Ed Hoffman is incorrect
Posted 14 May 2004 - 04:05 AM
McAdams would have us believe that Ed Hoffman's story has changed multiple times over time. His story as generally accepted and aired on Nigel Turner's "The Guilty Men," has a scenario in which one man in a suit throws a rifle to another man in a railroad worker's uniform, who promptly breaks it down, and the two wander off down the tracks.
This story seems to validate Gary Mack's work with jack White concerning the Badgeman and the Railroad worker, but it doesn't jive well with Lee Bowers, or James Files.
Did Ed see a 'gun' or a 'rifle?' Has anyone shown him what a Remington Fireball XP-100 looks like?
As per the other forum's debate:
Has anyone shown Hoffman a photo Files?
The suit jacket corresponds with File's story, after he inverted it - reversable Plaid and Grey.
How come he only saw 2 people - because of how far away he was positioned? In the Nigel Turner program, the area is so heavily overgrown with vegetation you can hardly see anything.
Why wouldn't he have seen a man dressed as a Dallas Police Officer - consistent with the Moorman blow-up of Jack White, and the story of Gordon Arnold?
Maybe Hoffman has allowed his memory to get the better of him over time, since he's also had the opportunity to be provided with new information, and this has had the unfortunate effect of validating Jack White and Gary Mack's work on the Moorman photo, which may in fact be patches of light between leaves?
If Ed is correct, it invalidates Badgeman as a shooter - and the Moorman expose. I continue to struggle with that fact, because it also creates issues for Files account.
Posted 14 May 2004 - 04:23 AM
However, there is still considerable controversy over how much detail Ed really could see at that distance, how he could see the figures up by the fence given the number of cars and how they were parked up against the fence. The fact that the running man would have had to be behind those cars and the issue of how much depth perception Ed would have had at that distance to accurately call out specific locations. I've personally watched Ed locate the men behind the fence, trace their steps and describe his observations and there is no doubt in my mind of his sincerety. And he does describe the running men going out of sight behind the parked rail cars as he ran north into the rail yard.
However in attempting to duplicate his specific observations last year on a DP tour (the same way we attempted to see the detail Carr describes for a man with glasses on an upper floor), the whole tour group and myself were hard pressed to see how Ed could have seen that amount of detail pertaining to the "suit man" shooter that he describes ...especially given the parked cars.
Again, personally, I have no doubt Ed saw something going on behind the fence and saw multiple people......beyond that I just don't know. But you should get hold of the booklet by Ron Fredrich and give it a read for reference.
Posted 14 May 2004 - 04:33 AM
I will do that. It's interesting to note that I have always given him the benefit of the doubt because of what potentially could be lost in translation, but I have to say, although the story of Badgeman is very compelling, I'm still stuck believing Files shot the fatal head shot, and that the photo enhancements done by Jack White are open to interpretation.
If we firmly conclude that a man in a Policeman's uniform fired the fatal shot, we can get trapped in going down a similar rathole as the WC in trying to prove LHO did it alone. Bowers didn't see any Policeman behind the fence -and he had the ultimate vantage point.
Dumb question - but I noted Ed Hoffman wore glasses in the Turner interview - any idea as to his corrected vision and whether he is near sighted or far sighted?
Posted 14 May 2004 - 02:06 PM
You can see what Files says about Hofmann on page 2 of his letter here:
A photo of Files was offered to Ed Hofman thru Ron Friedrich but his response was that the distance was too far for facial recognition.
On another note, Files did not disassemble his gun, it fitted in the case as a whole.
He says the sketch of him on my website is all wrong. He could partner with Allan Eaglesham.
Edited by dankbaar, 14 May 2004 - 02:09 PM.
Posted 14 May 2004 - 02:20 PM
glasses, could have contacts I suppose. I'll see if I can find out.
On Ed's question, the man handling the weapon passed off the weapon
and the second man "broke" it into two separate sections to carry in something
appearing to Ed to look like a tool box. Again, given the distance Ed may
simply have seen the man kneel and do something with the weapon, I still
have a hard time with details at the distance he was viewing. I would
encourage someone to recreate his observations and get a sample
of observers to do controlled descriptions of what they can see. That would
require totally neutral observers in addition to people who have heard
A little science could go a long way to clairifying this issue, same with the Carr
story about the man with glasses on the sixth floor.
