-
Posts
1,401 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Duke Lane
-
-
Nobody denies that three Pullman cars were parked on a siding...WITHOUT LOCOMOTIVE. MOTIONLESS. NOISELESS.
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; nowthey 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, butat 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.
-
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?
Another look:
That's definitely the tail end of a train, i.e., a boxcar ... but is it moving or stationary?You seem to want to know where the train is. (The train that just went by.)
Here you are:
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'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?"
-
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?
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.
-
You seem to want to know where the train is. (The train that just went by.
)
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?
-
... 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?
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?
-
You seem to want to know where the train is. (The train that just went by.
)
Here you are:
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 if anyone pays attention to the fact that what has been suggested to be a possible train is no taller than the railings of the underpass .... the notion of that being a train soon dissipates.
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?
-
Is this a train in the background as the Limo has just passed through the underpass?. Did a track run in this direction in the youtube video which I am linking to here? The "train" appears to be followed by other traffic.
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.
-
Had there been a long and noisy train with 3 locomotives, it would not doubt have been present on several photos and film of that short point in time. I do believe that it is entirely possible that a train went across the bridge a few minutes prior to the arrival of the motorcade or perhaps even several minutes after the motorcade had passed. I am not sure when Bowers allowed the trains to move again. A locomotive and /or boxcars would probably be some 10-13 feet tall, thus roughly twice the height of a man and therefore clearly visible when on the bridge.
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 think that maybe there is some posible resolution to be had over the train moving. ... is it not possible that Foster just got a little mixed up about the timing of the train starting to move through the area?
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?
-
Foster is wrong about a passing train. He is the only person to describe it. The train is seen in NO photos. He is either lying or having a "memory merge" where events that did happen are confused in time sequence.
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 areafromwhich 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 passedI 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.(; 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?
-
... I am always amazed at how fast someone like Miles will claim something about Ed's veracity without first considering some of the more plausible explanations.
Funny, I was sort of thinking the same thing, but not about Miles. Great minds think alike sometimes, eh?
-
... Jack said that Ed "reported" it. Is telling your family and friends the same thing as "reporting" it? I guess if you want it to be, it is, and if you don't, it's not.
Check your dictionary. To REPORT is to TELL, RELATE or DESCRIBE. It is not necessarily "official" or "published".
Fair enough. I can TELL you that I wrote Rush to Judgement, A Citizen's Dissent, Executive Action and Plausible Denial, and I can back that claim up with "documentary evidence." Does that make it so?
You don't have any such documentary evidence other than a niece's word that Ed signed what he signed - and I think someone here said sign language is somewhat open to interpretation - on November 22. Ed's story in his book, however, fails to mention the niece being present when he "reported" it to his father and brother, so it falls a little short of "evidence" and at best is hearsay.
How old was Ed's niece at the time? Who was his relative - not what was he, but who was he - that told him that telling his story "could be dangerous?" Have you ASKED the relative about this personally and had it confirmed? Do you know someone who has? Is Ed's brother still alive, and has he confirmed any of this?
As you said, "conjecture is not proof," and conjecture is all you've got. And so we're clear on that, the dictionary defines "conjecture" as:
1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation. ...4. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.- (Dictionary.com)1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.2. A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork.3. To infer from inconclusive evidence; guess.- (American Heritage Dictionary)1. a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); "speculations about the outcome of the election"; "he dismissed it as mere conjecture"2. reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence;3. to believe especially on uncertain or tentative grounds; "Scientists supposed that large dinosaurs lived in swamps"- (WordNet 3.0 from Princeton University)As I had said, you can't argue with or convince the faithful. It's those who can actually approach this question with an open mind that the evidence will sway.
-
I am not aware of any trains on the underpass or moving as the assassination was taking place. Does anyone have information to the contrary?
Sorry I overlooked that question. The answer is - as Homer Simpson would say - d'oh!
We will begin with Patrolman JC White, who was stationed on the west side of the TU:
Mr. BALL. Did you see the President's car come into sight?Mr. WHITE. No, sir; first time I saw it it has passed, passed under the triple underpass.Mr. BALL. You were too far away to see it, were you?Mr. WHITE. There was a freight train traveling.There was a train passing between the location I was standing and the area from which the procession was traveling, and--a big long freight train, and I did not see it.Mr. BALL. You didn't see the procession?Mr. WHITE. No, sir.Mr. BALL. Before the train went by, did you see some railroad personnel over on the---would it be the---Mr. WHITE. East side?Mr. BALL. East side of the overpass?Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.Mr. BALL. How many people?Mr. WHITE. About 10, approximately. I didn't count them.Mr. BALL. Did you hear any shots?Mr. WHITE. No, sir.Mr. BALL. Didn't?Mr. WHITE. No, sir.Mr. BALL. First time you saw the President's car it was going underneath?Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.Mr. BALL. What did you do after that?Mr. WHITE.As soon as the train passedI 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.()"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 thoughthe 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!
