Ed Hoffman's Activities and Observations

[Bill Miller]

Is this it?

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

Kathy

Thanks Kathy, but that was not it. It is a report where Weitzman tells of a RR worker who was on the underpass had reported to him that he saw through the bushes that something was tossed near the steam pipe. Weitzman said the man told him that it was over near where the steam pipe is in the RR yard.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Hoffman's account is not supported.

In an earlier post you (Miles) said that Hoffman was merely telling what he believed he had seen. Someone obviously threw something near the steam pipe, thus you will have a hard time trying to find fault with Hoffman's observations. I think everyone should read the report before drawing conclusions.

And when you are thinking about Hoffman's veracity - think about how silly he would have looked had the men in the RR yard by the fence were really Secret Service Agents, as at least one impostor had done. Ed would not have said he saw a gun IMO unless he truly believed it to be so.

BTW, Miller may have thought someone threw firecrackers so to account for the sounds of possible gunshots, but was not the steam pipe toss something that came AFTER the shooting .... hmmmmnn!

Bill Miller

Edited July 23, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Is this it?

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

Kathy

Thanks Kathy, but that was not it. It is a report where Weitzman tells of a RR worker who was on the underpass had reported to him that he saw through the bushes that something was tossed near the steam pipe. Weitzman said the man told him that it was over near where the steam pipe is in the RR yard.

Bill

This alleged "REPORT" sounds very interesting.

It is interesting because it would NOT agree with Weitzman's recorded testimony. Weitzman's alleged "Report" would contradict Weitzman's testimony. That's doesn't seem logical, at all.

Therefore, until it is found, the "Report" must be regarded as not existing.

Let's, however, hope that one day, somehow, the "Report" will happily turn up!

Edited July 23, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Duke Lane]

... cobbled some ideas together for you & Duke. What do you guys & Duncan think about this? ...

[Austin] 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.

Well, I for one think that you cut this testimony off at a very curious time, just at the point where someone, somewhere is going to construe this to mean that Miller saw conspirators escape in a convertible!

... Which, incidentally, squares very well with an older gentleman I've been talking with who's been afraid to come forward to tell about this very same thing that he saw when he'd stopped that afternoon along the highway to "see a man about a horse."

The next portion of Miller's testimony should support my friend's tale ... er, um, I mean, set the record straight as to what he'd seen and what he'd meant:

Mr. MILLER. ... I stepped back and looked on 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. Mr. BELIN. You mean the convertible in which the President was riding?

Mr. MILLER. I wouldn't want to say it was the President. It was a convertible but I saw a man fall over. I don't know whose convertible it was.

Mr. BELIN. Where did the shots sound like they came from?

Mr. MILLER. Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say from right there in the car. Would be to my left, the way I was looking at him over toward that incline.

Mr. BELIN. Is there anything else that you can think of that you saw.

Mr. MILLER. About the time I looked over to the side there,

there was a police officer. No; a motorcycle running his motor under against the curb, and jumped off and come up to the hill

toward the top and right behind him was some more officers and plainclothesmen, too.

Mr. BELIN.

Did you see anyone that might be, that gave any suspicious movements of any kind over there?

Mr. MILLER.

No, sir; I didn't.

Mr. BELIN.

Did you see anyone when you looked around on the railroad tracks, that you hadn't seen before?

Mr. MILLER.

No, sir; I didn't.

We was all standing in one group right at the rail looking over, and the police officer, he was standing about 5 or 10 feet behind us. ...

As to the rest of the story (with apologies to Paul Harvey!), I'll have to digest it longer.

I'll also concede - first definition, Bill! - that I'd missed that last short burst about railroad yard activity in Weitzman's testimony. I haven't found his report - or affidavit or anything - yet, but I haven't been looking very hard. He apparently did file an affidavit with DPD identifying the 6th floor rifle as being a Mauser; perhaps that's the same thing?

Edited July 23, 2007 by Duke Lane

[Bill Miller]

This alleged "REPORT" sounds very interesting.

It is interesting because it would NOT agree with Weitzman's recorded testimony. Weitzman's alleged "Report" would contradict Weitzman's testimony. That's doesn't seem logical, at all.

Therefore, until it is found, the "Report" must be regarded as not existing.

Let's, however, hope that one day, somehow, the "Report" will happily turn up!

