Duke Lane

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. 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 than people that had come up there and I sent them back down the roadway. Mr. BALL. I See. People had attempted to get on the overpass there? 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? 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. 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.

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 hill toward 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?

Post #102 of this thread - Duke Lane: This is also one that shows the lack of vegetation (trees) between the highway (behind McIntyre as he shot this photo, and ahead of the motorcycles in the foreground) and the railroad yards beside the TSBD. This at least proves that Ed Hoffman would've been able to see what he claimed to see if he was where he claims he was. Concede: (1) To acknowledge, often reluctantly, as being true, just, or proper; admit. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004) There was no reluctance about it. I'll concede*, however, to having "agreed" or "acknowledged." * (2) to make concession; yield; admit (ibid.) 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.

It would be more compelling if it could be found. Foster's testimony runs for 5½ pages (6H248-53), and nowhere does he mention any such thing. Neither does Officer JC White, who was stationed on the west side of the overpass and whose testimony immediately follows Foster's. There is no report filed by him in any of the available WC evidence that I've been able to find. As close as Foster gets to testifying to such an event is this exchange on page 251 (which doesn't say he saw anyone running "from the area of the switch box" at all): 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. Mr. BALL. Now, did you have any opinion at that time as to the source of the sounds, the direction of the sounds? Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. What? Mr. FOSTER. It came from back in toward the corner of Elm and Houston Streets. Mr. BALL. That was your impression at that time? Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Was any shot fired from the overpass? Mr. FOSTER. No, sir. Mr. BALL. Did you see anyone with a weapon there? Mr. FOSTER. No, sir. Mr. BALL. Or did you hear any sound that appeared to come from the overpass? Mr. FOSTER. No, sir. 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. Mr. BALL. Did you see anybody coming out of that side of the bookstore? Mr. FOSTER. No, sir. Mr. BALL. Back side? What do you mean by that? Mr. FOSTER. Well, I guess you would say the northwest side of it. Mr. BALL. Were there any people in the railroad yards around the bookstore at that time? Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. There was a pretty good crowd beginning to gather back in that area. Mr. BALL. At that time? Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. 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 than people that had come up there and I sent them back down the roadway. Mr. BALL. I See. People had attempted to get on the overpass there? Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. And you had sent them away? Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. When you got over to the School Book Depository Building, what did you do? .... Perhaps I've missed something, or maybe you're thinking of someone else? Let's be careful with the "conceded" bit. I never stated one way or the other if anyone could've seen from one point to the other in 1963. I may have said that you cannot today, and only used a current sat-pic to show the locations of where Ed was supposed to have been, not to "prove" that there was no line of sight 45 years ago. Weitzman testified for four pages. His entire testimony about anything that occurred within Ed's sight is found at 7H106-107, it being in full: Mr. BALL. What did you do then? Mr. WEITZMAN. I immediately ran toward the President's car. Of course, it was speeding away and somebody said the shots or the firecrackers, whatever it was at that time, we still didn't know the President was shot, came from the wall. I immediately scaled that wall. Mr. BALL. What is the location of that wall? Mr. WEITZMAN. It would be between the railroad overpass and I can't remember the name of that little street that runs off Elm; it's cater-corner--the section there between the--what do you call it--the monument section? Mr. BALL. That's where Elm actually dead ends? Mr. WEITZMAN. Yes, sir; I scaled the wall and, apparently, my hands grabbed steampipes. I burned them. Mr. BALL. Did you go into the railroad yards? Mr. WEITZMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. What did you notice in the railroad yards? Mr. WEITZMAN. We noticed numerous kinds of footprints that did not make sense because they were going different directions. Mr. BALL. Were there other people there besides you? Mr. WEITZMAN. Yes, sir; other officers, Secret Service as well, and somebody started, there was something red in the street and I went back over the wall and somebody brought me a piece of what he thought to be a firecracker and it turned out to be, I believe, I wouldn't quote this, but I turned it over to one of the Secret Service men and I told them it should go to the lab because it looked to me like human bone. I later found out it was supposedly a portion of the President's skull. Mr. BALL. That you picked up off the street? Mr. WEITZMAN. Yes. Mr. BALL. What part of the street did you pick this up? Mr. WEITZMAN. As the President's car was going off, it would be on the left-hand side of the street. It would be the-- 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. Or are you suggesting that the "numerous kinds of footprints ... going different directions" somehow relates to two particular people doing a particular thing in a particular place? He didn't even say where in the railroad yards he noticed them, so there's no "support" for Ed's story there other than that, at some point, two ... or three ... or four ... or more ("numerous") people were somewhere behind the fence or "in the railroad yards." Help me out here .... With absolutely every bit of respect that is due, I'm not certain that there's a lot of room for complaint about "misrepresentation of witness testimony" by Miles, or much of a case to be made for your "show[ing] the Forum membership that Ed's story does hold up and is supported by the facts," at least not the ones you've referenced in this post. If you have a moment, please dig up the correct references and let me know who they were since they're clearly not Foster and Weitzman, and then we'll see what they've got to say. ... And by the way, what exactly does a "fudge artist" do, anyway? Is it anything like a "spinmeister?" I have been dutifully silent about my criticisms of what Ed actually said in his book pending a response to the questions I'd posed to the publisher, presumably to be relayed to Ed for response and explanation. I'll give it a couple of more weeks, and then we'll deal with what's IN ED'S BOOK.

