Duke Lane

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!

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.

... An earlier line was drawn in the sand pertaining to what Ed Hoffman could and could not see. Then the LOS was changed because it had been misrepresented at one point.

Foster cannot "corroborate" something Ed didn't see. Even if Foster saw it, it hardly proves that Ed did.

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.

Lee Bowers, Bill Sloan and Ed's friends have nothing to do with my question which has yet to be answered.

Ken,

Perhaps then, under separate cover, you won't mind answering those questions I'd raised? These were:

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?

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?

There are two reasons that it is considerably later, and they come from Foster himself. The only way around this is to question Foster's reliability, yet you're using Foster's own statements to support your 20-30 second theory. The two reasons are:

1. While still on the bridge, he spoke to a police officer who believed shots had been fired from the bridge. Foster advised him that shots had not been fired from the bridge.

2. While still on the bridge, someone then informed him that a man was running up the tracks from the north end of the bridge, meaning the area of the switchbox. The man who told Foster this was probably one of the railroad workers nearby.

It was only after #2 that Foster left the bridge. So these two events had to take place before Foster left. Neither had happened by the 10 second mark. The start time must then be much later than 10 seconds. That means your Foster theory as it now stands is in error and should not be relied upon by anyone.

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:

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?

3.) Arnold said he straddled the steam pipe which burned Weitzman's hands. Arnold's story is open to doubt & cannot be relied on. Many doubt Arnold's story.

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!!

1.) Hoffman never said a man walked down the fence line. ...

2.) Holland never said he walked down the fence line. ...

3.) Arnold said he straddled the steam pipe ...

This photo was made on Nov. 24, 1963:

Note Foster would have seen Hoffman's tableau vivant, but did not. ....

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.

... Hoffman said a man walked the fence line - Holland said he walked the fence line - and Gordon Arnold said he walked the fence line. How many witnesses are needed to validate that the fence line could be walked on 11/22/63 during the assassination?

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?

Try emailing Groden and asking him where it was that he saw Hoffman on Stemmons Freeway. It has been a long time since, but I recall Robert saying that he saw someone in one of the assassination images who was at the location Hoffman said he was.

Hold that thought.

... As for where Hoffman was positioned .... did he not say that the President passed below him as he came out from under the overpass and that is when he saw the President's head wound ... I think it was.

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.

I think this is a tempest in a teapot. The Bob/Ed photos show lots of trees which were not there in 1963. Bob/Ed went to Ed's location to see whether they could see the fence and signal boxes from that distance. Trees were in the way. They moved a little to the right where there was a break in the trees. They could see the box and fence through the break and shot photos. They were not interested in a line of sight, but what could be seen from about where Ed was. That is what the photos show.

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.

I am in the mountains of British Columbia where I spend the majority of the year, thus I am not in reach of the 26 volumes. I have contacted several other researchers who might be able to help, but two are out of town - one didn't know - and the other said he'd look when he had free time. This subject is old news and Weitzman's report had been discussed on Lancer long ago. I will try and do a search in more detail as time allows it.

Does anyone by chance have Mark Lanes book called "Rush to Judgment" because in the index it should have Weitzman's name and Lane was pretty good at referencing the 26 volumes when necessary. Possibly someone can assist us here?

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:

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.

XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXX.

Jack

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!

OK...so the line of sight of the photos is proved erroneous ... why not post that to begin with instead of being cute?

The photos being from a slightly different viewpoint does not prove Ed's observations incorrect ... just that TREES GREW HIGH SINCE 1963 and made it impossible to shoot the photo from the correct spot. So?

The book should have specified exactly where the photos were made from. I suspect that they moved around till they could see thru the trees, but they should have realized that the photos might be scrutinized.

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! )

Why was Goodman there? And who was there on Nov. 22, 1963 at 12:30?

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?

[Reference unknown]: BM: It would be the--

DL: Again, perhaps I've missed something, or maybe you're thinking of someone else, but I don't see anything about a "rifle being tossed" - or

anything at all

being tossed, passed, handed off, or anything like that - in Seymour Weitzman's testimony, or

any

"support" for Ed's story ... except maybe that there were steam pipes in the railroad yard, which I don't think anyone is debating.

