Bill Miller

Thanks Chris. This must be the relevant testimony. Of course, it's pretty clear from Weitzman's language that he's describing a sequence of events; one event leads, in his mind, to the next event, and so forth. The yardman says he (the yardman) saw somebody throw something through a bush. Upon hearing this information from the yardman, Weitzman goes back over the fence to the plaza. It is plausible to suppose that Weitzman is going back over the fence because someone had said that there was something red in the street. But it is also plausible to suppose that Weitzman is also going back over the fence for a secondary reason: to possibly find what was thrown through the bush. From the Mark Lane - S. M. Holland video you can see that there are no bushes near the steam pipe, nor for that matter anywhere along the north side of the picket fence. The bushes are along the south side of the fence, along the fence. So, if someone, about or around the north side of the fence, had thrown (note action verb: throw) something through a bush, then he had to have thrown "that something" over the fence to the plaza. Thus, as Weitzman explains, he then goes back over the fence, as would be logical, to investigate. The yardman's observations, therefore, were wholly unrelated to Hoffman's story & in no way verify or validate Hoffman's story. (An ancillary point would be the overwhelming probability that if the yardman had seen a rifle being THROWN THROUGH A BUSH, then he would have identified "the something" as a rifle.) This analysis refutes Bill's contentions. The hatman resting his barrel theory, ipso facto, thus, goes up in smoke. Miles Miles, let me say something that I believe you have missed. It is not Weitzman's actions that I was describing as being of some importance concerning Hoffman, but rather what the RR worker had said that he had seen. This is how I see the situation and someone can correct me if they have information to the contrary. First of all - Where was the yard man? Bowers said there were only two men in the area along the fence out in front of his position for Bowers had a perfect view of the area on the RR yard side of the stockade fence. The RR workers seen in the assasination films and photos are seen scattered along the underpass. As I recall, Holland had to vouch for each person being with the RR company. So it seems that the witness was one of the yard men on the underpass who saw something being tossed near the steam pipe. The phrase 'through the trees' doesn't mean IMO that something was thrown through a tree, but rather someone, while looking through the trees/foliage, had saw something thrown near the steam pipe. Now unless there was a some other activity going on in the RR yard near the steam pipe such as a couple of guys playing catch or anything else that called for things being tossed ... it seems mighty somewhat interesting to me that Hoffman also described something being thrown near the steam pipe while being more specific as to when it occurred. Hoffman could have said he saw someone put something in the trunk of a car, but he said that the man took the weapon to the steam pipe and tossed it off to someone else. Combine this with Hoffman wanting to be given a lie detector examination - which would ruin his credibility if he failed the test - there seems to be evidence that Ed is sincere in his claims. Bill

Miles, there is an old saying that 'everyone is entitled to their opinion, but no one has the right to be wrong about the facts, that if you do not have all the facts, then your opinion can be of no value'. The Weitzman report stating that he meet a worker or who he thought to be a worker on the underpass and had told him that he saw something through the trees near the steam pipe being tossed following the assassination has been posted several times by myself alone. At some point i recall a connection to that person and Miller, but if I am wrong about the exact person - then so be it. However, I am not in error about Weitzman's report and someone on the ynderpass telling they saw something tossed near the steam pipe. As far as Hoffman goes ... his biggest critics are those who have never got close enough to him or his family to know what Ed has actually said. What is ridiculous about Hoffman, if anything, is that to test a deaf mute - it is expensive just considering the travel alone and it was Ed who has pushed for a polygraph and not his critics. I would think that if I was so sure Ed is lying, then I'd be trying to see what I could do to expose him instead if it being the other way around. When I get time ... I will look foir Weitzman's report concerning the man he met on the underpass who saw something tossed near the steam pipe ... the same steam pipe that had refers to by the way. Bill