Thank you for that image: it is the same one that I'd used to prove Tom Tilson's "Black Car Chase" (see Marrs, Crossfire) a bunch of balderdash in my Cowtown Connection article back in '92 or '93. Tilson, you might recall, claimed that he was coming east from Industrial Blvd on Commerce as he noticed the limo speeding toward the entrance ramp when he saw someone running down the railroad embankment (in the background of this photo) and jump into a black sedan that was parked alongside the roadway (NOT in the background of this photo!). The only way he could've seen anything like that is if the "black sedan" was in the motorcade (uh-oh and shades of an LBJ conspiracy ... and let's not even go there!!). This is also one that shows the lack of vegetation (trees) between the highway (behind McIntyre as he shot this photo, and ahead of the motorcycles in the foreground) and the railroad yards beside the TSBD. This at least proves that Ed Hoffman would've been able to see what he claimed to see if he was where he claims he was.

I agree with Charles and Larry: nobody. Why dignify it with response?

You give me 'way too much credit! But I'll take it!!

A rather weak argument given that there is corroboration for most if not all of these other things. As I'd said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. At the very least, some corroboration would be useful. You are defending the indefensible and attempting to refute it with the irrefutable. Photos are not articles of faith ... unless, of course, they've all been altered or faked ... in which case, there is nothing at all on which to base any fact.

[deleted]

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? To counter what someone else had posted earlier, 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 and, quite frankly, whether it's even true (even if Ed and Jack and you believe it!). Do you think that Roscoe White was Badgeman simply because his kid wouldn't say such terrible things about him if they weren't true? For me, the verdict is not yet in, but the looks on the jurors' faces are not very encouraging to the defense.

Well said Jack! I have repeatedly said that Ed is telling the truth as he saw it. The only reason or purpose to examine Ed's story is to establish the verifiability of the implications of certain aspects of Ed's account. You & I agree, don't we, that Sarti shot a frangible at 33 ft from the fence corner? M I believe Ed's story. I do not believe ANYTHING about Sarti. Jack So, let me see if I understand this: If someone claims to witness something, regardless of whether it squares with any other witnesses' statements, observations, testimony or anything, the only thing that we can do is evaluate what Witness A says versus what Witnesses B through Z have to say, but we cannot question whether they were actually a witness? So if I read something in the newspaper and then come forward to say that I was actually there and then get muddled in the details of what I saw (or, really, didn't see!), you have absolutely no right to question whether I'm lying, but only to try to square my inaccurate and unwitnessed claims into the whole of the story? The possibility exists that Ed Hoffman was not where he says he was and did not see what he claims to have seen, yet because you choose to believe it, it has to be true and nobody can question the truth as you want to know it? Gosh, I feel terrible now for having debunked the whole "David Atlee Phillips Under Arrest in Fort Worth" thing, the photos of him that had "mysteriously disappeared from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's archives" (because they were taken by the Fort Worth Press and were never in the S-T's archives!), and for having found the "missing" arrest records of the man whose photo was actually taken. Damn, it sucks to be a "plant" who continually pokes holes in the things we'd like to believe! Who was it who'd once admonished not to "let facts get in the way of a good story?" So tell me again how the sworn testimony of James Richard Worrell Jr. fits into the whole thing when in fact the man was not in Dealey Plaza when he said he was and didn't see a damned thing he claimed to have? He lied, but was "telling the truth as he believed it?" Hogwash. Maybe he convinced himself it was true, and convinced everyone around him that it was, but the simple fact is that it wasn't and there ain't no gettin' 'round it, no-how, no way. But you think we need to believe it because you think he does? Hardly a good qualification for "facts!"

Miles, I take your point, no problem at all. The vegetation that I've heard of is that which may or may not have obstructed Ed's view of the scene, which is what I pointed out in the satellite image, it being a point of contention whether Ed could have seen what he said he'd seen. Forgive me if I somehow missed the point that there was vegetation supposedly obstructing the view from the overpass: I never knew that to be an issue in Ed's story since Ed wasn't on the overpass.