The report is in the 26 Volumes, which means that it does exist. Not having a set of the 26 volumes does not constitute the report not existing. And as I recall - the only difference I am seeing is that Weitzman asked the guy where did he see this "toss" take place and the guy had told him that it was over near the steam pipe.

Bill Miller

[Michael G. Smith]

This alleged "REPORT" sounds very interesting.

It is interesting because it would NOT agree with Weitzman's recorded testimony. Weitzman's alleged "Report" would contradict Weitzman's testimony. That's doesn't seem logical, at all.

Therefore, until it is found, the "Report" must be regarded as not existing.

Let's, however, hope that one day, somehow, the "Report" will happily turn up!

The report is in the 26 Volumes, which means that it does exist. Not having a set of the 26 volumes does not constitute the report not existing. And as I recall - the only difference I am seeing is that Weitzman asked the guy where did he see this "toss" take place and the guy had told him that it was over near the steam pipe.

Bill Miller

I have read most of Mr. Hoffmans testimony, and I have seen his interview for the film "The men who killed Kennedy". Which basically confirms his story that he saw someone shooting from the fence, turn and toss the "rifle" to the suppossed railroad man, who inturn took it to a switchbox, disassemble it and put it in a bag. then calmly walk away. Problem I have is that the switchbox in question is in full view of the group of r/r workers, pedestrians, and policeman standing on the overpass. By the time shots were fired, these people were on their way around the fence to see what had happened, as they were sure that shots had been fired from there. I dont believe there could have been time to pass it, disassemble the rifle, and not be seen by those people on the overpass, without being questioned or detained by the policemen. That has always been the glitch in the story for me. I have been there and seen for myself. At the time I believe he did have a clear look into the parking lot, before overgrown trees and the suppossed raised billboad. But for someone to take the gun away, and take it apart, and put it in a r/r bag, had to be done further away, or behind other cover than a switch box. Those switch boxes do not give you enough area to hide behind, not to be seen by those converging on the parking lot, as it is straight on the way to the lot. Just my popinion, FWIW-smitty

[Bill Miller]

By the time shots were fired, these people were on their way around the fence to see what had happened, as they were sure that shots had been fired from there. I dont believe there could have been time to pass it, disassemble the rifle, and not be seen by those people on the overpass, without being questioned or detained by the policemen.

I don't get it .... The photographic record shows that no one left the underpass for the first minute (at least) and has been reported throughout this thread. Is it your opinion that all the films and photos showing this has been altered? If you do not feel the film and photos were altered to show the men still on the underpass, then why do you say that these underpass witnesses were on their way to the fence by the time the shots were fired??? I mean it is nice to just say it, but the photographic record shows what you say about this time line to not be accurate.

Bill

[Duke Lane]

Duke said on 7/10/07:

"Ed's book hasn't provided those as yet to my satisfaction. I'll explain later after he's had a reasonable time to respond to my queries."

My response: Ed is 71 years old at this time and in poor physical health. He had a massive heart attack in 1998, was involved in a head-on auto collision in 1999, and now suffers from diabetes and congestive heart failure. The bad news results of blood work done a little more than three months ago were "off the charts." 89% of patients with results of that magnitude die within three months. Ed is still hanging in there, but due to his fragile condition, his family will not bring up the subject of assassination threads like this one anymore.

I'm sorry to hear about Ed's poor health. Since it appears that there won't be any clarification coming with regard to the questions I'd had, I will feel free to post my observations, albeit not in this message.

Duke, you said on 7/11/07: "As I'd said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. At the very least, some corroboration would be useful." and "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?" and: " . . .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. . ."

My response: There is corroboration for some of what Ed Hoffman saw. But, to my knowledge, you and Miles haven't mentioned it. So here it is. Dallas Police Officer J. W. Foster, who stood on the triple underpass near Sam Holland and others, said that after the shooting he moved to "the end of the viaduct" (where the triple underpass meets the picket fence) at which point somebody told him that some man had run up the railroad tracks from that location.

That's just what Ed had said. ...

JW Foster's testimony begins at 6H248. Page 248 talks about his job, where he was born and his education. Page 249 talks about his being in the service and the jobs he'd held prior to joining DPD and up through November 22, 1963. It then goes on to talk about his special assignment atop the Triple Underpass, where he was standing, and ends with his being handed a map to mark his location.

