Ed Hoffman's Activities and Observations

[Duke Lane]

Logical conclusion...

Hoffman SAW what he saw and reported the same day it happened. Other witnesses DID NOT SEE what Hoffman saw; we do not know why. Foster, Holland and others may have seen nothing THEY THOUGHT SUSPICIOUS about Hoffman's "railroad man" by the switch boxes. He was just "tending to business".

Conjecture is not proof.

Now, Jack, are you telling us about an affidavit that Hoffman signed that day? A report dated 11/22/63 or even as late as, say, 11/29/63 by the FBI or Sheriff's Office or DPD at least summarizing what Hoffman told them "that day?"

The question is: other than Ed's word on this, what PROOF do you have that Ed reported anything "that day?" I might have to look back at his book, but I don't recall that he even said that did anything of the sort.

I'm not finding a "Hoffman" in the Name Index, nor in Meagher's or Brown's indices (excluding "external" references in Brown's ... together with his remark that Ed was "ignored by officialdom for years"), or in the Dallas City Archives index, or in NARA's (post-ARRB) JFK index, or on History Matters, the AARC database, or even the Mary Ferrell site ... where does one find - that is, get PROOF - that Ed told anyone other than his family anything "that day?"

Since you disdain conjecture, I presume you have that PROOF, don't you, that you can share with us? I'm not trying to pick nits, but I don't think anyone here has seen anything like this before. I'm presuming it's not in the same file series as the Weitzman report ...?

While we're on the subject of the overpass and since I know you know more about photographic evidence than I do, can you tell me how many boxcars and/or enginers were on the train that was crossing (or at least on) the bridge when the shots were being fired? I realize I'm probably baring my naivete, here ....

Thanks as ever for your help!

Edited July 26, 2007 by Duke Lane

[Bernice Moore]

Bill:

You have personally met Ed Hoffman, could you tell me approximately how tall

he is..

Thanks B..

[Duke Lane]

Well, you have chosen to ignore the fact that JW Foster "made a major mis-statement" about his searching the railroad cars within a paragraph of the first, and thus have decided that his statement that suits your purposes - despite its differences from his WC testimony - is 100% accurate.

If I'm understanding this correctly, then Foster's testimony ... is in direct contradiction to Foster's recollection of his movements recorded 25 or 30 year's later in Sneed's book. ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Mr. FOSTER - I was standing around in back there to see that no one came out, and the sergeant came and got me and we were going to check the - all the railroad cars down there.

Mr. BALL - Who was that sergeant?

Mr. FOSTER - Sergeant came up there.

Mr. BALL - Did you search the railroad cars?

Mr. FOSTER - No; he sent me back down to the inspector. Told me to report back to Inspector Sawyer.

Mr. BALL - Where?

Mr. FOSTER - At the front of the book Depository.

Mr. BALL - Did you talk to Sawyer there?

Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sneed with Foster remembering:

"... After the shooting, one officer ran up and said that the shots came from the overpass, and I told him they didn't. Then I moved around to the end of the viaduct where somebody said some man had run up the railroad track from that location. So I proceeded up to the yards to check the empty boxcars to see if anybody had run up that way.

"I was in the yards maybe ten to fifteen minutes looking in the cars, but I didn't find anything. ..."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sorry not to quote your entire message, but I can't stand that. Almost as much as I hate all-bold type!

You understand correctly.

It seems to me that anyone who wants to subscribe to Foster's post-1987 unsworn recollections about someone saying "some man had run up the railroad track" from the north end of the TU, would also have to subscribe to his post-1987 unsworn recollection about searching the railroad cars, which in 1964, he swore he did NOT do. Didn't "not recall doing" it, didn't do it. He was ordered elsewhere, and he went where he was told.

(It reads as if he did so reluctantly: "The sergeant came and got me and we were going to check the railroad cars, [but] he sent me back down to the inspector [instead]." Damn the luck! It could've been Foster in those famous photos instead of Wise and Bass!)

Of course, if he lied under oath to Joe Ball and did search the railroad cars, then one can only wonder about what he told Larry Sneed without a Bible under his hand!

