As the President's car was going off, it would be on the left-hand side of the street. It would be the----

Mr. BALL - The left-hand side facing----

Mr. WEITZMAN - That would be the south side of the street.

Mr. BALL - It was on the south side of the street. Was it in the street?

Mr. WEITZMAN - It was in the street itself.

Mr. BALL - On the pavement?

Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Anywhere near the curb?

Mr. WEITZMAN - Approximately, oh, I would say 8 to 12 inches from the curb, something like that.

and

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.

Miller said:

Mr. BELIN - Well, describe what happened. Did you see the motorcade come by?

Mr. MILLER - Yes sir; it came down main street and turned north on Houston Street and went over two blocks and turned left on Elm Street. Got about halfway down the hill going toward the underpass and that is when as I recall the first shot was fired.

Mr. BELIN - Did you know it was a shot when you heard it?

Mr. MILLER - I didn't know it. I thought at first the motorcycle backfiring or somebody throwed some firecrackers out.

Mr. BELIN - Then what did you hear or see?

Mr. MILLER - After the first one, just a few seconds later, there was two more shots fired, or sounded like a sound at the time. I don't know for sure. And it was after that I saw some man in the car fall forward, and a women next to him grab him and hollered, and just what, I don't know exactly what she said.

Mr. BELIN - Then what did you see?

Mr. MILLER - About that time I turned to look toward the - there is a little plaza sitting on the hill. I looked over there to see if anything was there, who through the firecracker or whatever it was, or see if anything was up there, and there wasn't nobody standing there, so I stepped back and looked at the tracks to see if anybody run across the railroad tracks, and there was nobody running across the railroad tracks. So I turned right straight back just in time to see the convertible take off fast.

It's 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 = Austin Miller) 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 else had also 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 would have 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 can be used to 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.)

Now, it is possible to attempt to construe Weitzman's words in a very different way, but this requires a very strained analysis. Weitzman's words on face value carry the meaning: "An object is thrown through a bush by someone, from one side of a bush to its other side; someone else sees this." But, what if another meaning is possible: i.e., "Someone looking through a bush sees something on the other side of the bush, thrown by someone else."? In other words, the yardman was actually reporting to Weitzman that he, while atop the overpass & from the overpass, had seen through a bush something THROWN by someone on the other side of that bush. Well, if that's the case, then certain questions arise. If something was seen moving in air from one point to another point, then what could or would that object have been. A brick? A shoe? A radio? A rifle? A blur? The object is not identified, because Weitzman would have specified the identification in his testimony for the reason that it could be extremely important to the WC to know that a rifle, for example, was seen through the medium of a bush sailing through the air. Also, the location of the bush is not specified. There is no indication that the bush was near the steam pipe. However, on the contrary, Weitzman does say that the yardman reported that the noise (of the firecrackers or the shots) came from "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 steam pipe was; that would be going north back toward the jail." In other words from Holland's sniper spot & not from near the steam pipe. The bush would in fact have been located at Sam Holland's sniper spot, 15 feet from the picket fence's east corner. Another point is that from the words of the testimony how is it known that something was thrown? Was a thrower, a person throwing, seen? No? If so, then again, that person is also not specified. Man? Woman? Short? Tall? Dark complected? White? Hat? No hat? Etc. Had a person, the thrower, been seen & reported to Weitzman, then why no identification or specification? Probably because no person was seen as a thrower. That leaves the observed "something" moving through the air without a thrower, and since the "something" is in flight it is assumed to have been propelled by a throw. It would not, for example, have been a low flying bird. :huh:

In other words, this alternate construing of Weitzman's words is tortured in its implications, so much so as to be not credible.

The natural, face value, reading of Weitzman is much the more plausible & logical.

Going back to the overall testimony of Weitzman & Miller, it is reasonable to reach this construction:

Miller, atop the underpass over Elm, when the shots occur, thinks initially that someone is throwing firecrackers from between the bushes (through the bush) over the fence at Holland's sniper location. Later, Miller tells Weitzman exactly this: that he (Miller) "thought he saw somebody throw something through a bush." That is, firecrackers, or "something" through the bushes. Now, and this is the key point, on hearing this Weitzman says that he immediately acted: "and that's when I went back over the fence and that's when I found the portion of the skull." So, Weitzman, guessing that the red firecracker remnant or "something" important is to be found over the fence, jumps over the wall to find the skull fragment.

Hoffman's account is not supported.

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...