I am pretty sure that Seymour Weitzman wrote a report which mentioned Miller telling him what he saw. The Commission did not interview all the DP witnesses, thus one should expand their research to the witness reports and statements taken as well. And no, I am not related to Austin Miller as far as I know. Try a search on this forum or Lancer's under his name and the report may come up because I seem to recall posting it on one of these two sites a long time ago. Bill

duplicate post deleted

I believe that the tossing of something near the steam pipe was witnessed by another triple underpass witness named Austin Miller. If I recall the name correctly, Austin saw someone toss and object as he looked through the foliage to see something going on. And to be honest, I carry no soft spot for Ed Hoffman. Ed would be the first to tell you that he doesn't ask for special treatment or consideration. What Ed has done was offer to have his accounting of what he witnessed to be subject to a polygraoh examination while knowing it could hurt him if it shown him to be lying. I must be off my rocker for no one in the plaza where ever they chose to try and shoot the President form could know what evasive action Greer would have taken once aware that the shooting had started. And what if the driver was shot in the hand as you mentioned - so what? JFK was shot non-fatally in the throat between Z186 to Z202. Connaklly was shot through the armpit and chest at Z224. Bullets seemed to have hit the street which a few people saw, bullets may have struck the car, as well .... all before the fatal shot. So what I am saying is that missed shots didn't seem to hamper anyone from continuing to shoot at the President. I am saying that 'I did place a rifle barrel between the slats of the fence' and imagined how it may have looked to an asassin in that location at the time of the assassination. I do not recall it ever falling down into the narrow channel, but rather because the target was southest of my position - I angled the barrel towards the kill shot location and I did so with the barrel resting between the slats. I also think Tony Cummings was with me when we both were working in the plaza.

I will share this information with you and attempt to clarify what has been said. Interpreters used to try and get Ed's story have failed him miserably. One can get three such individuals to write down what Ed is telling them and all three may have written something differently from each other. It is also worth considering that Ed has a very poor understanding concerning the use of the English language. I learned these things from the family and witnessed myself the frustration of Ed's daughter and Ed trying to get straight what Ed was trying to relay to her. Is anyone aware that Ed had volunteered to take a lie detector test so to prove that the things he has said is true? Even in recent years Ed was still wanting to take such an exam and had been told that it could not be done to deaf mutes. The information Ed was given was wrong and I, with Ed's permission went to a lot of trouble to see what could be done in fulfilling Ed's wish. The end result was that Ed could not be tested accurately at this time due to a heart medication he is forced to take. I have often thought it would be interesting to question and give an examintion to Ed's critics to see just how honest they have been concerning the truth when it has come to Ed Hoffman. We are not talking about a quick moving left to right target here, but rather a target out in front of you that is getting closer, but not varying much off its line of travel. Say what you like, but I have stood in DP with a carcano and tried it myself. Bill

Jack, recently I had taken the time to archive the remarks you and others have made over time ... often times with you double talking past statements you had previously made. I specifically recall looking at a thread once again where you were making your typical ridiculous statements about Larry, myself, and possibly someone else as not being real people or some idiotic rant you were making at the time about who was posting what and I read where several members chimed in telling you that you were in error - John Simkin being one of them. Your ability to be consistently wrong is something that I find truly amazing. Bill

Well, here is what you have ... Ed Hoffman seeing the man near the fence and turning around with a rifle in his hands. You have the Moorman photo taken 3.6/18s of a second after the head of JFK exploded and in that photo the man at the fence can only be seen from the hat upward. Draw your own conclusions. One final point about the slats ... having been there and considered them - with the limo so far away even at the time of the kill shot - the slightest movement of the rifle between slats could cover a target that has just advanced 10 to 20 feet in a short time. The FBI said that the limo had been traveling about 11 inches per Zframe as the car was traveling down the street following the turn onto Elm. At the time of the kill shot the limo appears to have slowed below half the speed it had been traveling just prior to that point. The feat was not as complicated as it is being made out to be IMO. Bill

I think it should be left to the person to decide. For instance, I don't really want anyone on the Internet to know what I look like. I'm 2 hours away from Donald O. Norton. If that's paranoia, so be it. Kathy Well I don't want my picture up here either. I only displayed it because I thought it was a rule. If it isn't a rule I may remove it. So sounds like a good time to clarify with the mods... When it comes down to it - anyone could post a photo of anybody and who would know if it was really them or not? The photo idea was more of a friendly type of jesture, but if someone wanted to get around it - they can do so quite easily. Bill