But let's not let a few facts get in the way of a good story, eh?

The sad thing is that it could've stayed a good story except for a few people having to hang their hats on it. Protest as they might (you can't argue with the faithful, but the folks who read this all later are a different story), it now looks like it's headed south together with other folk stories. The best - so to speak - is yet to come.

Y'know, in a way, it sorta saddens me.

[Bill Miller]

Now, Jack, are you telling us about an affidavit that Hoffman signed that day? A report dated 11/22/63 or even as late as, say, 11/29/63 by the FBI or Sheriff's Office or DPD at least summarizing what Hoffman told them "that day?"

Didn't Ed's book say something about his telling his family and friends about what he had soon soon after it happened?

While we're on the subject of the overpass and since I know you know more about photographic evidence than I do, can you tell me how many boxcars and/or enginers were on the train that was crossing (or at least on) the bridge when the shots were being fired? I realize I'm probably baring my naivete, here ....

I am not aware of any trains on the underpass or moving as the assassination was taking place. Does anyone have information to the contrary?

Bill

[Miles Scull]

Logical conclusion...

Other witnesses DID NOT SEE what Hoffman saw; we do not know why.

Conjecture is not proof.

Jack

The reason other witnesses, all of them, did not see what Hoffman saw is that what Hoffman saw did not happen.

Just as Hoffman did not receive annual Christmas Greeting cards from the Kennedy family as Ed said he did.

[Jack White]

The first person to tell Hoffman's story to researchers was his niece

at one of Jim Marrs' classes. She told us how he came home very

distraught on 11-22 and told what he saw, in sign language. (the

identical story he has told all these years). At a later meeting, Ed

himself told us the story, with his niece interpreting. Back to 1963,

a few days later it was Thanksgiving, and the Hoffman family gathered.

A relative was a DALLAS POLICEMAN, and Ed told him what he had

seen...but the relative TOLD HIM TO KEEP QUIET, IT WOULD BE

DANGEROUS TO TALK ABOUT WHAT HE SAW. But that advice bothered

Ed...so he eventually went to the FBI and told his story, and they

took a report, but the content was garbled because of the communication

barrier. The rest of the story is known thru Ed's various consistent

retellings for many years.

Sarcasm does not affect the facts. Speculation is not proof.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

The reason other witnesses, all of them, did not see what Hoffman saw is that what Hoffman saw did not happen.

Just as Hoffman did not receive annual Christmas Greeting cards from the Kennedy family as Ed said he did.

Miles, can you prove anything you have said above? For instance, Hoffman saw the smoke ... how many people on the underpass saw the smoke, as well ... 6 or more???

Bill Miller

[Jack White]

My mother sent condolences to the Kennedy family.

She received a reply from "the Kennedy Family."

That happened to millions of others too. It is known

as public relations. It likely was done by the Democrat

party. The messages of condolence were likely used

to build a mailing list by the DNC. The Hoffman family

likely got on the list by sending condolences. The

Scull family may not have sent their sympathy. Miles

has no way of knowing whether the Hoffman family

received such mailings. Ed, in his naivetee, believed

the cards came from the Kennedys instead of the DNC.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

My mother sent condolences to the Kennedy family.

She received a reply from "the Kennedy Family."

That happened to millions of others too. It is known

as public relations. It likely was done by the Democrat

party. The messages of condolence were likely used

to build a mailing list by the DNC. The Hoffman family

likely got on the list by sending condolences. The

Scull family may not have sent their sympathy. Miles

has no way of knowing whether the Hoffman family

received such mailings. Ed, in his naivetee, believed

the cards came from the Kennedys instead of the DNC.

Jack

I was thinking the same thing. As I stated before to Miles and the forum ... Ed did not have a good comprehension of the English language and this made things frustrating for interpreters. In Ed's mind - he probably did think the season greetings were from the Kennedy Family.

I am always amazed at how fast someone like Miles will claim something about Ed's veracity without first considering some of the more plausible explanations.

