Benjamin Cole
-
Posts
7,288 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Benjamin Cole
-
-
This below seems like a balanced wrap-up of the Ed Hoffman situation.
In general, when a bit of evidence or a witness statement becomes iffy, I tend to discard it.
I am uncomfortable with Hoffman's three-year period of quiet after the JFKA, and the evolving nature of his recollections.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/hoffman.htm
Ed Hoffman:
Did He See a Grassy Knoll Shooter?
If Ed Hoffman's account is accurate, there was a Grassy Knoll shooter and a conspiracy.
A deaf mute, Hoffman now claims to have stopped above the on-ramp of the Stemmons Freeway, hoping to get a view of the presidential limousine as it drove past. He thus had a view of the area behind the Stockade Fence at the time of the shooting in Dealey Plaza. He claims to have seen a man, dressed in a business suit, shoot from behind the fence, and then toss the rifle to a man in a man dressed as a railroad worker, who disassembled it, put it into a case, and walked off.
An explosive story, if true.
But what was Hoffman saying at the time of the assassination? It's very difficult to know, but we do know about the first recorded version of his account. In 1967 Hoffman went to the FBI and gave them his story. An FBI report of June 28, 1967 says:
Hoffman said he was standing a few feet south of the railroad on Stemmons Freeway when the motorcade passed him taking President Kennedy to Parkland Hospital. Hoffman said he observed two white males, clutching something dark to their chests with both hands, running from the rear of the Texas School Book Depository building. The men were running north on the railroad, then turned east, and Hoffman lost sight of both of the men.
Then, the report adds, Hoffman partially retracted his story.
Approximately two hours after the above interview with Hoffman, he returned to the Dallas Office of the FBI and advised he had just returned from the spot on Stemmons Freeway where he had parked his automobile and had decided he could not have seen the men running because of a fence west of the Texas School Book Depository building. He said it was possible that he saw these two men on the fence or something else.
The FBI took Hoffman seriously enough to try investigate further. Another FBI report of July 6, 1967 recounts:
On July 5, 1967, Mr. E. Hoffman, father of Virgil E. Hoffman, and Fred Hoffman, brother of Virgil Hoffman, were interviewed at 428 West Main Street, Grand Prairie, Texas. Both advised that Virgil Hoffman has been a deaf mute his entire life and has in the past distorted facts of events observed by him. Both the father and brother stated that Virgil Hoffman loved President Kennedy and had mentioned to them just after the assassination that he (Virgil Hoffman) was standing on the freeway near the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the assassination. Virgil Hoffman told them he saw numerous men running after the President was shot. The father of Virgil Hoffman stated that he did not believe that his son had seen anything of value and doubted he had observed any men running from the Texas School Book Depository and for this reason had not mentioned it to the FBI.
These two documents, with Hoffman saying nothing about seeing any shooter, and his father and brother casting doubt on his reliability, would seem to be damning for his current story. But his supporters do have counter arguments. The vulgar one is that the FBI simply lied about what he said. Hoffman at various times has accused the FBI of offering him money to keep quiet. The less vulgar one claims that there was likely miscommunication here. Not only did Hoffman write rather badly, the FBI had no sign-language interpreter in Dallas in 1967. Also, Hoffman's supporters claim that his father feared for his son's safety if he became involved.
While there is no record of Hoffman telling his current story in the 1960s, by the 70s he was clearly doing so. Hoffman's friend and coworker, Richard H. Freeman phoned the FBI and gave them Hoffman's story as Hoffman had told it to him.
Hoffman was watching the motorcade of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas. Hoffman was standing on Stemmons Freeway watching the presidential motorcade, looking in an easterly direction when the motorcade sped away and headed north on Stemmons Freeway. Hoffman communicated that this must have been right after President Kennedy was shot. Hoffman saw two men, one with a rifle and one with a handgun, behind a wooden fence, approximately six feet in height, at this moment. This fence is located on the same side of Elm Street as the Texas School Book Depository building but closer to Stemmons Freeway. Since he is deaf, he naturally could not hear any shots but thought he saw a puff of smoke in the vicinity of where the two men were standing. As soon as he saw the motorcade speed away and saw the puff of smoke in the vicinity of the two men, the man with the rifle looked like he was breaking the rifle down by removing the barrel from the stock and placing it in some dark type of suitcase that the other man was holding. The two men then ran north on the railroad tracks by actually running on the tracks. Hoffman was standing approximately 75 yards from this fence.