I do not know how the shot was fired, but I stand behind the possibility that with the limo coming down the street and the shooter out in front and to the side that the shot merely needed a bit of timing so to have pulled it off. I have shot at many moving targets by picking a point out ahead of them and waiting for the target to pass a certain point before pulling the trigger. At the time of the kill shot - the limo was moving under 5 mph which is virtually motionless at that angle. I also doubt that the shooter was aiming for the very top of JFK's head because had the bullet have been aimed 2" higher - history may have been recorded differently. The bone plate came off the very top of the head. Shots were not hitting their mark during the assassination unless we are to believe that someone shot JFK in the neck on purpose or had meant to shoot Connally in the armpit for some odd reason. Because of such a botched investigation - we will never know the truth. For me the closest thing to the truth lies with the witnesses who were there. Bill

Miles, I can only go by what I have done with a gun and understand concerning the evidence of this case. It isn't like a sniper positioned at the Hat Man location would be needing to swing his gun from side to side so to follow a target such as a quail flying across his field of view. Instead, a slow moving car out in front of you and traveling at a slight angle away from you is virtually stationary for the most part. Let us keep in mind that the view Zapruder had was not the look that the Hat Man was seeing at the time of the kill shot. I also know that an opening in the crowd or between trees and/or foliage can be sought out before hand and one only needs to allow the target to pass through the chosen opening to fire a shot off. Bill

My so-called 'midget shooter' seems to have been the person who fired before the Badge Man, thus he has had a moment to start to back away from the fence. I might also add that Moorman is looking uphill, so this person will look short to the fence if they are not standing right up against the fence. I can only say that if I had done the deed .... I would have stood back a few feet from the fence so not to be easily seen from the street as people looked up the knoll and I would have then rested my gun barrel between the fence slats so to get a steady shot off. Then all I would need to do is pull my gun back as I started to turn away from the scene which is what Ed Hoffman claims to have witnessed.

Tim, have you ever wondered why it is that crime scenes are supposed to be well documented as they were found? It's because circumstances beyond control can cause them to change over time, thus a record of the original event is most always all we have to go on. Now what you have not said about the trees in the plaza is that they have been trimmed back several times in the past. The people who oversee their care have specialist come in and trim them as far back as possible without damaging the tree itself. Now let us say that they didn't go to a professional and just started trimming the trees back as far as maybe you'd like to see them done .... then the trees die and have to be removed. I would bet that you'd then be writing about the conspiracy to alter the look of the plaza so to prevent people like yourself from being able to replicate images for your personal study ... so you make it a no win situation for the Museum no matter how they approach preserving the plaza. Bill

Tim, As I recall ... it was during that time that you were the one who was thinking the sunspots on the wall of the shelter was the "classic gunman". I also recall you thinking that Mack drove some white van, which he did not and that somehow the city of Dallas controlled him, which they do not. Now I do not know the specifics of your conversation with Mack concerning me, but what I post concerning the information I request from Gary most always comes from direct quotes unless I say otherwise. And if I ever got carried away about anything ... it is the way I express my disatisfaction over some of the poor research practices and ridiculous way you jump to conclusions that I have witnessed in your postings. Is this Bill speaking, or Gary speaking thru Bill? I can't tell anymore. Myra, the post was me speaking about Tim's past remarks posted on the forum. It would seem to me that if I were quoting Mack ... that I would not only have used quotation marks, but Mack would refer to himself as "I" and not "Mack" as I did. I also cannot imagine Mack saying that he requested information from himself, but rather it would be me who requested information from Gary Mack. I hope the information helps you.

Duncan, you appear to be grossly misinterpreting the geography of the knoll concerning the location of the small trees between filming locations. I hope that my example below clears it up for you. I have taken the liberty to match the sunspots on the fence between the Nix film and Moorman's photo seeing how you didn't bother to do so. I also numbered the small trees for you, as well. Bill

Duncan, reading your reply again only meant that I had to read your mistake once again when you said, "Using the same criteria so that there can be no doubt, I can now say with certainty that the location of Holland in the Mark Lane clip is the same location as My suspected shooter." If one counts the small trees in Moorman's photo - they will see that from where Mary stood when she took her photo that Hat Man was near the first small tree along the west stretch of fence. The same can be said about Holland and Lane. There are four or more small trees from the corner of the fence in your post #1 Moorman enlargement before you get to your floating torso man. Having now pointed out the obvious ... do you still wish to say that Holland is at the same location as your floating torso man? Bill

Speaking of corroboration, Wim ... I believe that Bowers said that man was heavy set and that Hoffman pretty much agreed with that description. Files was a scrawny 20/21 year old punk at the time of the assassination as I recall. I might also add that Hoffman said the shooter turned away from the fence and walked towards the steam pipe and tossed the gun to someone else. Files story does not corroborate what the witnesses have said. It seems that if you believe in Files so much, then maybe you should have to address the descrepencies here.

