Duke Lane

The term "lunatic" that I used did not reference your ability as a researcher, but rather that you are so emotionally involved that you would attempt to call me a fraud not because I have purposely tried to mislead someone, but because of my current circumstances of not having access to my collection of data. This is not rational thinking on your part in my opinion and it is certainly not tolerable from where I sit. What you did is little different than someone saying they have a crop from Towner #3 showing two people at the large tree above the knoll immediately following the shooting, but cannot share it because they don't have access to their files at the current time ... only to then have someone else come back and call them a fraud for not being able to immediately get access to their materials. Had I of done that with you - I would expect others to view my actions the same way. Had I of quoted you saying something positive - you'd not said a word, but when I shared your inappropriate tone with me with this forum - you then see that as something to complain about. The point I wanted to make was to make future students of the assassination (which I get plenty of) who wish to discuss the evidence of the case with me privately ... can do so as long as things are kept on a rational level and they do not allow their emotions to get the best of them whereas they start insulting me over something as silly as my not currently being where I can get to my complete JFK assassination collection of data. When the latter occurs, then the discussion is no longer about the facts of the case, but rather a game of politics where slander is used in place of knowledge of the case. What you attempted to do could be compared to a guy bad mouthing a disabled person for not shaking his hand when it was obvious that person had no hands to shake with. That tactic is old-hack and it reflects poorly on those who use it - not those who it was used on and that's exactly why you didn't like my mentioning it in my post. You have an amazing way of making even an "apology" seem like an attack. The best defense is always a strong offense, and the truth is that you can oftentimes be quite offensive. The issue of not having access to your hard-bound 26 volumes is a non-sequitur since it is all available online; since you are here, you clearly have access to them and much more. I have hard-bound copies here too, but only cracked them once or twice. Your accusations of emotional involvement are a perception of yours alone. Your decision to publicly post an edited version of a private email is not justified by that or any other perception. People "who wish to discuss the evidence of the case with [you] privately ... can do so as long as --" ... apparently, only for as long as you alone want it to be private. You can change your mind at any time. You can quote selectively, just as you have done, including with McAdams' private note to you ... and as far as I can tell, he said nothing to "force" you to take his note from private to public, but you chose at whim to do so ... selectively. Your opinions that I'd have "said not a word" in protest if you'd quoted me either fully or more positively, and what is "exactly why" I didn't like it, are just that: opinions. We know that most people have them, and they usually stink. QED. If I "insulted" you, it was done privately. You clearly prefer to keep your insults in the public arena. Your reading of minds is substantially less than perfect. I'm not quite certain if I'm surprised that you think you have the ability. If this was an "apology," I can't accept it in good faith because it doesn't seem to have been made in good faith. It's just another thinly-veiled attempt to justify yourself by placing the "blame" elsewhere. As I said, you have no decency.

Email is generally considered private; calling someone a "lunatic" is generally considered slander or libel. You have absolutely no decency, sir, whatsoever.