-
Gosh, and Lee Harvey Oswald said he "didn't shoot anybody." What more PROOF do you need?Now, Jack, are you telling us about an affidavit that Hoffman signed that day? A report dated 11/22/63 or even as late as, say, 11/29/63 by the FBI or Sheriff's Office or DPD at least summarizing what Hoffman told them "that day?"Didn't Ed's book say something about his telling his family and friends about what he had soon soon after it happened?
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!
-
Sorry not to quote your entire message, but I can't stand that. Almost as much as I hate all-bold type!Well, you have chosen to ignore the fact that JW Foster "made a major mis-statement" about his searching the railroad cars within a paragraph of the first, and thus have decided that his statement that suits your purposes - despite its differences from his WC testimony - is 100% accurate.If I'm understanding this correctly, then Foster's testimony ... is in direct contradiction to Foster's recollection of his movements recorded 25 or 30 year's later in Sneed's book. ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. BALL - When you got over to the School Book Depository Building, what did you do?
Mr. FOSTER - I was standing around in back there to see that no one came out, and the sergeant came and got me and we were going to check the - all the railroad cars down there.
Mr. BALL - Who was that sergeant?
Mr. FOSTER - Sergeant came up there.
Mr. BALL - Did you search the railroad cars?
Mr. FOSTER - No; he sent me back down to the inspector. Told me to report back to Inspector Sawyer.
Mr. BALL - Where?
Mr. FOSTER - At the front of the book Depository.
Mr. BALL - Did you talk to Sawyer there?
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sneed with Foster remembering:
"... After the shooting, one officer ran up and said that the shots came from the overpass, and I told him they didn't. Then I moved around to the end of the viaduct where somebody said some man had run up the railroad track from that location. So I proceeded up to the yards to check the empty boxcars to see if anybody had run up that way.
"I was in the yards maybe ten to fifteen minutes looking in the cars, but I didn't find anything. ..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
-
Logical conclusion...
Hoffman SAW what he saw and reported the same day it happened. Other witnesses DID NOT SEE what Hoffman saw; we do not know why. Foster, Holland and others may have seen nothing THEY THOUGHT SUSPICIOUS about Hoffman's "railroad man" by the switch boxes. He was just "tending to business".
Conjecture is not proof.
Now, Jack, are you telling us about an affidavit that Hoffman signed that day? A report dated 11/22/63 or even as late as, say, 11/29/63 by the FBI or Sheriff's Office or DPD at least summarizing what Hoffman told them "that day?"
The question is: other than Ed's word on this, what PROOF do you have that Ed reported anything "that day?" I might have to look back at his book, but I don't recall that he even said that did anything of the sort.
I'm not finding a "Hoffman" in the Name Index, nor in Meagher's or Brown's indices (excluding "external" references in Brown's ... together with his remark that Ed was "ignored by officialdom for years"), or in the Dallas City Archives index, or in NARA's (post-ARRB) JFK index, or on History Matters, the AARC database, or even the Mary Ferrell site ... where does one find - that is, get PROOF - that Ed told anyone other than his family anything "that day?"
Since you disdain conjecture, I presume you have that PROOF, don't you, that you can share with us? I'm not trying to pick nits, but I don't think anyone here has seen anything like this before. I'm presuming it's not in the same file series as the Weitzman report ...?
While we're on the subject of the overpass and since I know you know more about photographic evidence than I do, can you tell me how many boxcars and/or enginers were on the train that was crossing (or at least on) the bridge when the shots were being fired? I realize I'm probably baring my naivete, here ....
Thanks as ever for your help!
-
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.Anyway, let's move forward with what Foster said in that one loaded sentence:1. ". . .end of the viaduct. . .":
This would be the north end of the triple underpass, where the switch box is located.
2. "Then I moved": Foster was on the bridge and headed in the direction of what would ultimately be the area of the switch box. The timing of this move was associated with. . .
3. ". . .where somebody said. . ."
He left after talking to "somebody" on the bridge.
That "somebody" would seem, most reasonably, to be a railroad worker. The story. . .