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.

Rather than quoting your reference to a report, can you quote and source the report itself? I don't find anything about Weitzman's report in either Walt Brown's Global Index or Sylvia Meagher's. I'll check CE2003, but it doesn't ring a bell as having been there either.

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?

Jack as promised........the full page showing the two photos taken by Bob Goodman, and Ed Hoffman printed on page 130..of "Triangle of Fire"..published in 1993......

Also the enlargment of the photos.....

Best B.......

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.

Jack as promised........the full page showing the two photos taken by Bob Goodman, and Ed Hoffman printed on page 130..of "Triangle of Fire"..published in 1993......

Also the enlargment of the photos.....

Best B.......

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)?

Folks,

Oh, Heck no, not again!!!! This is not worth price of Mylanta.

Please discuss positions, not the abilities of the researcher--please. . I know this is difficult for some of you, but we are not going to have essentially the same situation that was here before. This is serious business... Ed Hoffmann's credibility is in question by some. He deserves the best you have right now, and not posting relevant statements or arguing other than positionally is not helping him.

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.

In a way you make a valid point, Duke. When a select few started out critiquing Ed Hoffman's story and it was soon discovered that some of them had not even read Ed's book .... that told everyone what kind of researchers they were - the level of ability they were incapable of so to do even the simplest requirements so to offer a valid critique of the case - and it certainly reflected their motivation IMO. only acknowledging these points is doing nothing more than drawing attention to the record.

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]

I just re-read Jim Marrs' telling of Hoffman's story in his book pages 61-5 and conclude this thread is a sad attempt at character and information assassination. Again, what's your agenda? I really do doubt getting to the truth....but free speach dictates you can defile and defame all you like....dissemble on.

Peter,

This very nearly doesn't deserve the dignity of reply. Please note rule (iv) of the JFK Forum:

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.

So it must be your position that Ed possibly sought out the authorities after the assassination while not ever being out on the freeway as he had claimed. It would seem like human nature to be in a state of shock over what had happened in Dallas, as most of the country was, thus I cannot see someone quickly thinking that here is an opportunity to claim to have witnessed something that they would know not to be true. However, feel free to make me aware ... just like those who were made aware of Ed's book after those same people were already going around pretending to be authorities on Ed Hoffman.

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?"

For me and many others you will have to present some evidence he wasn't there and not just that his being there and seeing what he 'said' he saw is inconvenient to your formulation of the events. Why would he lie or invent or distort? There are many witnesses and many's descriptions of events can be said to slightly [or more than slightly] conflict with that of other witnesses. Memory or perception, exactly, of events like that are never perfect yet all must be entertained. At this point I'm more interested in your motive to 'disappear' Hoffman than in his statements as to what happened.....but go ahead and make your case.....

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.

What is the agenda here? The location and line of sight of Hoffman is being grossly distorted. Isn't it correctly on one of the better DP plats? As I recall at Dallas symposia, others have gone to the spot and been able to imagine it possible to see what he so claims.

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.

Please stop talking in riddles. If Ed was NOT by the railroad overpass, where was he? I do not have his book. Does his book give a different location than he has always said? Where did that photo come from and when was it taken? Quit being cute, and if you have information, spiit it out instead of playing games.

Sorry, Jack, but y'see, some of us have taken so much abuse for not knowing Ed's story intimately before speaking a piece about it that it's sort of difficult to be told things that we now know aren't true by people who seem to think they're authorities on the matter but they're not.

So if you're going to leap to Ed's defense as you have been, my suggestion is to get his book from someone so you at least know what you're defending.

You're clearly not dealing with all the facts on this. You might want to rethink your stridency because this is how the story ends.

Your faith has been misplaced. There was no railroad man, there was no bag man, and there was no Ed.

First...you have the wrong line of sight for Hoffman; he was farther north, by the rr bridge.

Hoffman's line of sight? What makes you think that's Ed Hoffman's line of sight? It's six hundred sixty-six degrees off from Ed's LOS.

Read the book! Ed was not by the RR bridge.