That's not the point, Jack. The point is that the first photo doesn't even show the area in question. The satellite image is only to show the correct AREA, not whether it had any vegetation in it or not. The first is like pointing out that Badgeman doesn't appear in Ike Altgens' photo, so "obviously" there's nobody there.

Good point, but the photo below is conclusive as it was shot on either 11-23-63 or, as Gary says, on 11-24-63. There is zero vegetation growth at the area in question at the time in question! I've been silent on this question since having received and read a copy of Ed Hoffman's book, Eyewitness, because I'd raised some questions that I'm still awaiting an answer to. When I receive them, I'll continue my posting here, or will if I don't hear anything back in the next few weeks.Meanwhile, I did want to point out that "the area in question" having vegetation or not is not within the confines of this photo, but is below (to the west of) the railroad tracks on the slope leading up to the tracks from the level of Commerce St, in the park area between Stemmons Freeway and the tracks, shown in this overhead from Yahoo maps: For the sake of later discussion, I've also noted (in red) where Hoffman says he'd parked his car along the entrance ramp, (in green) where he says he was standing, and (in blue) where he says he exited his car from Stemmons after the limo had gone by him. The white cross is to the left of the vegetation in question. More later on the bearing of the colored dots, except to note now that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs." 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.

Lee, While I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis, one issue that needs clarification is how anyone who is essentially in town only on the spur of the moment with no real idea of what they're going to be doing until they're called upon to do it was able to manage to get into the TSBD (and other buildings) unnoticed by anyone, ensure that there would be vacant offices and/or warehouse space to operate in, and a reasonably reliable means of exit - with or without arms, and if the latter, a place to store them - all effectively on their own with no advance planning or local assistance. In the case of TSBD - the only building we have any concrete knowledge of (has anyone ever even seen a floorplan of the DalTex building, or a list of people working there?) - 73 people swore that they hadn't seen anyone who was a stranger to them prior to the shooting, other than an elderly man who had to "go." Surely all 73 people weren't in on the plot and - to quote a book title! - someone would have talked, possibly let something slip inadvertantly even if they'd been threatened ... tho' the one question they perhaps hadn't been asked is if there had been anyone working at TSBD in November who no longer worked there in March when they were interviewed. I think most people would agree that Marrion Baker got to the 7th floor within two to two-and-a-half minutes of the shooting (a pretty damned liberal estimate), so whoever might have been upstairs there would have had to get past him without arousing suspicion, or for that matter, even being seen by him ... and - in theory at least - by Bonnie Ray Williams and Jack Daugherty both before and after the shooting without being seen or heard by them (in point of fact, they didn't ... but that's a different part of the story). Were they merely lucky, or did they manage to get downstairs and outside even faster than has ever been attributed to Lee Oswald, before Baker even hit the stairs? By the count of the org chart you posted, that's quite a handful of men to sneak by everyone and out the door, even if there were "only" shooters and spotters. How was it done? (There may be an answer, but I'm curious about yours.)

They have not reached the same conclusions as I have, so they are not only wrong but also cannot think. I have several areas in my life where applying this rule might prove useful. Thanks for the tidbit!

Myra, as a female - and I've oft been told that there are only a very few things a guy shouldn't ask a woman, this perhaps being one of them - do you have any opinion about women's ankles? Do they change with age or fluctuations in weight? If they are fat or straight today, might they be "slim and shapely" tomorrow? This was an issue Mary Farrell had raised some years ago, that TBL's ankles are fat while Beverly's are not, and that time and weight do not change that. That's been my observation as well since then (I'd never noticed ankles before then, actually). Mary nevertheless conceded in front of a couple of dozen people (most with agendas?) that it was "possible" that BO was TBL and that Mary now chose to believe that to be the case. Despite that - and being there for that - I've never been convinced....

One of the great things about this forum is that it is not alt.jfk.conspiracy or whatever the hell it's called where they have nothing better to do than invest in ad hominem attacks that detract from the conversation at hand. Need I say more?

What's that old saying about believing only half of what your read, less of what you hear ... or something like that? The "according to LBJ's girlfriend" should tell you all that you need to know or credit: if your boyfriend was cheating on you, would you believe his girlfriend? QED either way. The "meeting" didn't happen.

I for one am generally not disposed to respond to the likes of the question "so, when did you stop beating your wife," which of course presupposes that I ever did, which if I disclaim, merely has me "in denial." So it is with someone who, no matter how well thought-out and reasoned your response, considers it to be from a "nut" who is "very good at asking questiions and raising issues but woefully unskilled at providing answers." That may be true of the "nuts," but it is not necessarily true of all those who believe that there was a conspiracy - of any sort, with or without Oswald being involved - who are not "nuts" by definition. Why would anyone choose to "ignore" someone who's already carrying the sign that says ?? Duh.