4. "some man had run up the railroad tracks. . ."
A man was seen running up the tracks. Sounds like what Ed Hoffman saw.
5. ". . .from that location."
The location = the end of the viaduct, the area of the switch box. Someone was running up the tracks from the north end of the underpass, the area of the switchbox. Exactly what Ed's "railroad man" was doing (running), where he was running (along the tracks), and where his running had started from (the area of the switch box).
Fair enough. There is no arguing with or convincing the faithful ... or those whose hats hang on others' stories.
-
To paraphrase, I guess it all depends upon what someone's priorities are concerning how badly they want the facts to be known.
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?
-
To Duke:
... You said: "Unfortunately, the testimony you cite doesn't contain any of what you said it does." I never said anything about citing testimony.
You said: "You have chosen to corroborate Ed's story, at least in part, based on what a known person didn't say. . . " It appears you're talking about Foster here. If so, then you're mistaken. And you've switched again from testimony back to "what a known person didn't say. . ." No, Duke, I've chosen to corroborate Ed's story based, in part, on what Foster actually did say. Not what he testified to. And what he said is out there, openly available to all researchers.
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?
-
People certainly have the right to be wrong about the facts. People are human and to err is human. People do not have the right to be intentionally or negligently wrong about the facts--at least not people who are socially responsible.
Of course, there can also be a question about what is a fact and what is an opinion.
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.
-
To Duke:
You said: "I think I'm missing that part about where he testified. . ." I never said anything about Foster testifying. You have what I said right here in your post: "J.W. Foster. . . said."
You said: "Perhaps you might be so kind as to refer me back to that part that I'd so injudiciously omitted?" Injudiciously omitted? Wow. Well, those are your words, not mine.
You said: "Since it doesn't appear at the moment that Foster did say any such thing. . ." Now you have the wording right. Not sure, however, why you aren't being consistent with what you said above and instead had to say "Since it doesn't appear at the moment that Foster testified to any such thing. . ."
You said: "Some might accuse me of deliberately deciding not to quote it!" Who are these "some"? Why would they, whoever they are, possibly think that about you? You have an interesting take on those who disagree with you. No, I personally don't see you deliberately deciding not to quote anything.
You said: "Unfortunately, the testimony you cite doesn't contain any of what you said it does." I never said anything about citing testimony.
You said: "You have chosen to corroborate Ed's story, at least in part, based on what a known person didn't say. . . " It appears you're talking about Foster here. If so, then you're mistaken. And you've switched again from testimony back to "what a known person didn't say. . ." No, Duke, I've chosen to corroborate Ed's story based, in part, on what Foster actually did say. Not what he testified to. And what he said is out there, openly available to all researchers.
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.
-
Duke said on 7/10/07:
"Ed's book hasn't provided those as yet to my satisfaction. I'll explain later after he's had a reasonable time to respond to my queries."
My response: Ed is 71 years old at this time and in poor physical health. He had a massive heart attack in 1998, was involved in a head-on auto collision in 1999, and now suffers from diabetes and congestive heart failure. The bad news results of blood work done a little more than three months ago were "off the charts." 89% of patients with results of that magnitude die within three months. Ed is still hanging in there, but due to his fragile condition, his family will not bring up the subject of assassination threads like this one anymore.
I'm sorry to hear about Ed's poor health. Since it appears that there won't be any clarification coming with regard to the questions I'd had, I will feel free to post my observations, albeit not in this message.
Duke, you said on 7/11/07: "As I'd said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. At the very least, some corroboration would be useful." and "Another good question is, with so many persons nearby the steam pipe, how is it that Ed, 265 yards away, didn't see any of them but the two that nobody else saw?" and: " . . .it has nothing to do with whether Ed's story squares with "the official version" or not, but whether it squares with anyone else's version. . ."My response: There is corroboration for some of what Ed Hoffman saw. But, to my knowledge, you and Miles haven't mentioned it. So here it is. Dallas Police Officer J. W. Foster, who stood on the triple underpass near Sam Holland and others, said that after the shooting he moved to "the end of the viaduct" (where the triple underpass meets the picket fence) at which point somebody told him that some man had run up the railroad tracks from that location.
That's just what Ed had said. ...
JW Foster's testimony begins at 6H248. Page 248 talks about his job, where he was born and his education. Page 249 talks about his being in the service and the jobs he'd held prior to joining DPD and up through November 22, 1963. It then goes on to talk about his special assignment atop the Triple Underpass, where he was standing, and ends with his being handed a map to mark his location.
