Duke Lane

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.

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.

Given the fact that the above-quoted testimony was taken in April 1964, the verb "were" in the past tense seems appropriate. Not once did he say that "the motorcade IS coming down Elm Street" - that is, nothing in the present tense, so to try to parse exactly what relative point in time each "was" and "were" refers to seems quite impossible: everything was then in the past, that is, on November 22, 1963, not April 8, 1964. Nevertheless, Brown's remarks seem to have referred to trains in the railroad yard and not on the TU. It appears as if the train Miles pointed out was not moving, so even if there had been a train on the TU, that one was clearly not it, which is a moot point because it does not seem in any case that there was a train crossing the TU even despite White's sworn testimony. This does illustrate, however, the lengths some folks'll go to defend a theory ... and a theory is all it is: it is not an established fact. It will become even less so, and I'm confident that the nits will continue to get picked. It's likewise important to realize that the purpose of this thread is not to convince each other of one point of view or the other, but to lay out whatever facts there are for others who read this thread to discern for themselves.

Testimony of Patrolman Earle V. Brown, stationed atop the railroad overpass above Stemmons Freeway: Mr. Ball. On November 22, 1964, were you assigned to a certain post on duty? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. Mr. Ball. Where? Mr. Brown. That would be the railroad overpass over Stemmons Expressway service road. ... It's over Stemmons Expressway; in other words, they make that turn off Elm and go up. ...Where I was was the railroad overpass. Mr. BALL. The railroad overpass itself? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. How far were you from the place where the continuation of Elm goes under the overpass? Mr. BROWN. Oh, approximately 100 yards. ... Mr. Ball. Did you have the railroad yards in sight? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir: ... Mr. Ball. Did you see any people over in the railroad yards? Mr. Brown. Not that I recall; now they were moving trains in and out. Mr. Ball. But you did not see people standing? Mr. Brown. No, sir; sure didn't. Mr. Ball. Was there any obstruction of your vision to the railroad yards? Mr. Brown. Yes. Mr. Ball. What? Mr. Brown. Not the direction of the railroad yard, but at ground level we didn't have very good view. Mr. Lomax and I remarked that we didn't have a very good view. Mr. Ball. Was that because of the moving trains? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Did you see the President's motorcade come on to Houston Street from Elm; were you able to see that? ... Mr. Brown. No, sir; actually, the first I noticed the car was when it stopped. Mr. Ball. Where? Mr. Brown. After it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped. Mr. Ball. Did it come to a complete stop? Mr. Brown. That, I couldn't swear to. Mr. Ball. It appeared to be slowed down some? Mr. Brown. Yes; slowed down. ... Mr. Ball. Did you search any part of the area [after the shooting]? Mr. Brown. We were instructed to stay at our posts, which we did, and later we got instructions to check the area around the Depository, Book Depository Building, and to obtain the license numbers of all those cars parked around there, which we did. Mr. Ball. Where were any cars parked? Mr. Brown. Well, there's a parking lot around that building and there was several cars parked all around that building. Mr. Ball. You took the license numbers? Mr. Brown. Yes; in fact, I think there must have been four or five officers taking license numbers. I've left in the part about the limo slowing/stopping mainly to illustrate the extent of the view from where Officer Brown and his partner James Lomax were on the bridge, and the last part about the license plate numbers just because it's interesting. There is at least one other person who'd also testified to trains moving about in the railroad yards (I'll post that once I find it), but once again, nobody described one going over the TU except for Officer White.