+++++++++++++ per this On March 28, 1977, Richard H. Freeman, Texas Instruments, Richardson, Texas, was telephonically contacted by Special Agent [REDACTED] and was requested to contact Mr. Hoffman in an effort to communicate with him and to advise him if he could come to the Dallas FBI Office in order to make a personal visit to the area of Stemmons Freeway from where he observed the presidential motorcade on November 22, 1963. thanks sg Good question. Goddard Space Flight Center switchboard - 301-286-2000 If you Google the name "Richard H. Freeman" you'll also come up with a bunch of CPAs, lawyers, estate planners and hospital administrators, among other things. Our guy and the Goddard guy - if they're not the same guy - both happen to be engineers, apparently.

All things that point to a conspiracy are not necessarily true, any more so than those 888 pages published in 1964 prove that Lee Oswald took three lucky potshots at his hero. From day one - more to the point, as of June 27, 1967, the first(?) recorded instance of Ed Hoffman contacting the FBI and telling his story - he had seen two men in white shirts leaving the rear of the TSBD and running north along the railroad tracks and then east. Two hours later, after visiting the location he'd said he was at on 11/22/63, he went back to the Feebs and told them that, after all, he couldn't see the rear of the TSBD due to a stockade fence that was there and had been for a few years along the railroad tracks, according to Roy Truly, who was questioned about it. Hoffman figured - according to the FBI - that he must've seen the two men "on the fence or something else." The point is that what he described in these two instances - and later - is NOT "someone at the fence at the Hat Man location." He did not tell that story to "the authorities" until 1977, well after the dates you describe above, and plenty of time to assimilate the others' stories into his own. At that time (1977), he said the two men were "dressed in some type of white suits, and both wore ties." This differs from a man in a suit and another in striped "engineer's overalls" that he now describes. Now it is always possible that he contacted the FBI who blew him off and never wrote anything down ... which of course to some people is proof positive that he contacted the FBI, they blew him off, and never wrote anything down. Or he could have told them something completely different than what they did write down since whatever they did write down is not what he says he told them, nothing like it at all, so clearly the written record is in error. Always is in this case. In the 1967 report, Hoffman supposedly "stated he had discussed this matter with his father at the time of the assassination, and his father suggested that he not talk to anyone about this," which strongly suggests that this was the first time he'd contacted the authorities about it ... otherwise, why not say that and refer them to the earlier interview? "But," the report continues, "after thinking about what he saw" - for three years! - "Hoffman stated he decided to tell the FBI." Except, of course, the written record is always in error. Contradictory stories are always true. My experience is that liars do ask for polygraphs because (1) they think they can beat them, (2) the machines are reputedly unreliable, (3) they know they're not actually going to be subjected to one anyway, and (4) if on the off chance they are, there's probably a really good reason why the test failed (note: the test failed, not them!). Really good liars actually believe their lies, and can pass the most rigid test imaginable. Having heart meds helps, too, and helps explain any test failures ... or precludes your having to take one in the first place because it would be unreliable. As I'd noted, James Worrell was not in Dealey Plaza either, yet he took a free trip to Washington DC to testify under oath in front of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and other notables (and told newspaper and TV reporters, too) about things that he'd made up or only read about. If dumb Dicky can pull that off under those circumstances, I'm not terribly impressed by anyone hanging out on the grassy knoll telling me the God's Honest Truth. (Actually, I'm not terribly impressed by anyone hanging out on the grassy knoll, period!) Now, of course, a verifiable official document of some sort dated in 1963 relating Ed Hoffman's story - or any version of it - might convince me otherwise. Since you're so certain of his story, I presume you have such an animal?

If it's in a book, it must be true. Have you read The Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy lately? Fascinating. Gripping, even. And absolutely factual, just ask the writers. That said, if Ed didn't see Lee Oswald in the sixth floor window, he didn't see anything.

Forgive me, but I don't understand what that's about.

... And so? James Worrell reported what he "saw" just one day later. Trouble is he never saw it, wasn't there, lied through his teeth. But he DID report it within 24 hours. QED or BFD? What Ed is telling people today that he saw in 1963 is not, apparently, what he was telling people back in 1963, 1964, 1967 or 1977. Put it off to misunderstanding ASL, but the man could write, couldn't he (and didn't he)? I can certainly buy, however, that he may have misinterpreted what he saw. As with many people, his memory has simply gotten more vivid with the passage of time. Jack, you know the photographic record as well as or better than anyone else: did Stemmons have a shoulder to park on at the time or not?