Page 250 talks about the railroad yards and moves to what he'd observed as the motorcade approached his location. He first noticed it as it turned off of Main onto Houston, and said it "was in sight most of the time." Asked if he kept it in sight after it had turned, he replied that "other than watching the men that were standing on the overpass there with me," he had. He then marked an exhibit, and was asked about any other police who were there with him, whom he identified as JC White, who was stationed on the other (west) side of the overpass.
Page 251 begins with Foster saying that he wasn't exactly sure where White was at the time the motorcade came into the plaza (he was on the other side of a freight train moving across the bridge at the time that nobody else appears to have noticed!), followed by this brief exchange:
Mr. BALL. Now, tell me what you saw happen after the President's car passed---turned onto Elm from Houston.Mr. FOSTER. After he came onto Elm I was watching the men up on the track more than I was him. Then I heard a loud noise, sound like a large firecracker. Kind of dumbfounded at first, and then heard the second one. I moved to the banister of the overpass to see what was happening. Then the third explosion, and they were beginning to move around. I ran after I saw what was happening.Mr. BALL. . What did you see was happening?Mr. FOSTER. Saw the President slump over in the car, and his head looked just like it blew up.Mr. BALL. You saw that, did you?Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.Mr. BALL. And what did you do then?Mr. FOSTER Well, at that time I broke and ran around to my right -- to the left -- around to the bookstore.Discussion about the source of the shots ensued, together with the affirmations that no shot sounded like it came from the overpass; Foster had seen no weapon; and that no sound (not even the train passing behind him?) had sounded as if it had come from the overpass. Then:
Mr. BALL. Where did you go from there?Mr. FOSTER. Went on around the back side of the bookstore.Mr. BALL. Immediately?Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.Then, some discussion about the back side of the TSBD, followed by a quick return to events near the overpass:
Mr. BALL. Had you seen anybody over at the railroad yard north and west of the bookstore before you heard the shots fired?Mr. FOSTER. No; other thanpeople that had come up there and I sent them back down the roadway.Mr. BALL. I See. People had attemptedto get on the overpassthere?Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.Mr. BALL. And you had sent them away?Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.The discussion then returns to the area around TSBD and an intended search of railroad cars.
Page 252 talks about whose idea the search was (an unnamed sergeant), and the fact that Foster was sent to see Inspector Sawyer in front of the TSBD and did not take part in any search of the cars. He told Sawyer that he'd felt that the shots came from around Elm & Houston, but didn't remember if he'd also told that to the sergeant. Foster then "moved to--down the roadway there, down to see if I could find where any of the shots hit," whereupon he describes finding an apparent bullet or "ricochet" mark on pavement by a manhole cover, says no bullet went into the turf but appeared to have ricocheted off, and identifies a photo that "resembles the picture" of the manhole cover area in question by the crime lab people he'd called over to the site.
Page 253 begins by concluding the interview ("Officer, this will be written up and submitted to you for your signature ...") and other niceties. Foster's interview ends with this exchange:
Mr. BALL. Thank you. One moment, please. Who gave you your assignment, Mr. Foster?Mr. FOSTER. Sergeant Harkness.Mr. BALL. You did permit some railroad employees to remain on the overpass?Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.Mr. BALL. How did you determine they were railroad employees?Mr. FOSTER. By identification they had with them. Identification they had and the other men that was with them verifying that they were employees.Mr. BALL. Okay.Okay, that sums it up. I think I'm missing that part about where he testified that "after the shooting he moved to 'the end of the viaduct' (where the triple underpass meets the picket fence) at which point somebody told him that some man had run up the railroad tracks from that location." Perhaps you might be so kind as to refer me back to that part that I'd so injudiciously omitted?
Since it doesn't appear at the moment that Foster did say any such thing, and presuming that I really didn't see it in his testimony because it wasn't there, please explain how this provides corroboration of Ed's story?
... And instead presuming that it is there and I simply missed it (some might accuse me of deliberately deciding not to quote it!), please tell me why it is not possible that Ed or anyone else could not have first read it and then reiterated it? How do we know for certain that the chicken came before the egg?
After the shots, [Ed's] "railroad man" had run up the railroad tracks from the area of the switchbox which is at the very same location where Foster's man had run from, i.e., where the triple underpass meets the picket fence. Foster doesn't mention who the person was who told him about the man running up the railroad tracks. If Foster is still alive, and he may very well be, I wonder if he might remember. And where that might lead.And now for Miles. ...