Where was this type of thinking when days were wasted reading post saying how Holland immediately ran off the underpass. I also got to say that it sounds ridiculous when someone tries to use what one witnesses didn't see to prove a point. Gosh, was that me saying any of that? Did you get me drunk again? What day is today? Is this British Columbia? Bill, I know you're smarter than the rest of us combined, but do you have any clue whose line of sight that actually was, intended or otherwise? It was actually testified to! It is a matter of record! I think the above quote falls under the 'I won't see it until I believe it' mentality. I mean think about this ... 'If Ed described something that Foster saw as well - it doesn't mean that Ed saw it.' What kind of a position is that to take on anything? On the plus side - it shows just how solid these witnesses are for someone to have to resort to the type of thinking I quoted above. Billy, even you can repeat what someone else said! That you can repeat it to me - or that I can repeat it again - does not mean that either you or I witnessed it first-hand, does it? Foster's being on the bridge was published before Ed's first meeting with the FBI, by both Tink Thompson and Sylvia Meagher. Ed Hoffman "devoured" this stuff, the "most accurate ... [and] complete" account - other than his own, presumably - having established that. His "detailed descriptions of the crime scene" and the events that went on around it do NOT reveal anything that hasn't already been on the record, and is completely ignorant of what IS on the record, albeit outside the "popular press." Personally, my thinking is this: Ed told a little white lie to his family, perhaps to impress his father and brother who didn't seem to think highly of him. Perhaps in the process of "convincing" himself of the story, he told it to some people whom he'd worked with, who in turn brought it to the FBI's attention. Were you a boy when you were young? Did you know any bullies? One thing that can definitely be said of the people that "helped" Ed get his story told is that they abandoned him at the moment of truth. In the first case, the FBI told his co-worker to get Ed to write everything down so it would be understandable. Instead, Ed shows up empty-handed two days later and has to gesture to attempt to make himself understood, which didn't seem to work all that well. Where was the co-worker, and why didn't he tell Ed to write everything down? Did Ed simply ignore him and figure that, despite past difficulties, he could actually make the FBI understand him this time? This guy could "understand" Ed, but couldn't be bothered helping him out. I think he was making a fool of Ed, and succeeded. The 1977 incident was not dissimilar: guy calls up, translates for Ed, even goes to DP to re-enact the whole deal, and when it comes time for Ed to tell the story first-hand to the FBI ... where's this "friend?" NOT translating for Ed, that much is for sure! Ed was on his own again, good luck with that! Despite the fact that his family and personal friends confirm his story, none of them were those who'd persuaded Ed to contact the FBI to tell it in the first place ... and those that did persuade him and "help" him, abandoned him. I think they were making fun of him and succeeded spectacularly. Bullies. Then Ed's story came to the attention of someone who was able to publish the story nationally, and did. According to Ed's own later - and presumably accurate - narrative, that author actually provided "corroborating evidence" of a "conversation" between two of Ed's characters that never took place. At this point, his "little white lie" assumed national prominence: what was he to do or say? That it was all just an "inside joke?" And then came The Men Who Killed Kennedy and the whole Marrs/Howard thing ($$ - even if not to Ed! Let Jim sue me if I'm misrepresenting anything here ...) preceding the JFK movie that put Ed on the international stage. And then came the elaborations, the "detailed descriptions of the crime scene" that were anything but, all just to show that he wasn't fibbing to his family. The simple fact is that Ed knows nothing about the actual scene that supposedly confronted him as he watched this "deadly tableau" unfold before him. He has reported only the published information that was already available, and none of what is not generally known, but which is nevertheless established and unequivocal FACT.

Ken, Perhaps then, under separate cover, you won't mind answering those questions I'd raised? These were: What Foster said in 1964 and sometime in 1987 or after are immaterial. Once something has been shown not to be true, it should be discarded and no longer used to support some silly argument. Who cares how long it took him to get to the end of the overpass, or if he was actually "on" or "off" of it when he supposedly talked to someone? Es machts nichts! Frankly, it doesn't even matter if Foster said that he'd watched the "rifle toss" himself and chased the guy down the railroad tracks, it remains that Ed didn't see it happen, and that's what this is all about, isn't it? Foster cannot "corroborate" something Ed didn't see. Even if Foster saw it, it hardly proves that Ed did. Beware the other foot falling. Meanwhile, can you comment on the above please?

You may continue, if you wish, to quote discredited information to make your point. Quoting it more frequently does not make it more creditable. You do realize, of course, that Ed was not the only person to have essentially the same vantage point, don't you? That being the case, why did nobody else see this non-event? What about the two parking lot attendants? What about Bowers? ... Speaking of whom, would you care to elucidate the "suit man - plaid shirt man" conversation that is supposedly "confirmed" by Marrs' account of Bowers' testimony in Crossfire, to wit: One man, middle aged, or slightly older, fairly heavyset, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousrs. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket ... They were facing and looking up toward Main and Houston and following the caravan as it came down. How about the point made by Bill Sloan that "Ed read every article and devoured every published detail about the case?" You realize that every bit of "supporting evidence" comes from published sources, all before Ed's "forced" trip to the FBI in June 1967, don't you? Do you really believe that Ed's "friends" at TI really had his best interests at heart and wanted to help him get the story out, or do you believe that they were really doing it out of derision, hence their universal abandonment of him at the crucial moment of being interviewed by the FBI?