Page 250 talks about the railroad yards and moves to what he'd observed as the motorcade approached his location. He first noticed it as it turned off of Main onto Houston, and said it "was in sight most of the time." Asked if he kept it in sight after it had turned, he replied that "other than watching the men that were standing on the overpass there with me," he had. He then marked an exhibit, and was asked about any other police who were there with him, whom he identified as JC White, who was stationed on the other (west) side of the overpass.

Page 251 begins with Foster saying that he wasn't exactly sure where White was at the time the motorcade came into the plaza (he was on the other side of a freight train moving across the bridge at the time that nobody else appears to have noticed!), followed by this brief exchange:

Mr. BALL. Now, tell me what you saw happen after the President's car passed---turned onto Elm from Houston.

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.

Discussion about the source of the shots ensued, together with the affirmations that no shot sounded like it came from the overpass; Foster had seen no weapon; and that no sound (not even the train passing behind him?) had sounded as if it had come from the overpass. Then:

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.

Then, some discussion about the back side of the TSBD, followed by a quick return to events near the overpass:

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.

The discussion then returns to the area around TSBD and an intended search of railroad cars.

Page 252 talks about whose idea the search was (an unnamed sergeant), and the fact that Foster was sent to see Inspector Sawyer in front of the TSBD and did not take part in any search of the cars. He told Sawyer that he'd felt that the shots came from around Elm & Houston, but didn't remember if he'd also told that to the sergeant. Foster then "moved to--down the roadway there, down to see if I could find where any of the shots hit," whereupon he describes finding an apparent bullet or "ricochet" mark on pavement by a manhole cover, says no bullet went into the turf but appeared to have ricocheted off, and identifies a photo that "resembles the picture" of the manhole cover area in question by the crime lab people he'd called over to the site.

Page 253 begins by concluding the interview ("Officer, this will be written up and submitted to you for your signature ...") and other niceties. Foster's interview ends with this exchange:

Mr. BALL. Thank you. One moment, please. Who gave you your assignment, Mr. Foster?

Mr. FOSTER. Sergeant Harkness.

Mr. BALL. You did permit some railroad employees to remain on the overpass?

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. How did you determine they were railroad employees?

Mr. FOSTER. By identification they had with them. Identification they had and the other men that was with them verifying that they were employees.

Mr. BALL. Okay.

Okay, that sums it up. I think I'm missing that part about where he testified that "after the shooting he moved to 'the end of the viaduct' (where the triple underpass meets the picket fence) at which point somebody told him that some man had run up the railroad tracks from that location." Perhaps you might be so kind as to refer me back to that part that I'd so injudiciously omitted?

Since it doesn't appear at the moment that Foster did say any such thing, and presuming that I really didn't see it in his testimony because it wasn't there, please explain how this provides corroboration of Ed's story?

... And instead presuming that it is there and I simply missed it (some might accuse me of deliberately deciding not to quote it!), please tell me why it is not possible that Ed or anyone else could not have first read it and then reiterated it? How do we know for certain that the chicken came before the egg?

After the shots, [Ed's] "railroad man" had run up the railroad tracks from the area of the switchbox which is at the very same location where Foster's man had run from, i.e., where the triple underpass meets the picket fence. Foster doesn't mention who the person was who told him about the man running up the railroad tracks. If Foster is still alive, and he may very well be, I wonder if he might remember. And where that might lead.

And now for Miles. ...

You may need to find a REPORT filed by Foster to get this information. If you don't have the 26 volumes, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, the testimony you cite doesn't contain any of what you said it does - which may explain why Foster didn't "mention who the person was" who did what he never said he did? - so I can only imagine that that's where it must be.

It's YOUR turn to produce on this one.

... You don't know who these spectators [on top of the bridge] are! No one knows. You brought up the suggestions of Don Roberdeau as to who the men might be. I know Don, and he will tell you this: no one knows who these men are. Period. So if you don't know who they are, then how can you say what they reported or didn't report? What they saw or didn't see?

Just the same, Miles, you chose to "refute" Ed's story anyway, at least in part based on what these unknown men didn't report and didn't see.

The value of this kind of research escapes me.

Actually, I couldn't resist but to note that its value not only seems not to have escaped you, but to have been utilized by you ... except that you have chosen to corroborate Ed's story, at least in part, based on what a known person didn't say, didn't report, and didn't see.

Explain to me the difference. I'll try not to let it escape me.