Bill

Edited July 26, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Duke Lane]

Now, Jack, are you telling us about an affidavit that Hoffman signed that day? A report dated 11/22/63 or even as late as, say, 11/29/63 by the FBI or Sheriff's Office or DPD at least summarizing what Hoffman told them "that day?"

Didn't Ed's book say something about his telling his family and friends about what he had soon soon after it happened?

Gosh, and Lee Harvey Oswald said he "didn't shoot anybody." What more PROOF do you need?

Jack said that Ed "reported" it. Is telling your family and friends the same thing as "reporting" it? I guess if you want it to be, it is, and if you don't, it's not.

Your standards of "proof" aren't very stringent. Try never to get arrested, and if you do, get a VERY good attorney!

[Bill Miller]

Gosh, and Lee Harvey Oswald said he "didn't shoot anybody." What more PROOF do you need?

Jack said that Ed "reported" it. Is telling your family and friends the same thing as "reporting" it? I guess if you want it to be, it is, and if you don't, it's not.

Your standards of "proof" aren't very stringent. Try never to get arrested, and if you do, get a VERY good attorney!

I think the difference is that Ed had told people of what he saw, so there was support for his telling his story early on. So let me ask a question that goes to what you implied IMO .... Which is better - the truth told right away to a friend or family member or a lie told later to someone of an authority figure?

Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Now, Jack, are you telling us about an affidavit that Hoffman signed that day? A report dated 11/22/63 or even as late as, say, 11/29/63 by the FBI or Sheriff's Office or DPD at least summarizing what Hoffman told them "that day?"

Didn't Ed's book say something about his telling his family and friends about what he had soon soon after it happened?

Gosh, and Lee Harvey Oswald said he "didn't shoot anybody." What more PROOF do you need?

Jack said that Ed "reported" it. Is telling your family and friends the same thing as "reporting" it? I guess if you want it to be, it is, and if you don't, it's not.

Your standards of "proof" aren't very stringent. Try never to get arrested, and if you do, get a VERY good attorney!

Check your dictionary. To REPORT is to TELL, RELATE or DESCRIBE. It is not necessarily "official" or "published".

Jack

[Duke Lane]

I am not aware of any trains on the underpass or moving as the assassination was taking place. Does anyone have information to the contrary?

Sorry I overlooked that question. The answer is - as Homer Simpson would say - d'oh!

We will begin with Patrolman JC White, who was stationed on the west side of the TU:

Mr. BALL. Did you see the President's car come into sight?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir; first time I saw it it has passed, passed under the triple underpass.

Mr. BALL. You were too far away to see it, were you?

Mr. WHITE. There was a freight train traveling.

There was a train passing between the location I was standing and the area from which the procession was traveling, and--a big long freight train, and I did not see it.

Mr. BALL. You didn't see the procession?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. Before the train went by, did you see some railroad personnel over on the---would it be the---

Mr. WHITE. East side?

Mr. BALL. East side of the overpass?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. How many people?

Mr. WHITE. About 10, approximately. I didn't count them.

Mr. BALL. Did you hear any shots?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. Didn't?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. First time you saw the President's car it was going underneath?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What did you do after that?

Mr. WHITE.

As soon as the train passed

I went over and on the northwest side of the Depository Building. On the northwest side of the book store up there with the rest of the officers and after about 30 minutes they told me to go out and work traffic at Main and Houston, and I stood out there and worked traffic.

Mr. BALL. All right, now,

you heard no sound of no rifle fire or anything?

Mr. WHITE.

No, sir.

Mr. BALL.

Freight train was going through at the time?

Mr. WHITE.

Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL.

Making noise?

Mr. WHITE.

Yes, sir; noisy train.

Mr. BALL. Mr. White, Mr. Foster was on the east side of the overpass?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

(

6H255-56

)

"Mr. Foster" was, of course, JW Foster, whose testimony - taken immediately before JC White's - reflected no passage of any train. In his No More Silence interview, we learn differently:

Just prior to the shots,

a three engine locomotive went by

, so there wasn't a lot that you could see or hear from up there even though

the locomotive had already passed and just the boxcars were going by at the time the motorcade passed through

. (page 212 in Sneed, University of North Texas Press, soft cover edition)

Note that this is not just "a train," but specifically a "three-engine locomotive" with boxcars following it even as the motorcade "passed through."