I believe that Jack has addressed the steam pipe before by saying that it was insulated. You may recall Holland saying that a couple of guys went over the steam pipe and one fell on top of the other. I am not sure where Weitzman touched the pipe so to get burned ... maybe you can enlighten us on this ? Maybe it's in the Weitzman report? If someone could just find that dang thing, maybe then we'd all know!!

Leaves one to wondering if the two parking lot attendants saw it, doesn't it? How did Lee Bowers miss it from his vantage point 14' or so above the ground? Did you notice that in Eye Witness, Ed states that he saw the limo roar up the entrance ramp, and then turned around again to see the "rifle toss" and flight ... and then turned around again to see the SS follow-up car with Hickey pointing his AR-15 at him? (See the sketches above for an illustration of how far apart the limo and follow-up car were.) There was clearly more time for all this to have been taking place than you've allowed in your scenarios.

Well, having more than one witness who was absolutely, positively, verifiably there - or at least more than two! - would be nice. Using one person's own "testimony" to verify itself surely doesn't count, does it?

Hold that thought.

Where he and his car were: Where he was in relation to the limo as it came up the ramp, and to the USSS follow-up car as it came up the ramp (relative to the limo): An aerial view: From Eye Witness, pages 6, 10 and 9 respectively. Hope this clears that up.

Well, I suppose that's fine ... but we'll find this LOS to be important anyway. I might try to get a clearer copy, albeit even later than these. I, of course, have never doubted what could be seen from Ed's location, only whether there was anyone there.

Volume 7, page 109 at the end of his testimony Dave The latter we're already aware of and had discussed several pages back. The "firecracker" incident had nothing to do with a "rifle toss." As to Lane's RTJ cites, the vast majority - if not all of them - referred to his description of the "7.65 Mauser" rifle, as does his affidavit: ...Who after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says: Yesterday, November 22, 1963, I was standing at the corner of Main and Houston, and as the President passed and made his turn going west toward Stemmons, I walked casually around. At this time my partner was behind me and asked me something. I looked back at him and heard 3 shots. I ran in a northwest direction and scaled a fence towards where we thought the shots came from. Then someone said they thought the shots came from the old Texas Building. I imme- diately ran to the Texas Building and started looking inside. At this time Captain Fritz arrived and ordered all of the sixth floor sealed off and searched. I was working with Deputy S. Boone of the Sheriff's Department and helping in the search. We were in the northwest corner of the sixth floor when Deputy Boone and myself spotted the rifle about the same time. This rifle was a 7.65 Mauser bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope, a thick leather brownish-black sling on it. The rifle was between some boxes near the stairway. The time the rifle was found was 1:22 pm. Captain Fritz took charge of the rifle and ejected one live round from the chamber. I then went back to the office after this. All of Lane's citations relative to Weitzman are to his testimony, the Report, and the above-quoted affidavit. It does not have anything relative to the TU area after his arrival there, other than that someone there said the shots had come from the TSBD. He doesn't even mention the firecracker/skull-piece. All 26 volumes can be searched online, as Mr Bill knows well from from earlier posting suggesting that other people to look through CE2003, to which he provided a linke, and from which the above is taken. The onus is on Mr Bill to find his own cites ... unless he knows better than to waste his time looking, and would prefer the failure to find this "Weitzman report" be someone else's rather than his own! Being in the mountains of BC has nothing to do with it if he's able to post here, but it does sound convincing.

Wow! Redacted posts! Now I feel like I'm at the National Archives!! Now this is research!! Keep it comin', y'all, ah's learning as fast as ah kin, ay-yup! PS - Love from Harry!

