Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ed Hoffman's Activities and Observations


Recommended Posts

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

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

It is not improper to question his INTERPRETATION of what he saw. He has

reported WHAT HE SAW to the best of his ability. The possibility exists that

what he saw was some activity unrelated to the assassination, as suspicious

as it seemed to him.

Jack

Well said Jack!

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

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

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

M

I believe Ed's story.

I do not believe ANYTHING about Sarti.

Jack

Jack

Pants on fire!

You believe Sarti was a person, and, not to engage in purposeless nit picking, that really is something!

But, never mind. :D

M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 357
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I thought this might be useful to some that haven't seen it for a while(or before).

The view Thompson had from Bower's position, circa '66 I think.

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

You'll note the posts seperating the different "car lots", the one nearest the picket fence was let to the DPD "I think".

The other thing is, Bowers.

He made it clear to Mark Lane that "these two men" were not behind the fence(on the north side) but nearer the street.

I feel now he was talking about Hudson & the guy next to him on the steps but, from the small section of transcript from the interview I've seen it's a bit difficult to be sure.

It was most likely difficult for Lane too & that's why he left it out of the film since, without these two guys being behind(north of) the fence, there really is no point in Lane interviewing Bowers at all.

In the film(RTJ) it suggests to us that the two guys Bowers saw were standing close to where Holland ran too but,

in the transcript, it tells another story entirely, these two guys could of just been bystanders & like I said above he may have been watching the groundsman himself.

As you can see from the photo he would of had no trouble seeing Hudson from his tower.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Jack

Well said Jack!

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

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

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

M

I believe Ed's story.

I do not believe ANYTHING about Sarti.

Jack

So, let me see if I understand this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by Duke Lane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing is, Bowers.

He made it clear to Mark Lane that "these two men" were not behind the fence(on the north side) but nearer the street.

I have met Mark Lane and that is not at all what he thought. He meant they were not behind the fence from where he sat, but rather on the RR side.

I feel now he was talking about Hudson & the guy next to him on the steps but, from the small section of transcript from the interview I've seen it's a bit difficult to be sure.

It was most likely difficult for Lane too & that's why he left it out of the film since, without these two guys being behind(north of) the fence, there really is no point in Lane interviewing Bowers at all.

Alan, didn't Bowers describe one man as heavy set and the other in a plaid coat - which two men on the steps fits that description? Also, any pictures I have seen taken from inside the tower do not show the step area where Hudson stood - it's too far over the fence and down the hill. Look at Moorman's photo looking back from the street - do you see the tower anywhere?

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke,

That's correct. Ed said he saw 3 or 4 figures on the overpass, when there were actually 15 or more there, Sam Holland included.

The critique of Ed's story is that with so many persons nearby the steam pipe, then how is it that no one but Ed, 265 yards away, saw Ed's rifle toss & disassembly? :)

Another good question is, with so many persons nearby the steam pipe, how is it that Ed, 265 yards away, didn't see any of them but the two that nobody else saw?

To counter what someone else had posted earlier, it has nothing to do with whether Ed's story squares with "the official version" or not, but whether it squares with anyone else's version and, quite frankly, whether it's even true (even if Ed and Jack and you believe it!). Do you think that Roscoe White was Badgeman simply because his kid wouldn't say such terrible things about him if they weren't true?

For me, the verdict is not yet in, but the looks on the jurors' faces are not very encouraging to the defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[deleted]

Edited by Duke Lane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The critique of Ed's story is that with so many persons nearby the steam pipe, then how is it that no one but Ed, 265 yards away, saw Ed's rifle toss & disassembly? :)

Another good question is, with so many persons nearby the steam pipe, how is it that Ed, 265 yards away, didn't see any of them but the two that nobody else saw?

I am reminded once again that another person did see something tossed near the steam pipe and reported it to Seymour Weitzman. Why no one else saw it - who knows?

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miles,

I'm going to have to ask you once again. This is the fourth time now.

You said that the spectators watching the motorcade in the area adjacent to the switch box did not report seeing anyone that fit Ed Hoffman's description nor did they see the alleged rifle toss.

Please give me the names of these spectators.

I'd appreciate it if you would not refer me to Gary Mack or anyone else. I want the names from you and you alone.