[Ken Rheberg]

By the time shots were fired, these people were on their way around the fence to see what had happened, as they were sure that shots had been fired from there. I dont believe there could have been time to pass it, disassemble the rifle, and not be seen by those people on the overpass, without being questioned or detained by the policemen.

I don't get it .... The photographic record shows that no one left the underpass for the first minute (at least) and has been reported throughout this thread. Is it your opinion that all the films and photos showing this has been altered? If you do not feel the film and photos were altered to show the men still on the underpass, then why do you say that these underpass witnesses were on their way to the fence by the time the shots were fired??? I mean it is nice to just say it, but the photographic record shows what you say about this time line to not be accurate.

Bill

Bill,

You're correct when you say that no one left the underpass for at least the first minute. Sam Holland can still be seen on the bridge of the triple underpass in the Dillard 3 photo which coincides with the previously posted Bell film frame showing photographer Tom Atkins running down Elm after camera car #1. Miles has misquoted an alleged Gary Mack message and come up with 40 seconds as the time of that photo and the Bell frame. The alleged information from Gary Mack said that the time was "about 40 seconds or more" after Z313. Miles trimmed that in the Bell thread to "about 40 seconds" leaving out the "or more." Then for this thread, the "about 40 seconds" was transformed into simply "40 seconds." The truth is that at 40 seconds Craven and Atkins were still on the grassy knoll. Dillard 3 and the corresponding Bell frame took place close to one minute after Z313.

Ken

[Ken Rheberg]

Duke said on 7/10/07:

"Ed's book hasn't provided those as yet to my satisfaction. I'll explain later after he's had a reasonable time to respond to my queries."

My response: Ed is 71 years old at this time and in poor physical health. He had a massive heart attack in 1998, was involved in a head-on auto collision in 1999, and now suffers from diabetes and congestive heart failure. The bad news results of blood work done a little more than three months ago were "off the charts." 89% of patients with results of that magnitude die within three months. Ed is still hanging in there, but due to his fragile condition, his family will not bring up the subject of assassination threads like this one anymore.

I'm sorry to hear about Ed's poor health. Since it appears that there won't be any clarification coming with regard to the questions I'd had, I will feel free to post my observations, albeit not in this message.

Duke, you said on 7/11/07: "As I'd said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. At the very least, some corroboration would be useful." and "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?" and: " . . .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. . ."

My response: There is corroboration for some of what Ed Hoffman saw. But, to my knowledge, you and Miles haven't mentioned it. So here it is. Dallas Police Officer J. W. Foster, who stood on the triple underpass near Sam Holland and others, said that after the shooting he moved to "the end of the viaduct" (where the triple underpass meets the picket fence) at which point somebody told him that some man had run up the railroad tracks from that location.

That's just what Ed had said. ...

JW Foster's testimony begins at 6H248. Page 248 talks about his job, where he was born and his education. Page 249 talks about his being in the service and the jobs he'd held prior to joining DPD and up through November 22, 1963. It then goes on to talk about his special assignment atop the Triple Underpass, where he was standing, and ends with his being handed a map to mark his location.

Page 250 talks about the railroad yards and moves to what he'd observed as the motorcade approached his location. He first noticed it as it turned off of Main onto Houston, and said it "was in sight most of the time." Asked if he kept it in sight after it had turned, he replied that "other than watching the men that were standing on the overpass there with me," he had. He then marked an exhibit, and was asked about any other police who were there with him, whom he identified as JC White, who was stationed on the other (west) side of the overpass.

Page 251 begins with Foster saying that he wasn't exactly sure where White was at the time the motorcade came into the plaza (he was on the other side of a freight train moving across the bridge at the time that nobody else appears to have noticed!), followed by this brief exchange:

Mr. BALL. Now, tell me what you saw happen after the President's car passed---turned onto Elm from Houston.

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.

Discussion about the source of the shots ensued, together with the affirmations that no shot sounded like it came from the overpass; Foster had seen no weapon; and that no sound (not even the train passing behind him?) had sounded as if it had come from the overpass. Then:

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.

Then, some discussion about the back side of the TSBD, followed by a quick return to events near the overpass:

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.

The discussion then returns to the area around TSBD and an intended search of railroad cars.