Aww, c'mon, Jack, be a sport! After all, Miles and I are just a couple of hacks who'd never read Ed's book and therefore know nothing and never will, while you and Bill are respected researchers who've actually even won awards and support Ed's story without reservation or equivocation! I mean, what's a little "erroneous" between friends, eh? Besides, if either of us had said that up-front, nobody would have believed either of us (especially given Harry Livingstone's low esteem of my associations! And did I mention Lisa Pease's denunciation of me as "a CIA plant," not to even mention your own, since retracted?). Coming from someone with your credentials (I am SO trying not to say "photogammetry" here! ), it has much more meaning and credibility. Thank you. Clearly, Ed did not take Bob to where he actually was, or else Bob couldn't follow simple instructions and decided to take a "better" picture ... which must clearly be the case because nobody understands what a deaf-mute is telling them anyway. (Doubt it? Read Ed's book.) Or, of course, you can always blame it on the trees. The more "exacting" this story becomes, the more "evidence" that's developed, the fuzzier are the details and the more room that's created to wiggle. Since you're only a few miles away in Fort Worth, maybe you could hop into downtown and take better pictures for us? I'll even do the shooting since I can dodge traffic better ... just tell me where to stand. (Amazingly, we don't have to do all of this by the forum, but then I wouldn't want anyone to see you in my company, especially the "Dealey Plaza Denizens," of which Bob was one for many years if not still, am I not right? But I can pick you up at Luby's John White if you'd like! )

Miles, while I see your point, I think one thing is off-base, that being the perspective of which is the lamp post and which is the sign support, or what you've called the "direction sign trestle." You'll note in MacIntyre that there is a lamp post nearer to the camera than the sign support, as well as one farther from the camera than it. In an extreme close-up of that you're looking at in the above image - or by magnifying it - you can actually see the shadows cast by all three lamp posts. These should be able to be lined up two ways: [1] to determine exactly where MacIntyre's shot was taken; and [2] to determine exactly where the "re-enactment" photo was taken. Note where the northern-most edge of the TU seems to be - to the right of the sign structure - while your LOS appears to point well to the north of that, north even of the picket fence line. Start from the TU and work your way backward instead. The LOS would be only be a little different, but different nonetheless. Since if I read correctly (and being a terrible researcher - not to mention "one of Mary Ferrell's people" [that witch, haha!] and did I mention that every word Harry wrote was true? - I may not have been able to read, or understand what I've read), the location of the photo was made at Ed's direction, we should have either: [1] Ed's location that coincides with the maps (plural) he'd provided in his book; or [2] Ed's location that does not coincide with the book. If [2], we're then left with a conundrum of where Ed actually was. The vertical perspective is likewise important because what he could've seen from the east-side shoulder would have been different than what he could've seen from across the highway due to five lanes of traffic (in 1963). There is little enough of both the lamp post and sign support to make any positive estimate. These shots are either telephoto or crops, or both; the moire patterns suggest "both." Unfortunately, I've gotten a couple of system updates in the past few hours (Windows and virus software, at least), which seem to have interfered with my ability to take screen-shots and paste them into anything, so I'll have to continue this in an edit later on. Take this one step at a time. I'll add in the screen-shots shortly, I hope. EDIT: Okay, screen-shots working .... At close magnification, the line is a little to the right of the lamp post and to the left of the sign support, as so: Extending that line, we get: Such that this seems to be the correct LOS of the Goodman photo, which doesn't put Ed anywhere near where he claimed to have been, thus either [1] the photo is wrong (i.e., [a] Ed placed Bob in the wrong spot, or Bob ignored Ed and went with the best vantage point), or [2] nobody's gotten the story quite right to date. (Personally, I'd go with [1b] myself.) Ed's map, while not exact or to scale, would put his actual LOS somewhere between these two lines: This is, of course, only to determine the correct locus for Ed: where he put himself, or where Bob put him later on and unbeknownst to Ed to "prove" the point ... and disprove it while he was at it! (This should help us to learn something about research that we obviously don't already know!) So, to prove any OTHER point, we would first need to determine exactly where Ed was. Perhaps the Magi might be willing to give us Locusts (lesser and lower than Grasshoppahs!) some direction here ... we needn't have much exactitude, but a little nudge might help .... (Somehow, I don't think a lot of help will be forthcoming. C'mon, guys, this story needs all the help it can get!) For the sake of mentioning it, this would appear to be MacIntyre's LOS, with the first lamp post to the left of the sign support, and with the third column of windows on the Sheriff's Office building being just to the left of the sign itself. Seem about right?