Both men were white males, both dressed in some type of white suits, and both wore ties. He was too far away to furnish a more detailed description. There were no other people in his area of observation, nor in the area where the two men were standing behind the fence.
The FBI then interviewed Hoffman. An FBI report by Udo H. Specht recounts what Hoffman said.
On March 28, 1977, Virgil E. Hoffman accompanied Special Agent [REDACTED] to Stemmons Freeway, also known as Interstate Highway 35 North, Dallas, Texas.
Hoffman communicated that he was driving a 1962 Ford Falcon on November 22, 1963. He parked his car on the west shoulder of Stemmons Freeway at the northbound lane near the Texas and Pacific Railroad overpass that crosses Stemmons Freeway. He could not see the presidential motorcade as it was proceeding west on Elm Street toward the Triple Underpass. He saw the motorcade speed up as it emerged on Stemmons Freeway heading north. His line of vision was due east looking from Stemmons Freeway toward the Texas School Book Depository building. The two men he saw were behind the wooden fence above the grassy knoll north of Elm Street and just before the Triple Underpass. He indicated he saw smoke in that vicinity and saw the man with the rifle disassembling the rifle near some type of railroad track control box located close to the railroad tracks. Both men ran north on the railroad tracks.
This is the basic story that Hoffman told throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, although note that Freeman's version of Hoffman's story has both men dressed similarly.
Hoffman gave generally similar accounts in the video "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" (1988), and in "Beyond JFK" (1992). But the next detailed examination of the Hoffman story was by Bill Sloan in his 1993 book, JFK: Breaking the Silence. As recounted by Sloan:
In his account of watching the events behind the Stockade Fence, Hoffman discusses the characters "businessman" and "train man." "Businessman" is described as "neatly attired in a dark business suit, complete with white shirt, necktie, and short-brimmed black hat." "Train man" is described as wearing "striped overalls and a cap andlooked to be a railroad worker going about his duties. . . " (p. 16).
Hoffman then describes the shooting scenario:
I could see that the top was down on the president's car and I could see the people inside waving at the crowds, although I couldn't make out yet who was who. Part of me wanted to concentrate on seeing the president, but I couldn't keep from looking back at the two men behind the fence.
Just as I did look back, the man in the business suit raised the gun. I saw him rest it on the pickets in the fence. . . .
And just then I saw a spark of light. I saw a puff of fluffy white smoke. The first thing that crossed my mind was that it might be from a cigarette, but it was much too big for that.
When I realized it was a shot, I was totally shocked. I couldn't believe it.
An instant later, I saw the businessman turn back away from the fence, and as he turned around, I could clearly see the gun in his hand. I could see the brown stock as he held the gun out in front of him. Then, very quickly, he tossed the gun over to the train man and started running. He ran past the parked cars and kept on going, running north into the railroad yards. (p. 18)
The most recent, and most detailed, version of Hoffman's account was published by JFK Lancer in 1997. Authored by Hoffman and Ron Friedrich it is titled Eye Witness (it is now, unfortunately, out of print). A close reading reveals some interesting details.
While Ed was waiting for the President, he saw the following:
(a) A stocky man in the dark blue business suit & black hat stood near the stockade fence.
(b) A tall, slender railroad workman stood by the tracks at the switch box.
(c) Three men in railroad workmen [sic] stood on the first bridge of the Triple Underpass. . . . Their backs were toward Ed as they leaned on the guard rail looking out over Dealey Plaza. We assume that Sam Holland was one of those three men that he saw on the railroad bridge.
. . .
In the moments immediately before the assassination Ed saw:
. . .
The man in the business suit . . . walked over to the "railroad man" standing by the switch box, spoke very briefly with him, and then returned to his position behind the fence.
The "railroad man" bent down and seemed [to] work with something on the ground near the switch box. The "suit man" at the fence bent down, then stood up, and looked over the fence.
Ed saw a puff of smoke by the "suit man" and assumed it was from a cigarette.
[The] man in the blue suit turned, holding a rifle, and ran the short distance to the man at the switch box. . . .