Posted 15 May 2004 - 08:42 AM
Back in 1963, Ed didn't wear glasses and had better than average vision. Of course this is not uncommon when a person is without one of his five senses. Ed being deaf, did not know anyone was shooting at the motorcade for he could not hear the shots. It's what Ed seen that is important. What Ed did see was a puff of smoke at the stockade fence where a gentleman wearing a dark suit and hat had immediately turned away from it. Ed immediately noticed this individual had a long gun in his possession. Ed said the man did not run, but rather briskly walked the weapon up near the steam pipe where he tossed it to another man who then took the gun and broke it down before leaving the area. The hatted man then turned and casually walked back east along the fence in the direction he had just come from. The tossing of the gun near the steam pipe seems to be supported by a RR worker who told Seymour Weitzman that he had witnessed something being tossed through the trees. When Weitzman asked where did this happened exacty, the RR worker said 'over by the steam pipe'.
James Files did not say anything about walking a gun to the steam pipe and tossing it to anyone. Also, Lee Bowers described this man in the dark suit as being rather stocky, which doesn't match the build of James Files at the time of the shooting. So not only does Files not match the description of the man seen with the long gun, but his alleged actions do not match that of the man who tossed the gun over the steam pipe. These two important points tend to dispute Files being where he said he was on 11/22/63.
Edited by Larry Peters, 15 May 2004 - 04:39 PM.
Posted 16 May 2004 - 03:56 AM
senses when one of them is compromised. It is common knowledge
that a blind person's hearing is substantially more acute than that
of a person who has all of his faculties intact. Consequently, the
same can be expected of a deaf person's visual acuity as opposed
to someone with their senses uncompromised, unless of course
they had been diagnosed with myopia as a child. In this case, we
have Ed Hoffman not needing glasses, and most likely wouldn't
need them until later in life, and then only if presbyopia
became an issue as it sometimes does in middle age, IMHO.
Edited by Terry Mauro, 16 May 2004 - 04:09 AM.
Posted 16 May 2004 - 05:39 AM
Another thing most people do not know - Ed Hoffman had said long ago that he'd take a lie detector test to prove he was telling the truth as to what he observed and Ed was told that such a test could not be given to a person with his handicap. That information was false and it was JFK researcher who found a place that can test deaf mutes and attempted to set Ed up with the test he wanted. A snag was soon discovered when it was found that Ed takes a heart medicine that the experts said may give a fale reading with the results. It is a shame that Ed was given bad information at a time when he wasn't taking such medication, but for now it is presently being looked into as to whether Ed can not take the medication safely for a said period of time so that such a test can still be conducted fairly. That's all I know about it so far.
Edited by Larry Peters, 16 May 2004 - 05:52 AM.
Posted 16 May 2004 - 05:48 AM
I'd love the opportunity to present him with Files account, and then ask, "Ed. Are you sure there was a train man? Are you sure the other man tossed his weapon to him, and that he broke it down? James Files says he did indeed kneel down, and he placed his weapon [show him a photo of the Remington Fireball] in his bag. He claimed he wouldn't have passed his weapon to anyone in such a critical mission, as that would be tantamount to lunacy." And see what he says.
Also, Files doesn't walk down the railroad tracks.
I'd also like to know if he has ever been provided with the opportunity to read Lee Bowers account also.
No offense folks, but the mind is a very intricate and complex thing. I don't think its very difficult to convince the mind of having seen things differently than how they actually occurred.
Let me add that I give him a lot of credit for intially coming forward, for returning, and for continuing to provide a clear, firsthand eye-witness account of conspiracy. I just personally think he is incorrect about what he saw, because Files has 98% convinced me.
Posted 16 May 2004 - 06:53 AM
I doubt that Ed has had any interest in James Files. Ed has only told what he saw happen. As I said in an earlier post - The tossing of an object at the steam pipe was seen by a RR worker who stood on the overpass and what the man told Weitzman can be read in either Seymour's report or testimony (I cannot recall which at the moment)
Bowers described the man with the hat who Ed saw with the long gun and that man was a stocky gentleman - Files was not. The second man was the fellow that Officer Smith ran into who flashed the fake idetification at him and that man's description does not fit that of what Files claimed to wear on that day. So what I am saying is that Files sccounting of what happened behind the fence is not what three independent witness have claimed to have seen. The correlation between what Bowers, Hoffman and the RR worker on the overpass saw is unmistakeable and not supportive of Files story.
It has been said by another researcher that Lee Bowers brother has said privately that Lee saw more than he admitted to the Commission and police because he was scared to tell it all. If one thinks about it for a moment - it made no sense that with the trains stopped in the RR yard and Bowers just hearing gun shots and seeing a flash of light and/or smoke right out in front of him as it were, that he would then just turn his attention away from the scene and go on about his duties like he had claimed. That was against all human nature and I personally believe Bowers brother most likely has said that Lee withheld information out of fear for his own safety. I can only imagine what Lee Bowers thought when he saw the events in the RR yard unfold and how easy it was for the suspicious characters to just walk away. I doubt that Lee could tell the good guys from the bad guys after seeing all of that.