I can go look for my post if need be, but I am certain that I referenced WEITZMAN'S REPORT. It was in the REPORT where it was said that Weitzman was told by a witness that they seen SOMETHING tossed through the trees over near the steam pipe. It could have been a gun - a broom - a mop - or what ever, but the point I made is that something was seen being tossed by someone other than Ed Hoffman. Bill, while you eagerly await that which I've "promised to deliver" to you and Jack, can you provide us with an update on what has become of your search for this "Weitzman report?" You had started to look for it, and left us with baited breath looking through CE2003, which contains nothing about any such report, but which you were going to continue to search for "as time allows:" That is a fair request, Duke .... and I can tell you that it is in the 26 Volumes for I have read it several times in the past. I have spent the better part of the morning doing searchers and I have found references to it, but no the report itself. Seymour Weitzman gave a report telling of this meeting with the man who saw something tossed near the steam pipe. Here is a link for those who wish to look for it ... I will continue to search for it as time allows. http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/...Vol24_0111a.htm Since it was a "fair request" about a week ago (excuse my math if needs be), I'm hoping you'll deliver upon it soon. I'd hate like hell to miss something that is "common knowledge" to "anyone who asked about it," especially since I've asked about it and you haven't been able to make it common knowledge as yet. It's a "fair request" after all, and you ARE fair, aren't you? I mean, you wouldn't purposely not provide something you've cited just to make me look like "one of Mary Ferrell's people," would you?

Thanks, Kathy, tho' this doesn't appear to be Ed's actual line of sight if his map in Eye Witness is accurate. Is there likewise a plat showing where this photo was taken from (i.e., the place where Ed was standing)? I realize this makes me a terrible and uninformed researcher - I am, after all, one of those terrible "Mary Ferrell's people" according to Harry Livingstone [KTT, p392, p582 fn. 191] - because I don't have every single book published on the topic, but I'll just have to try to live through that just like I somehow managed to live through Harry's diatribe.

Thanks, Kathy, tho' this doesn't appear to be Ed's actual line of sight if his map in Eye Witness is accurate. Is there likewise a plat showing where this photo was taken from (i.e., the place where Ed was standing)?

That really should have been "Bill: Oh, heck no, not again!" since this is his usual tack, not anyone else's. Not to worry, Kathy, as far as he's concerned, Ed's credibility is not being questioned by anyone with half a brain. Fortunately, this is the general direction that our Mr Miller likes to take things. He apparently thinks he's scoring debate points. He should remember that we're not the only people who will ever read this thread and others he's posted to. His refined ability to provide honed ad hominem reflects well on him, he thinks. Well trained on alt.conspiracy.jfk it looks like. Vent your frustration where it ought to be, as difficult as that may be since he seems to be "defending" Ed's story. Apparently, the moderators are quite entertained by him - as am I, actually - so I see no reason to expect any kind of change. Always best to attack the messenger.

Nice deflection, only acknowledging what others' posts made obvious to everyone. "Hey, I didn't say you're dumb, you proved it, and all I did was acknowledge that." I like that. Very good. I'm almost actually impressed with your skill ... if not at anything else, certainly your ability to insult people obliquely and put the blame back on them. So the bottom line would appear to be that if someone has incomplete facts at one point in time, they will never have complete facts ever. Works for me....

