Duke Lane

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.

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.)

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.

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.

I've been waiting patiently for Miles Scull to respond to my post concerning Dallas Police Officer J.W. Foster's account of a man running up the railroad tracks from the area of the switch box after the shots were fired. This is a compelling piece of evidence since Miles had contended that there was nothing to support any of Ed Hoffman's story which included Ed's recollection of someone running up the railroad tracks from the area of the switch box.

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):

Perhaps I've missed something, or maybe you're thinking of someone else?

So here's what we have to date:

1. Duke Lane has conceded that there was nothing to obstruct Ed's view, so he could have seen what he claims to have seen. Miles has yet to acknowledge this as far as I can tell. ...

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.

2. Seymour Weitzman's WC testimony supports Ed's story of a rifle being tossed from "suitman" to "railroad man."

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:

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 ....

There's more that can be said about Miles' misinterpretation of the photographic record, errant timing of film frames and misrepresentation of witness testimony. ... What's important is to show the Forum membership that Ed's story does hold up and is supported by the facts and the recollections of others. Thanks to Bill Miller and others for standing behind Ed, and especially to Bill for bringing up valid points and corrections which have not been appreciated or even recognized by Miles.

One more thing. That "deceitful fudge artist" slur and other name calling. They really need to stop.

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.

Here's a photo which shows only two witnesses at the west balustrade at the time in question:

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.

A debate may never happen but I thought your thoughts would be interesting on who you believe would be the best person to "take on" Vincent in a debate over: Resolved, the JFK assassination involved more than one actor.

I agree with Charles and Larry: nobody.

Why dignify it with response?

Duke often makes sense in his better writings. The above mishmash makes no sense at all.

Jack

You give me 'way too much credit!

But I'll take it!!

What is not debatable is a report made by Weitzman who relayed the information that a witness gave him. I also think the guy meant that he saw through a bush an object being thrown. And the last point is that it seems pretty weak to claim that because others didn't see something that it must not have happened. No one reported seeing Zapruder filming the assassination - does this mean that he and Sitzman were not on the pedestal? Not everyone on the underpass mentioned seeing the smoke come through the trees - not everyone on the underpass claimed to see a bullet spark off the street - does this mean it didn't happen? No one claimed to see Tague struck in the face - does that mean it didn't happen?

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]

Duke,

That's correct. Ed said he saw 3 or 4 figures on the overpass, when there were actually 15 or more there, Sam Holland included.

The critique of Ed's story is that with so many persons nearby the steam pipe, then how is it that no one but Ed, 265 yards away, saw Ed's rifle toss & disassembly?

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.

It is proper to question Ed's story, as it is with any witness.

It is improper to question his veracity. He is telling the truth as he believes it.

It is not improper to question his INTERPRETATION of what he saw. He has reported WHAT HE SAW to the best of his ability. The possibility exists that what he saw was some activity unrelated to the assassination, as suspicious as it seemed to him.

Jack

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!"

Duke,

The absence of any vegitation in the green zone (see below) means that lines of sight from points 1, 2 & 3 are not obstructed. This means that the persons standing at those positions at Z-313 time, as they were, could have & would have seen Ed's actors' rifle toss & disassembly, if those actions occurred before Sam Holland came racing around the north end of the underpass from point 3, his position at Z-313.

Again, note that as the cars are parked as seen here along & next to the picket fence, abutting the fence, there is no free or easy passage down along the fence.

Not clear on your post above, but look forward to your ideas.

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.

Satellite photos do not exist of this area in 1963.

Contemporaneous photos show NO VEGETATION in that area in 1963, so the satellite photo is irrelevant.

Jack

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.

If you look closely at the photos, aerial maps taken that day, you, and others, I believe might see that there was brush, on the other side of the fence perhaps, as well as, a small tree, in that corner.. whatever was growing in that area..that you mention above.. ... possibley could have blocked the view, could be ?? I do not know for sure...But the photo you have taken was done so in the 90s.....

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!

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.

Rough example of the problem attached.

Cell 2057

Case Officer X would receive phone call - assemble team. Phone call might have come from a number of locations. This is need-to-know info, and would not be shared with the team members. It is not known who would have been making the call. X is surprised to learn that the mission is Dallas - he was anticipating Chicago, which apparently was blown thanks to SA Bolden. Y's cell consists of 4 invididuals, including a 5th - a pilot. One is believed to have simply been an 'Observer' which may have also been a signal job. The target is not known - very little information is shared aside from the operational assignment at hand. This is done to protect the operation, as well as the operative. X's case officer / handler would be on the ground and visible to him. It would have been someone that he trusted. This case officer would be present to demonstrate that the op hadn't been 'shopped.' If Y had recognized other operatives on the ground during assignment, it would be critical to ignore this to maintain the compartmented state, especially after-the-fact - otherwise one could become at risk for future assignments. Additionally, disclosing information concerning a role played within an op could jeopardize the other participants in the cell.

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.)

Anyone who is of the opinion that LHO was not engaged in conspiratorial activities may not be "nuts", however they certainly have not demonstrated the capabilities of separate and independent thought process. ...

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!

Now I'm more inclined to believe that Babushka Lady was in fact Betty Oliver. She would have had the connections to put here at the scene with a camera.

Do you have a (humble ) opinion on Babushka Lady's identity James?

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?