You may need to find a REPORT filed by Foster to get this information. If you don't have the 26 volumes, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, the testimony you cite doesn't contain any of what you said it does - which may explain why Foster didn't "mention who the person was" who did what he never said he did? - so I can only imagine that that's where it must be.
It's YOUR turn to produce on this one.
... You don't know who these spectators [on top of the bridge] are! No one knows. You brought up the suggestions of Don Roberdeau as to who the men might be. I know Don, and he will tell you this: no one knows who these men are. Period. So if you don't know who they are, then how can you say what they reported or didn't report? What they saw or didn't see?Just the same, Miles, you chose to "refute" Ed's story anyway, at least in part based on what these unknown men didn't report and didn't see.
The value of this kind of research escapes me.
Actually, I couldn't resist but to note that its value not only seems not to have escaped you, but to have been utilized by you ... except that you have chosen to corroborate Ed's story, at least in part, based on what a known person didn't say, didn't report, and didn't see.
Explain to me the difference. I'll try not to let it escape me.
-
... cobbled some ideas together for you & Duke. What do you guys & Duncan think about this? ...
[Austin] Miller said:
Mr. BELIN - Well, describe what happened. Did you see the motorcade come by?Mr. MILLER - Yes sir; it came down main street and turned north on Houston Street and went over two blocks and turned left on Elm Street. Got about halfway down the hill going toward the underpass and that is when as I recall the first shot was fired.Mr. BELIN - Did you know it was a shot when you heard it?Mr. MILLER -I didn't know it. I thought at first the motorcycle backfiring orsomebody throwed some firecrackers out.Mr. BELIN - Then what did you hear or see?Mr. MILLER - After the first one, just a few seconds later, there was two more shots fired,or sounded like a sound at the time. I don't know for sure.And it was after that I saw some man in the car fall forward, and a women next to him grab him and hollered, and just what, I don't know exactly what she said.Mr. BELIN - Then what did you see?Mr. MILLER -About that time I turned to look toward the - there is a little plaza sitting on the hill. I looked over there to see if anything was there,who through the firecrackeror whatever it was, or see if anything was up there, and there wasn't nobody standing there, so I stepped back and looked at the tracks to see if anybody run across the railroad tracks, and there was nobody running across the railroad tracks. So I turned right straight back just in time to see the convertible take off fast.Well, I for one think that you cut this testimony off at a very curious time, just at the point where someone, somewhere is going to construe this to mean that Miller saw conspirators escape in a convertible!
... Which, incidentally, squares very well with an older gentleman I've been talking with who's been afraid to come forward to tell about this very same thing that he saw when he'd stopped that afternoon along the highway to "see a man about a horse."
The next portion of Miller's testimony should support my friend's tale ... er, um, I mean, set the record straight as to what he'd seen and what he'd meant:
Mr. MILLER. ... I stepped back and looked on the tracks to see if anybody run across the railroad tracks, and there was nobody running across the railroad tracks. So I turned right straight back just in time to see the convertible take off fast. Mr. BELIN. You mean the convertible in which the President was riding?Mr. MILLER. I wouldn't want to say it was the President. It was a convertible but I saw a man fall over. I don't know whose convertible it was.Mr. BELIN. Where did the shots sound like they came from?Mr. MILLER. Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say from right there in the car. Would be to my left, the way I was looking at him over toward that incline.Mr. BELIN. Is there anything else that you can think of that you saw.Mr. MILLER. About the time I looked over to the side there,there was a police officer. No; a motorcycle running his motor under against the curb, and jumped off and come up to the hilltoward the top and right behind him was some more officers and plainclothesmen, too.Mr. BELIN.Did you see anyone that might be, that gave any suspicious movements of any kind over there?Mr. MILLER.No, sir; I didn't.Mr. BELIN.Did you see anyone when you looked around on the railroad tracks, that you hadn't seen before?Mr. MILLER.No, sir; I didn't.We was all standing in one group right at the rail looking over, and the police officer, he was standing about 5 or 10 feet behind us. ...As to the rest of the story (with apologies to Paul Harvey!), I'll have to digest it longer.
I'll also concede - first definition, Bill! - that I'd missed that last short burst about railroad yard activity in Weitzman's testimony. I haven't found his report - or affidavit or anything - yet, but I haven't been looking very hard. He apparently did file an affidavit with DPD identifying the 6th floor rifle as being a Mauser; perhaps that's the same thing?
Ed Hoffman's Activities and Observations
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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.