That's definitely the tail end of a train, i.e., a boxcar ... but is it moving or stationary?If it's moving, how long after the shooting was this frame taken, and how fast would a train have to have been moving to get to where it is in this image by then? Another look: We still have the question about whether [a] the train is stationary or moving (you've marked it "receding," meaning moving), and if it's moving, how far had it moved and from where, IOW could it have been a train that might have passed over the TU at about the time of the assassination?I've asked Bill Miller - and anyone else who might know - when the above frame was taken in relation to the shooting, and he quoted me Lee Bowers' testimony about cops coming into the RR yards "right away" and him ordering the trains to stop. I think it's fair to say that nothing happened "instantaneously," so if this image was shot within, say, one second of the shooting, two things are true: [a] Lee Bowers hadn't stopped anything yet, and no train could've stopped that fast anyway, and the train, if it had been moving and had been on the bridge, could not have covered that distance from the bridge in so short a time unless it was really a-blowin' an' a-goin'. On the other hand, if it was taken five minutes afterward, it's not so easy to reach a conclusion. Also, absent another frame that shows the boxcar in a different position, do we know it's moving at all? Just because you take a picture of the front of me, it doesn't mean I'm "walking toward you." Even still, trains were being moved about in the yard - the world didn't stop for the motorcade - and this could be one of those. J.C. White is the only witness who mentioned a "long, noisy train" going by at the exact moments of the shooting, which, he said, effectively made him "not a witness" since it blocked both his view and his hearing (tho' there is testimony to contradict him); nobody else even mentions a train in connection with the bridge. But if White is correct - and if J.W. Foster's recollection 35 years later is true - would this not also mean that the train would have blocked any view of the so-called "rifle toss?"

Well, if you told me there was a firetruck in front of your house this morning only because you had heard a red truck with a ladder had been seen near there, then I would call that "supposition". If someone else said they witnessed a firetruck in front of your house, as well ... then I'd say that it is proof through collaboration. So you're saying that you have complete confidence that what Foster described for Sneed is exactly the way it happened, then, correct? If so, fair enough. Let's move on.

That's definitely the tail end of a train, i.e., a boxcar ... but is it moving or stationary? If it's moving, how long after the shooting was this frame taken, and how fast would a train have to have been moving to get to where it is in this image by then? I think Bowers said that he didn't allow any trains to be moving before the police had a chance to search them all. Another non-sequitur. Was that frame taken before Bowers or anyone even knew police would want to search anything? If it was the tail end of a train that had just passed over the TU - despite plenty of evidence to the contrary - could it have gotten to where it is by the time the image was taken if it was travelling at a "normal" trainyard speed? Trains were moving in the freight yard during the motorcade, y'know, "before the police had a chance to search them all." Whether one went over the TU is another question. What Bower did or didn't do after it became apparent the police might have an interest in them is not germane. When was this frame taken in relation to the shooting?

Well, have you not ever told of an event you saw only to find out that you mis-recalled a particular instance - Did that mean that everything else you remembered was unreliable? I will often try to look for things that might add support to someone's observations. That's a non-sequitur. To say that you can't make a positive statement about something - "he is handsome" - is not to make a negative statement about it - "he's ugly." The question is, can you rely on - depend confidently, have faith or confidence in - these descriptions as much as you can rely on anything else? To say that you can't is not to say that it's a lie, but it is questionable, i.e., not reliable. That's all I'm asking, Bill: is it PROOF or is it SUPPOSITION?

That's definitely the tail end of a train, i.e., a boxcar ... but is it moving or stationary? If it's moving, how long after the shooting was this frame taken, and how fast would a train have to have been moving to get to where it is in this image by then?

What, no three-engine locomotive with boxcars following? The question is then: if we are almost certain that there was no train on the overpass at the time, but J.W. Foster described it nevertheless, can we rely on any of what he said in No More Silence? We can't rely on his description of the train; we can't rely on his claim to having searched the cars in the railroad yard; why should we rely on the statement about a man approaching him and telling him about someone running away down the tracks? Let's not say that it's not true ... but is it reliable? If so, why?

Same part of the clip lightened (from a screen capture of the YouTube video playing): It looks to me as if you can see the balustrade on the west side of the TU, at least up to the point above the Elm St walkway under the bridge. To the right of it ...? Since White said that the train not only blocked his view, but likewise drowned out the sound of the shots, it would therefore have had to clear White's position - which was over the Commerce Street section of the underpass, close to Elm - by the time this frame was recorded, that is, within just a few seconds of the shooting. I don't know how fast that means it would have had to have been going, but it would seem faster than trains would typically be going into, out of, or through a trainyard.