Tim, As I recall ... it was during that time that you were the one who was thinking the sunspots on the wall of the shelter was the "classic gunman". I also recall you thinking that Mack drove some white van, which he did not and that somehow the city of Dallas controlled him, which they do not. Now I do not know the specifics of your conversation with Mack concerning me, but what I post concerning the information I request from Gary most always comes from direct quotes unless I say otherwise. And if I ever got carried away about anything ... it is the way I express my disatisfaction over some of the poor research practices and ridiculous way you jump to conclusions that I have witnessed in your postings.

Jack, I was curious to find out for myself and these are 10 points Gary made to you concerning your statements .... 1) It was a local story - written, produced, and edited in KTVT's Dallas office.. 2) Baltimore wasn't mentioned - I learned that from KTVT. You assumed Max was in town but he wasn't, and the story did not suggest that he was. 3) You assumed in the thread title that Holland was "promoting new book with absurd theory" 4) The story was promoted because the assassination is still a good local story. 5) It was seen by KTVT news personnel as an interesting story with a strong local tie-in. 6) YOU wrote: Gary Mack came on camera and said it was an "interesting theory". I never said any such thing, on or off camera. 7) Rather than look at Altgens, we looked at Dorman and the Secret Service film. The stop light is different, but the pole may not be - it has the same support structure. 8) The "dent" is part of Max's flawed theory, but a dent could be observed IF it were there - that's all I said. 9) All official investigations concluded that Oswald fired from that window. Feel free to disagree. 10) I told KTVT that I thought there was no story. They disagreed.

If it is Lee Oswald's body, then they dressed him in Lovelady's red plaid shirt. Oswald's arrest photos show Lee wearing a brown grainy shirt. Groden's book "TKOAP" shows Lovelady wearing his red plaid shirt. The Hughes film shows it to be a read shirt. Altgens photo #6 shows the plaid design. Lovelady's head - Lovelady's clothes. Bill Miller

Duncan, did I not make myself clear when I told you to take the Moorman photo and the Nix film and count the sun patches on the fence so to see if your alleged floating torso was at the same place as the Hatman in Moorman's photo? Those sunspots seen at the time of the assassination have distinct shapes and it should be quite easy for anyone to match them up between the Nix film and Moorman's photo. If perspective only confuses you, then matching up the sun patches should help you. We have been through all this before and waiting for an extended period of time only to promote the error once again does not make it right this time around. Bill

If a shot was fired when JFK was under the snipers nest, then it was a shot that no one heard. The first shot came between Z186 and Z202 according to the statements made by Betzner and Willis. As far as Mack's position ... the following is what I understand it to be as told to me by Gary ................. "Max isn't in town - he was interviewed by the Baltimore CBS affiliate. He's not promoting a new book, either - , though he's still writing one about the Warren Commission. Jack misrepresented my opinion of Max's theory. I do NOT believe it and have told him so in several private emails. I do agree that an indentation MIGHT be visible on the mast IF it is the original mast." Take a look at the news story that aired here last night: http://cbs11tv.com/local/local_story_072000656.html

Duncan - I am glad someone posted the capture and it is the same location I have been talking about. Find the location shown in the Nix film gif that Needham did years ago. Now count the sun patches on the wooden fence in both the Nix film and Moorman photo to each alleged persons position and you will be forced to see that they are not one in the same location. Bill

I am going from memory here, but the concrete wall above the knoll comes to mind. look at the length that the map says it is and compare that to the same wall leading to the Zapruder pedestal. Then compare the two lines and see if they are accurate in ratio to the numerical distances attributed to them. I distinctly recall posting about them a few years ago and it is possible that Don corrected them, but if the map is unchanged, then they are still there. Bill

John - there were numerous shots being fired at the limo ... show me where their shock wave or any other sign of them in flight is seen on any assassination film? It's nonsense to expect the assasination films to offer such detail on this matter.