The three men (c) on the triple overpass began what appeared to Ed as an animated discussion, looking and pointing toward the fence. Ed assumes that they could see the front of the fence, the side facing toward Dealey Plaza, and that they saw the same puff of smoke he did.
The "suit man" tossed the rifle over to the "railroad man." (There was a thin, horizontal pipe, about four feet off the ground, and a shallow ditch beneath the pipe, and couple [of] yards from the railroad tracks, which separated the "suit man" from the "railroad man.")
The "railroad man" received the rifle, dismantled it, stashed it in the "tool box," and started running north along the tracks. (Military people tell us that this kind of rifle can be dismantled in less time [than] it takes to describe it — click and twist.) Ed emphasizes that both men acted very quickly.
Meanwhile, the men on the triple overpass still stood there, pointing toward the area of the smoke by the fence, and gesticulating rather visibly.
The man in the blue suit assumed a casual composure, and sauntered back toward the north end of the fence.
A police officer (d) ran from the south end of the triple overpass to the middle of the bridge where the three railroad men are standing, shouting, and pointing. It appeared to Ed that the police officer joined the three in their animated conversation.
. . .
A police officer . . . came around the north end of the fence. He saw and confronted the "suit man." The policeman held his service revolver in both both hands, arms extended forward, legs spread and slightly squat.
The "suit man" first held both arms out to his side, as if to gesture, "It wasn't me. See, I have nothing." Then the "suit man" reached inside his suit coat and pulled out something (presumably identification) and showed it to the police officer. The officer relaxed, and both men mingled with the crowd coming around the fence.
We assume this police officer was Joe Marshall Smith, who testified before the Warren Commission about this encounter. (pp. 7-9)
Adding Joe Marshall Smith
It would make sense that this was Joe Marshall Smith, a Dallas police officer who reached the area behind the Stockade Fence soon after the shots were fired, and confronted an agent of some sort who showed him credentials. This part of Hoffman's account would seem to be strongly corroborated by Smith's testimony if it were independently given. The problem is that the latter-day account that includes Smith flatly contradicts the account that he gave Bill Sloan and the account he was giving in the 1970s. In the account he gave Sloan, Hoffman said of Suit Man "He ran past the parked cars and kept on going, running north into the railroad yards."
It appears that between the time he talked to Sloan and the time he gave his account to Friedrich he learned of Joe Marshall Smith's testimony and incorporated into his story.
Adding the "Railroad Men" to the Story
Another element never seen before in this account is the three "railroad men" on the Underpass — Sam Holland and two of his cohorts (presumably Richard Dodd and James Simmons). Why do Holland and his two friends appear in the later account, and not in any of the earlier ones?
Ed Hoffman, in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 2002, talking to interested sightseers. (Photo: Leland Watts) By the time he gave his story to Ron Friedrich, Hoffman apparently knew he had a problem with Holland.
Immediately after the shooting, Holland and several other railroad workers ran around to the area behind the Stockade Fence, where they believed at least one shot came from. Their path led them directly toward the signal box where "railroad man" was supposedly dismantling the rifle. And it led them behind the Stockade Fence precisely in the path of the retreating "Suit Man" assassin.
Yet neither Holland nor any of his cohorts reported seeing a Railroad Man breaking down the rifle, nor Suit Man with a rifle in his hands.
I was in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1993, watching Hoffman show his scenario to a substantial crowd. A skeptic in the crowd shouted "what about Sam Holland?" Hoffman, being deaf, could not have heard the question, but somebody could well have conveyed it — from this or another source — to him.
Hoffman attacks this problem in two ways. He speeds up the retreat of Suit Man and the disassembling of the rifle by Railroad Man. And he slows down the run behind the Stockade Fence by Holland and his railroad buddies. He runs into trouble on both counts.
First, he has Suit Man run "the short distance" to the railroad man, and toss him the rifle. Unfortunately, he has placed the shooting position of Suit Man at the "HSCA acoustic" position, near the corner of the fence. This position has a venerable history in assassination lore, but it's about 30 yards from the steam pipe over which Suit Man supposedly tossed the rifle to Railroad Man.
And it was impossible to "run" from the shooters position to the steam pipe.