I agree ... and I'd think others would have remarked on it, too. But that begs the question of why J.C. White would say, under oath, that there was a train when there clearly was not (and at the crucial moments of the shooting, which he thus failed to hear!), and why - despite both not having testified to a train being there and one not being there - why J.W. Foster would "remember" one in such graphic detail 35 years later? There were other officers who could see White and Foster plainly, and they did not mention a train either. In fact, one even said that when the motorcade was coming down Elm Street, both officers were looking eastward toward the motorcade ... but doesn't mention a train being in White's way. This is probably a great subject for a different thread, but for the purposes of this one, while I'll happily fall short of saying it was a lie, it certainly shows that Foster's later recollections were, at least if not at best, unreliable ... and certainly not reliable enough to hang one's hat on for the supposed "rifle toss."

I agree wholeheartedly, with the possible exception of White's testimony stating otherwise (see above posts). On the other hand, is it not ALSO possible that Foster just got a little mixed up about the man telling him about someone running up the train tracks away from the TU? If it's NOT possible, why isn't it? Shoot, if he can mis-remember a whole three-engine locomotive with boxcars, and whether or not he'd searched boxcars in the railroad yard for a spell, I'd guess he can mis-remember a little ol' guy tellin' him somethin', wouldn't ya think? And if he didn't, how do you know he didn't? Faith? Conjecture? A simple desire to believe?

Unfortunately, no, Foster is NOT the only person to describe the train. I provided a copy of JC White's testimony of April 9, 1964, which likewise described the train. There are others as well, but none specific to a train being on the bridge. Once again: 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 [i.e., on the west side of the TU] and the area from which the procession was traveling [i.e., on Elm Street westbound toward the TU from Houston St; that is, between the west side of the bridge and the east side of the bridge], 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. 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; emphases added] So we have a cop on the west side of the overpass who says that he saw and heard nothing of the shooting because a noisy freight train was obstructing both his vision and his hearing (why am I thinking of Sergeant Schultz here?). We have another cop on the east side of the bridge who made no mention of such a train - also on April 9, 1964, immediately before JC White testified - and was able to hear the shots well enough to know without a doubt in his mind that they came from the vicinity of Elm & Houston and NOT from anywhere near the overpass. Two cops, one on each side of the bridge. One sees and hears a train, the other doesn't, and there's no train in any photos. But yet (!) 35 years later, the cop who DOESN'T see or hear the train suddenly remembers it ... and not only that it was "a train," but a "three-engine locomotive." Pretty detailed "memory merge," isn't it? As you say, "he is either lying or having a 'memory merge.'" So how can you be so certain he's NOT "lying or having a 'memory merge'" when he describes in No More Silence that a man approached him and told him about another man running up the tracks from the north end of the overpass? Was it also a case of "lying or having a 'memory merge'" when he first said he DID NOT search the railroad cars, and 35 years later said he did it for "ten or fifteen minutes?" How do you determine what's "lying or a 'memory merge'" and what's true and correct and absolute unmitigated fact? (In fairness, Jack, it wasn't YOU who posited that this was all true, but you DO seem to be supporting it ....) Mr Foster also said to Sneed that there were no plainclothes people with any kind of FBI or USSS credentials around TSBD. So was there or wasn't there? If Foster didn't see any, does that mean that none were there? I'll post his entire interview here and let you pick out what is fact and what is "lying or a 'memory merge'" if you'd like, and then we can tally them up and decide how much of what he had to say is factual and credible and how much is meaningless and baseless, and how much credence we should therefore lend to anything he said in this interview 35 or more years after the fact. Sound like a deal?

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

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.

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!

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!

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.

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!

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. Fair enough. There is no arguing with or convincing the faithful ... or those whose hats hang on others' stories.

Hoffman's book was no secret and yet a couple of his critics on this forum had not bothered reading it before deciding what was true and what was not. Bill That's a non-sequitur. That it "was no secret" does not mean that everyone knows or knew about it. And "bothering" to read something that's difficult at best to find? Damn, isn't that sort of like saying that everyone should have their own personal copies of the volumes just because you do, and if they don't, they're not qualified to speak on this subject? I've read Hoffman's book. I'm still not convinced. Which is a nice way of saying ... ... But I haven't read "The Weitzman Report," and am eagerly awaiting its publication. Or do I have to go look for that myself, too?