Here we have the only two cops who were on the overpass both stating - on contemporaneously, the other 35+ years later - that a train went by, a train so noisy that White never even heard any shots ... but which nevertheless did not prevent Foster from recognizing that they came from Elm & Houston.

Of course, nobody else testified to a train passing over or being on the bridge, but that shouldn't present a problem since JW Foster said it, and you lend a tremendous amount of credence to what he said in 1988 or later, as evidenced by your - and Ken's - insistence that his one sentence about being told of a man running up the tracks is gospel truth.

The fact that in 1964 he said - under oath - that he DID NOT search the railroad yard or box cars, while 35 years or so later he said he spent "maybe ten to fifteen minutes looking in the cars" doesn't seem to register with you because his lack of accuracy on that question could possibly undermine the credence of that sentence that Ed's story hinges on. Either he did or he didn't search the RR cars; he can't have done both.

So, there WAS a train because JW Foster said so many years later, and JC White said so in April 1964. That nobody else testified to it, provided an affidavit about, or otherwise described that happening, should not deter it from being "fact." Now, all you have to do is find those missing photos that show the train there where it obviously had to be.

Otherwise, we've got a whole group of images that have clearly been doctored, taking that there train out of the picture, eh?

Either there was a "big long freight train" with "boxcars going by as the motorcade passed through," as Our Man Foster and his partner said there was, and which would have provided a very big and very tangible obstruction to Ed's even being able to see the rifle toss from where he supposedly was ...

... OR there was NO TRAIN going by - theoretically enabling Ed to see what he claims to have seen - and if that's the case, you've got a very big credibility issue with JW Foster and his No More Silence statement about "some man [who] had run up the railroad tracks from that location" that you - and/or Ken - use to support the rifle toss story.

But you can't have it both ways ... tho' you can choose to ignore it!

[Duke Lane]

... Jack said that Ed "reported" it. Is telling your family and friends the same thing as "reporting" it? I guess if you want it to be, it is, and if you don't, it's not.

Check your dictionary. To REPORT is to TELL, RELATE or DESCRIBE. It is not necessarily "official" or "published".

Fair enough. I can TELL you that I wrote Rush to Judgement, A Citizen's Dissent, Executive Action and Plausible Denial, and I can back that claim up with "documentary evidence." Does that make it so?

You don't have any such documentary evidence other than a niece's word that Ed signed what he signed - and I think someone here said sign language is somewhat open to interpretation - on November 22. Ed's story in his book, however, fails to mention the niece being present when he "reported" it to his father and brother, so it falls a little short of "evidence" and at best is hearsay.

How old was Ed's niece at the time? Who was his relative - not what was he, but who was he - that told him that telling his story "could be dangerous?" Have you ASKED the relative about this personally and had it confirmed? Do you know someone who has? Is Ed's brother still alive, and has he confirmed any of this?

As you said, "conjecture is not proof," and conjecture is all you've got. And so we're clear on that, the dictionary defines "conjecture" as:

1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.

2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation. ...

4. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.

- (Dictionary.com)

1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.

2. A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork.

3. To infer from inconclusive evidence; guess.

- (American Heritage Dictionary)

1. a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); "speculations about the outcome of the election"; "he dismissed it as mere conjecture"

2. reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence;

3. to believe especially on uncertain or tentative grounds; "Scientists supposed that large dinosaurs lived in swamps"

- (WordNet 3.0 from Princeton University)

As I had said, you can't argue with or convince the faithful. It's those who can actually approach this question with an open mind that the evidence will sway.

[Duke Lane]

... I am always amazed at how fast someone like Miles will claim something about Ed's veracity without first considering some of the more plausible explanations.

Funny, I was sort of thinking the same thing, but not about Miles. Great minds think alike sometimes, eh?