[dupe]

Peter, This very nearly doesn't deserve the dignity of reply. Please note rule (iv) of the JFK Forum: (iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. .... In person, your comments could constitute "fightin' words." Considering that you have never met me and probably wouldn't dare to say the things you say online to me in person, I would request that you restrain your harsh words and give me the respect that you would to anyone else you don't know ... which, granted, may not be much. Outside of the Forum, one never knows the consequences of ill-intentioned actions and comments, or when they will suddenly meet up with the object of their derision. Here, they're a little more clear-cut. Clean up your act. As to Marrs' version of events, it adds nothing to this discussion other than the perception that some of the things that Ed had described have "since been corroborated" - despite the fact they had always been on the record - and a confusion of dates (e.g., the story he told in 1977 was "essentially the same story he told in 1985"). Jim likewise makes judicious use of words like "substantially" and "essentially" to make his points.

You have documentary evidence of Ed's going to the FBI or anyone on November 22, 1963? If not, is it your position that such records were never made or were destroyed in favor of the only extant records from several years later which were not destroyed? Ed's limited-distribution booklet (48 pages including the covers) was not and is not common knowledge, so stop pretending as if it were. Isn't it Vince Bugliosi who opens his appearances with the query of how many people have read the Warren Report? Are you suggesting that anyone here who hasn't read it from cover to cover (as you no doubt have) has "no business" commenting on any aspect of the assassination with any semblance of "authority?"

Two things to understand: First is that my "motive" ("motivation" is a better word) is the same as for determining what happened to the "missing" Fort Worth police records and photographs of the "arrest" of "David Atlee Phillips," and more lately for delving into Dicky Worrell story about being under the "sniper's nest" window during the shooting and seeing someone flee the TSBD afterward: facts. Second is that I have no personal animosity toward Ed Hoffman, and actually think he's a nice guy (if I were a woman, I'd probably call him "sweet"). I take no particular glee in taking out his story, and in a way and to an extent, am saddened by it. It appears, however, that you're emotionally attached to the story as are others, as evidenced by your being "more interested in [my] motive to 'disappear' Ed" than in the actual facts. If I showed a photo of the very spot he claimed to have been with the limo speeding up the ramp in the background, I fear some folks here would claim either that [a] Ed had to have been standing outside the view of the camera, or that the photo was altered to remove him. Given facts, they will run from them, decry them, and otherwise pretend they don't exist if it doesn't match up to the story they've come to believe. They are also willing to disregard and dismiss any other witnesses' statements or other evidence that doesn't quite fit, and embrace the least possibility that will lend credence to the tale (e.g., J.W. Foster's 35-years-after-the-fact memory of being told about someone running up the tracks, the only such reference). So that we're clear on where Ed claimed to have been standing - and where he'd parked his car - here is HIS version, in print, from his book (Ed Hoffman and Ron Freidrich, Eyewitness: Ed Hoffman tells about November 22, 1963, and his search for someone to listen, JFK Lancer Productions and Publications, Grand Prairie, TX, 1997; manuscript #345 PDF) ... which is always possible that he "got wrong" due to a "fading memory" over the years, or he "never intended to be exact" in this misrepresentation (wasn't that Humes' excuse for burning his notes?). Let it also be said: I believe there was a conspiracy. I just don't believe that every conspiracy theory is valid simply because it points to a conspiracy.

It's not a question of whether something can be seen from where Ed claims to have been, it's a question of whether he was there at all. If you'll be patient and allow me time to lay everything out in a logical sequence - I have a life outside of this forum, and it sometimes takes precedence - you'll see that there are things that Miller & Company are either unaware of or have chosen to ignore. While I'm by no means perfect, you can see how I approach things if you'll search the forum for the keyword "Cowtown" or "Cowtown Connection," which is something I whipped together in 1992 or '93 - literally in a week or two - about "David Atlee Phillips" being under arrest in Fort Worth and the mysteriously-disappearing Fort Worth photographs and police records. I am about to do the same thing to this story. This is one of those Pandora's Box situations where folks should've left well enough alone and let me go on with my "gut feelings" that I expressed at the beginning of this thread. It was a miscalculation.