Edited by Larry Peters, 16 May 2004 - 06:57 AM.
Posted 16 May 2004 - 06:06 PM
Yes, I was surprized to find how small Dealey Plaza really is compared to the perception one gets from viewing the photos of the area. And, as far as Ed Hoffman being given misinformation regarding his request to take a lie detector test after the assassination: I'm not at all surprized at the dragging of feet being demonstrated by those who misinformed him. It only served for the allowance of more time to pass, and for Hoffman to eventually develope a heart condition, as most people do as they age. This would, as you pointed out, render the the option of a polygraph's test results to be considered as insurmissable due to the medications he was now required to take in order to maintain stasis. Too bad,
especially nowadays when the requisite attention to detail is all the more tantamount with maintaining one's credibility.
Edited by John Simkin, 17 May 2004 - 02:04 PM.
Posted 17 May 2004 - 05:16 AM
You make a lot of good points. However, I am still struggling even to quantify the number of individuals working the knoll area.
My last count has 2 guys in business suits, 2 Dallas Police officers [or impersonators], Gordon Arnold wandering around, and x number of railroad workers. Additionally, I'm not content that the 2 suits weren't simply working security, in tandem with the Police impersonators.
Files wasn't stocky or blond - is this a fact? I honestly don't know, and am asking. His reference to a plaid reversable jacket certainly seemed interesting to note.
If Bowers was afraid, it may be due to the fact that he saw what appeared to be 2 Dallas policemen working with the 'others.' Is his brother still alive today?
Posted 17 May 2004 - 02:03 PM
One of the things that John McAdams tries to ignore is Ed Hoffman’s repeated attempts to tell the authorities about what he saw on 22nd November, 1963.
Hoffman immediately tried to alert the Secret Service agents about what he had seen. However, unable to understand what he was trying to say, he was threatened with a machine-gun (believed to have been George Hickey). He then attempted to tell his story to a Dallas policeman (believed to be Earle Brown). Unable to understand him, Brown waved him away. Hoffman then visited the local Federal Bureau of Investigation office. No officers were there and so he left written details with the receptionist. (The FBI never responded to this note.)
Hoffman told his father, Frederick Hoffman, about what he saw. His father, concerned that his son could be in danger, urged him not to tell anyone about what he had seen. Ed Hoffman did tell his story to his uncle, Robert Hoffman, a Dallas police officer. However, the police officer decided not to take the story to the Dallas Police Department: "I know that Eddie's a very bright person and always has been, and can't think of any reason why he would make up something like this.... His father (Frederick) was very, very concerned that Eddie knew anything about the assassination at all. It was time when suspicions were running high and he (Frederick) was worried about Eddie getting involved in any way... It just wasn't a time for loose statements that couldn't be proved or backed up with any evidence."
In June, 1967, Ed Hoffman took his story to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. When agents checked out his story they discovered his father did not want it investigated. The following month the FBI reported that "the father of Virgil Hoffman stated that he did not believe that his son had seen anything of value and doubted he had observed any men running from the Texas School Book Depository and for this reason had not mentioned it to the FBI." One FBI agent confirmed the worries of Frederick Hoffman by telling Ed Hoffman to keep quiet about what he had seen or "you might get killed".
Ed Hoffman did keep quiet until 1975 when he wrote to Edward Kennedy about his story. Kennedy replied: "My family has been aware of various theories concerning the death of President Kennedy, just as it has been aware of many speculative accounts which have arisen from the death of Robert Kennedy. I am sure that it is understood that the continual speculation is painful for members of my family. We have always accepted the findings of the Warren Commission report and have no reason to question the quality and the effort of those who investigated the fatal shooting of Robert Kennedy."
On 25th March, 1977, Hoffman contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation again. This time Hoffman took with him Richard H. Freeman, one of the supervisors at Texas Instruments. Freeman understood sign-language and was able to help explain in more detail what Hoffman saw on 22nd November, 1963. Again the FBI showed little interest in pursuing the story.
It was only when Hoffman told the reporter Jim Marrs what he had seen did it become public knowledge. This was fully reported in Marrs' book, Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy (1989).
Posted 17 May 2004 - 02:56 PM
Isn't it interesting that Ed Hoffman was trying to tell the Senator what he had witnessed and Ted Kennedy was treating it like it was a theory Ed had. One would think that a witness seeing a man turning away from the stockade fence with a rifle immediately after JFK's brains were blown all over the street would have been of interest to the Kennedy family, but I guess not.
Edited by Larry Peters, 17 May 2004 - 02:58 PM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users