The parking lot was jammed with cars. Sam Holland, who ran from the Underpass to the "shooters position" from the opposite direction, said:
They were just bumper to bumper . . . just a sea of cars. You couldn't hardly get through them. We were jumping over the bumpers, over the hoods of the cars to work our way to the spot that we saw the smoke and heard the shot. (Mark Lane video "The Plot to Kill JFK: Rush to Judgment")
Holland's RunIn the wake of the shooting, Sam Holland and some of his fellow railroad employees, who were standing on the Triple Underpass, ran around behind the Stockade Fence, from which they thought the shots were fired. Conspiracists have long touted Holland's impression as to the source of the shots, but his testimony flatly rules out the possibility of a Grassy Knoll shooter doing what Hoffman said he was doing without being seen by Holland and his buddies. Mark Lane filmed an interview with Holland describing his reactions.- You can watch the clip in streaming RealMedia video by clicking here (128K ISDN or better connection)
- You can download the clip by clicking here (you may need to right click and select "Save Target As.")
Thus Holland, who said he ran around behind the fence "immediately" when the limo disappeared beneath the Underpass estimated that it took him a minimum of two minutes to reach the "shooter's position" (Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, p. 34).
It thus would have been physically impossible for the shooter to do what Hoffman describes him doing. And it would have been impossible for the entire scenario to have played out before Holland and his buddies began their run.
Only Three "Railroad Men"
In describing the three "railroad men," Hoffman fails entirely to mention that they ran around behind the Stockade Fence. Rather he has them talking and gesturing on the Underpass the entire time. But the worst part of his story is that he describes three and only three "railroad men" on the Underpass. He has apparently learned of Holland, Dodd, and Simmons. But it appears to have escaped his attention that many more men were on the Underpass. To quote Holland's Warren Commission testimony:
Mr. STERN. Tell me if this is correct, Mr. Holland. At the time' the Presidential motorcade arrived, to the best of your recollection, on the overpass there were two uniformed Dallas Police, and the following employees of the Terminal Co. yourself, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Potter, Mr. Winburn, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Cowzert, and perhaps one other man?
Mr. HOLLAND. That's right.
Mr. STERN. So, that would be eight including yourself, plus two employees of the railroad. One of the T. & P. and one of the Katy?
Mr. HOLLAND. That's right.
And indeed, photographs of the Triple Underpass in the wake of the shooting appear to show ten to twelve people (Robert Groden, The Killing of a President, pp. 43, 46).
So why in the world does Hoffman vividly describe three and only three railroad workers on the Underpass? Apparently, from learning the testimony of Holland, Simmons, and Dobb. Apparently not from actually viewing the scene on the Underpass in the wake of the assassination.
Evaluating Hoffman
Given that Hoffman altered his story in important ways in the 1990s, does that mean that the "Suit Man" shooting at Kennedy and "Railroad Man" disassembling the rifle are additions also?
A More Critical ViewResearcher Duke Lane does an intensive analysis both of witness testimony and the terrain of the area in "Freeway Man," a detailed and critical view of the Hoffman testimony.
It's important to note that some aspects of Hoffman's story are corroborated. Hoffman claims to have seen — and have tried to draw the attention of — a police officer on the railroad bridge over the Stemmons Freeway. There was indeed an officer on that bridge, one Earle V. Brown. This is something Hoffman would not likely have known unless he was there.
His very earliest accounts have Hoffman saying he was stopped on the Stemmons Freeway at the time the assassination happened. He claimed that a Secret Service agent pointed a rifle in his direction. A photo, shot by Al Volkland, of the Secret Service follow-up car speeding down the Stemmons Freeway toward Parkland Hospital shows Agent Hickey brandishing an AR-15 assault rifle, and it might well have been pointed toward Hoffman as the car sped up the ramp (Richard Trask, Pictures of the Pain, p. 477). And Earle Brown told the Warren Commission what he saw as the motorcade rushed beneath him on the freeway:
Mr. BROWN. Well, let me see, by that time the escort as to the motorcycles, we could see them coming, the front part of the motorcade, I don't think they probably realized what happened; they had come on ahead. And then we saw the car coming with the President, and as it passed underneath me I looked right down and I could see this officer in the back; he had this gun and he was swinging it around, looked like a machinegun, and the President was all sprawled out, his foot on the back cushion. (6H234)
Brown is obviously confused on some points, but his testimony corroborates Hoffman's with regard to the Secret Service agent brandishing a weapon.