You're the one who brought up these witnesses and what they did not report or see.

Who are they?

If you don't know who they are, then simply say you don't know who they are. That's all I'm asking at this time.

Thanks.

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miles,

I'm going to have to ask you once again. This is the fourth time now.

You said that the spectators watching the motorcade in the area adjacent to the switch box did not report seeing anyone that fit Ed Hoffman's description nor did they see the alleged rifle toss.

Please give me the names of these spectators.

I'd appreciate it if you would not refer me to Gary Mack or anyone else. I want the names from you and you alone.

You're the one who brought up these witnesses and what they did not report or see.

Who are they?

If you don't know who they are, then simply say you don't know who they are. That's all I'm asking at this time.

Thanks.

Ken

Ken,

Apparently you were instrumental in affording me & Duke a chance to see Ed's very interesting booklet "Eyewitness."

I have thanked you 3 or 4 times for your assistance.

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

Hope that's clear.

Now, I think I remember providing you with an affidavit of Oscar McVey. There is dispute as to his location, but he very likely was at the balustrade as seen in the Bell frames.

Don Roberdeau suggests this.

Dodd encountered a Katy RR official at the north end of the Underpass. There is dispute as to his name (Pat Simples has been cited, but without verifiable records), but he was there at Z-313. A lead here, Ken: the records of the Katy will have his name.

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

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

_____________________

On one point that keeps coming up about someone reported to Seymour Weitzman that he had seen something thrown though a "bush."

This testimony, IF accurate (which is debatable), has no bearing on Ed's story because the contemporaneous photographic evidence shows zero vegetation obstructing the witnesses' view of Ed's alleged rifle toss & disassembly.

If something was seen thrown through a bush (?), it could not have been Ed's rifle, unless the rifle was thrown twice. :rolleyes:

_____________________

OK, Ken, hope this helps out. It's a snap from the plat you can look up for details. Good hunting!

Dealey_Plaza_map-bm2-1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Jack

Well said Jack!

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

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

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

M

I believe Ed's story.

I do not believe ANYTHING about Sarti.

Jack

So, let me see if I understand this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Jack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill,

take another look

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Jack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill,

take another look

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alan

Alan Healy,

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

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

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

Just my opinion.

Miles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On one point that keeps coming up about someone reported to Seymour Weitzman that he had seen something thrownthough a "bush."

This testimony, IF accurate (which is debatable), has no bearing on Ed's story because the contemporaneous photographic evidence shows zero vegetation obstructing the witnesses' view of Ed's alleged rifle toss & disassembly.

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

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well over 30 years ago I was flicking though a book on the JFK assassination in the Niagara University library , when I came on a picture of what looked like a caboose -sized private railway wagon parked on a siding directly behind the grassy knoll . I have never again seen the picture, nor does such an image appear to be depicted in any of the many pictures which have been posted of the railway yard following the assassination. The possibilty exists that the wagon was being shunted out of the siding, and hence was not pictured in any of the later photographs of the yard. When I looked at the above picture I wondered if the image of the wagon might have been captured therein. I identified the possible location, and cropped and enlarged it , hoping that someone might be able to tell me what they thought they were seeing. Here it is again and enlarged even more so :

What I think I am seeing this time is a view of the front of the wagon while it is being shunted out of the siding by a smaller-sized locomotive . Diesel-electric locomotive shunter units were, and still are, employed for shunting purposes. Below is a picture of one such type of diesel-electric shunter locomotive..... Notice what appears to be a puff of white smoke. On each side of the wagon there also appears to be smoke along the ground/rails on either side. I assume that diesel fumes being oily and heavy would tend to roll downwards to the ground prior to dissipating.

N.B. Wikipedia informs : With a fully loaded diesel there is only a very short puff of white smoke which rapidly disappears once the diesels warm up in a matter of seconds.

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_generator )

Shunting wagons from a siding to another rail track involves moving ' switch points ' . Below is a picture of a hand-operated lever which is employed for 'switching'.

Railway toolboxes adjacent to 'switch points' often contained folding levers for adjusting the 'points'. What to Ed Hoffman may have looked like a rifle , could very well have been such a lever being returned to storage in the toolbox.

Edited by Ed O'Hagan
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...