Okay, we'll play this little cat-and-mouse game one time, but only because I happened to find your citation pretty quickly: Larry Sneed's No More Silence, copyrighted in 1998 and containing interviews with various people spanning 11 years. The full quote is: After the shooting, one officer ran up and said 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 tracks 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. Nor did I see anything suspicious behind the picket fence or see anyone with Secret Service or FBI identification, as some have stated. From there I moved on down to the book store ...." I should note before going further that this was preceded by a description of something that, in 1964, only JC White had testified to, and which opens a question about how JW Foster could have been so certain of the location from which the sound of the shots had come: ... 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. In the Dillard 3 crop above, one wonders not only where Foster went, but where the train went as well. It is also interesting to note that Foster dismisses the possibility of "anyone with Secret Service or FBI identification" being in the area "as some have stated" simply because he didn't see them himself. "Folks, I was there and I saw everything!" (One might also wonder why the WC didn't just get JW Foster to do all the testimony and pin down exactly what Oswald did or didn't do!) Sneed began his interviews in 1987, but does not indicate the approximate date that he interviewed each of his subjects, so we can only say that Foster was interviewed sometime between 1987 and 1998. And we should also ask ourselves how much weight we should give to the adage about witnesses' statements closer to the fact being the more acurate. In 1964, JW Foster said that he "immediately" went to the TSBD (the "book store?") after the limo had sped away. He also said, under oath, following that statement: 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. So, in 1964, Foster testified under oath that he DID NOT search the railroad cars, but some time after 1987 he told an interviewer that he "was in the yards maybe ten to fifteen minutes looking in the cars." Which was it? Both? I can appreciate the need to take everything into account to support a notion, but given the faulty recollection - and the incredible hearing, being able to discern without question the location of the shots while railroad cars were click-clacking, click-clacking ten feet behind him - of a man who both didn't spend any time looking in railroad cars and ten to fifteen minutes doing exactly what he swore he didn't do, I'd be kind of skeptical of his recollection, many years after the fact, of someone telling him about "some man had run up the railroad tracks from that location" at the end of the viaduct. And who was that officer who "ran up" and told him the shots had come from the overpass before he moved to the end of the viaduct? Shouldn't he be in that Dillard 3 crop too? But you apparently have another witness hidden up your sleeve ("It appears you're talking about Foster here. If so, then you're mistaken"), so it really doesn't matter about any of this, does it. Three-card Monte, anyone?

I agree in part, Tim. In this instance - Ken has given information that is known to him to be factual and yet Duke says he has not the time to look for those facts. I had a similar situation over the evidence collected by the Commission but chose a different approach - I went and bought two sets of the 26 Volumes and spent the next five years reading over each volume. I guess it all depends on what someone's priorities are concerning how bad they want to know whats factual and what is not. If Ken has facts at hand, then let him cite them instead of being coy and leaving it up to the people he made a claim to, to go find those facts, which may not even exist. To paraphrase, I guess it all depends upon what someone's priorities are concerning how badly they want the facts to be known. This is not a game of hide-and-seek, at least not as far as I'm concerned, and I'm not emotionally or otherwise tied Ed Hoffman's veracity. If you've got something, lay it out on the table. If not, it's not my responsibility to go find it for you, and if it doesn't exist, to keep looking in every hidey-hole possible because you seem to remember seeing it somewhere.

Get back to us when you have something of substance to add. I don't have time to go off in search of YOUR facts, which you choose to supply only incompletely at best. But ... ... nice try! It seems like there IS nothing of substance to add, so the best defense is a strong offense, best established by setting up straw men and knocking them down with all the force you can muster. I didn't do very well as a parochially-raised Catholic, so you'll have to come up with a better catechism if you expect me to accept the story on faith. Mary wasn't a virgin, and Ed wasn't there to see a thing. Prove otherwise.