Page 252 talks about whose idea the search was (an unnamed sergeant), and the fact that Foster was sent to see Inspector Sawyer in front of the TSBD and did not take part in any search of the cars. He told Sawyer that he'd felt that the shots came from around Elm & Houston, but didn't remember if he'd also told that to the sergeant. Foster then "moved to--down the roadway there, down to see if I could find where any of the shots hit," whereupon he describes finding an apparent bullet or "ricochet" mark on pavement by a manhole cover, says no bullet went into the turf but appeared to have ricocheted off, and identifies a photo that "resembles the picture" of the manhole cover area in question by the crime lab people he'd called over to the site.

Page 253 begins by concluding the interview ("Officer, this will be written up and submitted to you for your signature ...") and other niceties. Foster's interview ends with this exchange:

Mr. BALL. Thank you. One moment, please. Who gave you your assignment, Mr. Foster?

Mr. FOSTER. Sergeant Harkness.

Mr. BALL. You did permit some railroad employees to remain on the overpass?

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. How did you determine they were railroad employees?

Mr. FOSTER. By identification they had with them. Identification they had and the other men that was with them verifying that they were employees.

Mr. BALL. Okay.

Okay, that sums it up. I think I'm missing that part about where he testified that "after the shooting he moved to 'the end of the viaduct' (where the triple underpass meets the picket fence) at which point somebody told him that some man had run up the railroad tracks from that location." Perhaps you might be so kind as to refer me back to that part that I'd so injudiciously omitted?

Since it doesn't appear at the moment that Foster did say any such thing, and presuming that I really didn't see it in his testimony because it wasn't there, please explain how this provides corroboration of Ed's story?

... And instead presuming that it is there and I simply missed it (some might accuse me of deliberately deciding not to quote it!), please tell me why it is not possible that Ed or anyone else could not have first read it and then reiterated it? How do we know for certain that the chicken came before the egg?

After the shots, [Ed's] "railroad man" had run up the railroad tracks from the area of the switchbox which is at the very same location where Foster's man had run from, i.e., where the triple underpass meets the picket fence. Foster doesn't mention who the person was who told him about the man running up the railroad tracks. If Foster is still alive, and he may very well be, I wonder if he might remember. And where that might lead.

And now for Miles. ...

You may need to find a REPORT filed by Foster to get this information. If you don't have the 26 volumes, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, the testimony you cite doesn't contain any of what you said it does - which may explain why Foster didn't "mention who the person was" who did what he never said he did? - so I can only imagine that that's where it must be.

It's YOUR turn to produce on this one.

... You don't know who these spectators [on top of the bridge] are! No one knows. You brought up the suggestions of Don Roberdeau as to who the men might be. I know Don, and he will tell you this: no one knows who these men are. Period. So if you don't know who they are, then how can you say what they reported or didn't report? What they saw or didn't see?

Just the same, Miles, you chose to "refute" Ed's story anyway, at least in part based on what these unknown men didn't report and didn't see.

The value of this kind of research escapes me.

Actually, I couldn't resist but to note that its value not only seems not to have escaped you, but to have been utilized by you ... except that you have chosen to corroborate Ed's story, at least in part, based on what a known person didn't say, didn't report, and didn't see.

Explain to me the difference. I'll try not to let it escape me.

To Duke:

You said: “I think I'm missing that part about where he testified. . .”

I never said anything about Foster testifying. You have what I said right here in your post: “J.W. Foster. . . said.”

You said: “Perhaps you might be so kind as to refer me back to that part that I'd so injudiciously omitted?”

Injudiciously omitted? Wow. Well, those are your words, not mine.

You said: “Since it doesn't appear at the moment that Foster did say any such thing. . .”

Now you have the wording right. Not sure, however, why you aren’t being consistent with what you said above and instead had to say “Since it doesn’t appear at the moment that Foster testified to any such thing. . .”

You said: “Some might accuse me of deliberately deciding not to quote it!”

Who are these “some”? Why would they, whoever they are, possibly think that about you? You have an interesting take on those who disagree with you. No, I personally don’t see you deliberately deciding not to quote anything.

You said: “Unfortunately, the testimony you cite doesn't contain any of what you said it does.”

I never said anything about citing testimony.

You said: “You have chosen to corroborate Ed's story, at least in part, based on what a known person didn't say. . . ”

It appears you’re talking about Foster here. If so, then you’re mistaken. And you’ve switched again from testimony back to “what a known person didn’t say. . .” No, Duke, I’ve chosen to corroborate Ed’s story based, in part, on what Foster actually did say. Not what he testified to. And what he said is out there, openly available to all researchers.