Other elements of Hoffman's story fail the plausibility test. His claim to have seen a puff of smoke when Suit Man shot at Kennedy is implausible given the fact that modern firearms don't let off big puffs of smoke when they are fired. There was most likely a puff of motorcycle exhaust in the air over Elm Street in the wake of the assassination — as several of the witnesses said. Unlike the "police officer on the bridge," the "puff of smoke" is in virtually every conspiracy book.
But "Holland's Run" is the Achilles Heel of the Hoffman account. It's impossible that the little tableau that Hoffman described could have played itself out without Holland and his friends seeing Suit Man or seeing the Railroad Man disassemble the rifle. That he really saw two men running is easy enough to believe. That they were the shooter and his accomplice is vastly less likely.
When Did He Add the Shooter to His Story?
If Hoffman didn't literally see a shooter, did he add that element to his story sometime after he talked to the FBI in 1967, or was it there all along? Mark Panlener, in a thorough review of this issue, concludes that Hoffman was telling of seeing a shooter and accomplice from the very beginning. Two witnesses, his wife Rosie, and his friend Lucien Pierce, confirm that he was telling of a shooter as far back as 1963. However, both are friends of Hoffman, and would not want to see him embarrassed. One need not believe they are lying to doubt their corroboration of Hoffman's story. It would suffice that they have heard several versions of the story, and are simply confused, remembering details given later as part of the first telling.
On the other side is Ed's father Frederick Hoffman who maintained until his death in 1976 his son's first version of the story did not mention the two men behind the fence or seeing a shot fired. Hoffman supporters claim that Frederick was simply lying — not from evil motives but out of a desire to avoid seeing his son in harm's way. Also failing to confirm Hoffman is his uncle, Robert Hoffman, a police officer. As he told Sloan:
Maybe it is better that I didn't understand what he had seen. I know that Eddie's a very bright person and always has been, and can't think of any reason why he would make up something like this. It would be completely out of his character for him to change his story or to add to it at a later date, but all I knew at the time was that someone in a car had pointed a gun at him. I understood it to be a shotgun. His father was very, very concerned that Eddie knew anything about the assassination at all. It was time when suspicions were running high and he [Frederick] was worried about Eddie getting involved in any way . . . If I had known the whole thing I guess it would have been my duty [as a police officer] to come forward with the information and I imagine Chief Curry would liked to have known about it. But as a relative, I would have probably have felt pretty much like Eddie's father felt . . . It just wasn't a time for loose statements that couldn't be proved or backed up with any evidence. (Sloan p. 30-31)
The fact that Hoffman changed his story in the 1990s, adding the Joe Marshall Smith encounter and Sam Holland and his coworkers, might suggest that he was capable of changing it between the time he talked to the FBI in 1967 and the time he talked to them again in 1977. But it's also possible that this badly shaken and highly emotional witness was talking about seeing a shooter when he first told his story on November 22, 1963.
If so, it's unlikely that his account included the details so familiar in later conspiracy accounts.
-
19 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:
Neither side comes to the table with clean hands. The “Rules based international order” had no trouble with Ukraine being part of the Russian, then Soviet Empire. Even the anticommunists did not take any military action when the Soviets invaded Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968) and demanded martial law in Poland (1981). It certainly would not countenance say a Chinese military alliance with Mexico.
On the other hand, Putin is not “our buddy”. But it doesn’t make sense to cross the street to pick a fight with him.
I am just an armchair historian (we have some self-exalted authorities on every aspect of history herein the EF-JFKA, and they will let you know the Truth) but I think we have entered a new stage of global geopolitics.
IMHO, the whole neo-con era is over, and indeed, what we used to call the postwar era.
IMHO, yes, the US should have avoided wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan--in large part because discretion is the better part of valor.
The situation is further clouded as Western liberal democracies---IMHO, absolutely the right way to run government and societies---are also host to globalist enterprise, who often become influential in foreign and military affairs.
So some snivelers can always say US foreign policy is also just an extension of globalist capitalists.
But today Western liberal democracies face fascists, largely allied in Moscow, Tehran and Beijing.