Here is a short biography of Clint Murchison Sr. He was held in such esteem to many Texans. He's the one who hosted the meeting at his Dallas house that included Richard Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ and others. This is the meeting when they decided to go ahead with the Assassination of President Kennedy the next day, according to LBJ's girlfriend.

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 posed the following eleven question to Bill Miller and they were ignored. I am always curious to get a general feel of exactly WHAT the conspiracy nuts out there really think happened. My general experience in studying the assassination since 1973 has been that conspiracy nuts are very good at asking questiions and raising issues but woefully unskilled at providing answers. Here are eleven questions I would like to have a few people tackle. Then we can start discussing the evidence after the responses start to pile up. ... Let the nuts start cracking.

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.

Is this the same person Mr. Lane____________________________as of 1999

Dr. Richard H. Freeman

Chief Engineer,

Goddard Space Flight Center thanks sg

+++++++++++++ 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.

Duke, not sure of what the significance of your new thread is, but while Ed didn't see Oswald, he did see something that points to a conspiracy. From day one, Ed said there was someone at the fence at the Hat Man location. Bowers description, along with Holland's didn't come out until a year later. Ed was deaf and described a man having a gun when others who could actually hear said that they heard a shot come from that same location. No detailed study of Moorman's photo had been done by the time Ed had initially told his story. Also, the smell of gunpowder near the fence and the smoke seen coming through the trees was also reported after the fact as I recall. Ed certainly put his head on the chopping block when he said he would like to take a lie detector test. My experience has been that liars don't ask for such examinations.

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?

Read Ed's book which rebuts such allegations.

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.

Is this the same person Mr. Lane____________________________as of 1999

Dr. Richard H. Freeman

Chief Engineer,

Goddard Space Flight Center thanks sg

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

Those who doubt him are not in possession of all the facts. Much of any confusion is from imprecise interpretation of American sign language. There is also the possibility that Ed himself may have misinterpreted what he saw.

The impressive fact is that Ed REPORTED WHAT HE SAW THE SAME DAY HE SAW IT. He has never varied from his initial report to his family. It is fact that he reported it to the FBI and they misintrepreted what he saw and deemed him a "nut" instead of a deaf mute.

... 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?

If you carefully cross reference Ed's TMWKK segment, you can plot it to a tolerable accuracy, point to point.

... The location you drew in, if you were correct, must have been for convenience because then billboard was also an issue and the LOS you have given Ed would not have been effected by the billboard at all. In fact, in Ed's story he was standing along the road, not sitting. I also know he said the limo passed below him on the on-ramp, thus it is these types of things that made me suspicious that you wewre only assuming things that may not have been exactly right.

Isn't it so that he'd told the Feebs at one point that he was "a few feet" from the railroad overpass over Stemmons? If so, then Miles' position is clearly in error. My recollection from walking with him to his alleged position on Stemmons is that he was much closer to where the on-ramp merges with the highway proper, but not all the way to that point.

Wasn't he also supposedly standing there for thirty minutes on the side of the highway (assuming that, at the time, there was a shoulder there for him to have parked on, as there is NOT today) that was about to be closed down to traffic until the presidential motorcade had passed before the parade actually arrived?

I'll have to swing by there some time and take a picture to post here, let y'all judge for yourselves what he could or couldn't have seen, billboard or no. Does anyone have a particular preference for camera settings and lenses to make it as realistic as possible?

Right, it's Ed's LOS if he were standing nearby to where he was sitting in the segment. From that point Ed could have seen the passing Limo, and as I have posited may well have done.

I believe you are incorrect once again. Gary Mack is well aware of that location and he has said that Ed could have seen down in the car from that elevated location. The point I am raising is that the location you have attributed to Ed does not allow him to look down and see the President directly below him as the limo comes out from under the freeway and it does not align with the billboard which has always been understood to be a factor with critics who thought it would have blocked Ed's view. The critics, of course were proven in error on that point because the billboard was not high enough on the day of the assassination to have prevented Ed from seeing into the RR yard.

... of which there is a photographic record, is that correct? From that spot or reasonably nearby?

OK, fair point. In counter, of course, one might reasonably ask, since polygraph techniques have been available in increasing availability since the late 1960s, why then hasn't Ed who can afford one,... why hasn't he just gotten someone like yourself to help him get one? It isn't complicated.

... I took the time and expense to research this matter and discovered that there was a place in Chicago that had the means to give a lie detector to a deaf mute. Ed was happy to hear this and was anxious to go forth and prove to people once and for all that he told the truth. The test was said to have to be done in Chicago and the cost to get Ed there and to do the test was around $5000.00. I volunteered to pay the money to make it happen. At the eleventh hour (so to speak) the examiner discovered that Ed took a certain medication for his heart and said that it could effect the test and make it unreliable. I never found a way to get around that obstacle because Ed needed that medicine to survive.

Am I following this right, that Ed changed his story at least a couple of times during the first dozen or so years, his own family didn't believe him (at least until he gained notoriety over this, and maybe a few bills paid to boot?), and the proof of it all is in a polygraph test that he can't take because of medication?

Bill, people that I know think that you're a competent researcher and finder of facts. I can maybe understand how you can swallow this story, but I'm not sure how you're able to keep it down.

This fits right there with Roscoe White being a shooter because his wife and kid wouldn't lie about such a thing, not even for all the money on Matsu.

Click on the little doo-dad arrow-thing above to go to the "Ed Hoffman" thread.