Ken

Edited July 23, 2007 by Ken Rheberg

[Miles Scull]

I'll try not to let it escape me.

Hey Duke,

Here's a Dillard 3 crop time stamped at between 40 seconds to 55 seconds post Z-313.

It's time to play:

Where D I D He Go ?

Who is missing in this photo ?

(A hint for Duke: fuzz)

Is there a terrible meaning hidden within the secret of the missing man?

Go figure.

[Ken Rheberg]

I'll try not to let it escape me.

Hey Duke,

Here's a Dillard 3 crop time stamped at between 40 seconds to 55 seconds post Z-313.

It's time to play:

Where D I D He Go ?

Who is missing in this photo ?

(A hint for Duke: fuzz)

Is there a terrible meaning hidden within the secret of the missing man?

Go figure.

Miles,

You said in the Bell thread that Dillard 3 was taken at "about 40 seconds" after Z313.

Then you tightened it up in this thread and said that Dillard 3 was taken at "40 seconds" after Z313.

Now, in this thread, you use a Dillard 3 crop for support that, in your own words, has been time stamped at "between 40 seconds to 55 seconds post Z-313."

Good job, Miles. You've finally seen the light. Dillard 3 was taken about 55 - 60 seconds after Z313.

Ken

[Bill Miller]

Miles,

You said in the Bell thread that Dillard 3 was taken at "about 40 seconds" after Z313.

Then you tightened it up in this thread and said that Dillard 3 was taken at "40 seconds" after Z313.

Now, in this thread, you use a Dillard 3 crop for support that, in your own words, has been time stamped at "between 40 seconds to 55 seconds post Z-313."

Good job, Miles. You've finally seen the light. Dillard 3 was taken about 55 - 60 seconds after Z313.

Ken

Ken,

Oh how can that be!!! Miles has gone on and on how Holland said that he immediately ran behind the fence. That Holland would have been sprinting into the RR yard around the time of the said tossing of something at the steam pipe. Could it be that Dillard 3 has been altered just so to make Miles look to be in error??? Maybe a "Dillard 3 altered" thread is forthcoming .... (sigh~) Maybe someone can take Dillard's 3 photograph and degrade it to the extent that it shows Holland to be missing from the photo, thus Holland has already left for the RR yard immediately after the shooting. Then and only then will we all be closer to the truth. (grin~)

Bill

[Duke Lane]

To Duke:

You said: "I think I'm missing that part about where he testified. . ." I never said anything about Foster testifying. You have what I said right here in your post: "J.W. Foster. . . said."

You said: "Perhaps you might be so kind as to refer me back to that part that I'd so injudiciously omitted?" Injudiciously omitted? Wow. Well, those are your words, not mine.

You said: "Since it doesn't appear at the moment that Foster did say any such thing. . ." Now you have the wording right. Not sure, however, why you aren't being consistent with what you said above and instead had to say "Since it doesn't appear at the moment that Foster testified to any such thing. . ."

You said: "Some might accuse me of deliberately deciding not to quote it!" Who are these "some"? Why would they, whoever they are, possibly think that about you? You have an interesting take on those who disagree with you. No, I personally don't see you deliberately deciding not to quote anything.

You said: "Unfortunately, the testimony you cite doesn't contain any of what you said it does." I never said anything about citing testimony.

You said: "You have chosen to corroborate Ed's story, at least in part, based on what a known person didn't say. . . " It appears you're talking about Foster here. If so, then you're mistaken. And you've switched again from testimony back to "what a known person didn't say. . ." No, Duke, I've chosen to corroborate Ed's story based, in part, on what Foster actually did say. Not what he testified to. And what he said is out there, openly available to all researchers.

Get back to us when you have something of substance to add.

I don't have time to go off in search of YOUR facts, which you choose to supply only incompletely at best. But ... ... nice try!

It seems like there IS nothing of substance to add, so the best defense is a strong offense, best established by setting up straw men and knocking them down with all the force you can muster. I didn't do very well as a parochially-raised Catholic, so you'll have to come up with a better catechism if you expect me to accept the story on faith. Mary wasn't a virgin, and Ed wasn't there to see a thing. Prove otherwise.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Duke Lane

[Bill Miller]

I don't have time to go off in search of YOUR facts,

"Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but no one has a right to be wrong about the facts. Without the facts, your opinion is of no value.” Rene

Dahinden, August 1999.