I do not believe JFK would roll over facing such an axis.
But then, the modern-day parlor game is to take one's present day carriage of political biases and selectively harness the JFK legend to it.
-
53 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:
Ben,
What are your thoughts about Wiesak's analysis on page 200 of America's Last President, and Douglass's analysis on page 337 of JFK and the Unspeakable?
Based on your glib denigration of these two excellent books as "hagiography," I'm not convinced that you have read, or understood, them.
I do not have the physical books in my possession. I have read both books. I have moved offshore, and moved frequently. Physical books are no longer practical. A hard drive meltdown took care of e-books.
IMHO, both books were hagiographies---witness, in just one example, their treatment of JFK's Orange Bowl speech. I do not recall either author even mentioning in the speech. Correct me if I am wrong.
Yet the Orange Bowl speech is a prominent part of JFK's historical record regarding Cuba and Cuban exiles. In a most bellicose manner, JFK vowed regime change in Cuba, and installation of BoP brigade in Havana. This was after the BoP and the shortly after Cuban Missile Crisis.
You have your views, and I have mine.
This is from Amazon, re Wiesak's book:
"The presidency of John F. Kennedy was a unique and promising turning point in history. A young, compassionate, and independent thinker arrived on the scene with great intent to serve his country, his people, and the globe around him. He envisioned a world of decentralized power—from strong, diverse, and independent nations to thriving opportunities for America’s small businesses—a world not led by imperial forces but led by the people. He sought to keep America out of hot wars and to end the Cold War. He reached for peace not only in his time but, as he put it, “in all time” through his thoughtful pursuit of military weapons control. He fought for the rights of every American, from the civil rights struggles in the South to consumer rights and protections from industry corruption. He came up against a myriad of powerful interests with different goals. A battle ensued, and the common man around the globe lost the day John F. Kennedy died.
This book details the story and the struggle, in a way never told before, of a man with the courage to repeatedly take on the most powerful forces on the globe; a man who seemingly had everything—but gave everything—including ultimately his life, in pursuit of creating a better life for us all. Along the way, it asks deep questions about what it all means for our world today."---30---
Well, let's just say Wiesak's book might be a hagiography, and let it go at that.
Fitting JFK's florid and bellicose Orange Bowl speech into Wiesak's paean to righteousness, intelligence and virtue...like jabbing a pickled onion into a banana split. The desert chef wants everything sweet.
Some people eat that stuff up.
Me? I have become a little more skeptical of hagiographies, whether of Ronald Reagan, JFK, or modern-day snapshots of Kamala Harris. Vice-versa on hatchet-jobs on Nixon, RFK2, or LBJ or LHO.
But each to his own.
-
11 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:
It’s difficult to find sympathy for the deaths of those whose nation had been helping Germany rearm for almost 20 years, conducted an ethnic cleansing in Ukraine, joined Germany in the invasion and partition of Poland, supplied Germany with the means to continue the war against the West and invaded several nations on its own. While the US was providing Lend-Lease aid the the Soviets, at great sacrifice to the American people and servicemen, the Soviets would scrupulously honor their pre-war non-aggression pact with Japan (which allowed the Soviets a free hand to invade Poland) and imprisoned US airmen forced to land in Soviet territory after missions against Japan.
I should also add that the Soviets used their control of the US Communist Party and front organizations to push for US neutrality while the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was operative.
So, not too many tears shed for the Soviets.
Not to mention Putin's inexcusable and ghastly war on Ukraine, a nation that barely had a military before the Putin war.
Hundreds of thousands dead, more wounded. Vast infrastructure and housing destroyed. And it ain't over yet.
Some nations have bellicose warmongers, oppressive ideologues and thugs, intractable and implacable in every way, running government. And have been that way for centuries, often supported by domestic populations (one can say populations are brainwashed by propaganda or theocrats, but still....)
Western liberal democracies are not perfect...but the options are revolting.
-
1 hour ago, Charles Blackmon said:
What about Ed Hoffman?
On 22nd November, 1963, Hoffman stood on the shoulder of the Stemmons Expressway in Dallas when John F. Kennedy was assassinated. The deaf-and-dumb witness claimed he saw a man with a rifle moments after the shots were fired. He later described how a man wearing a dark suit and tie, with an overcoat, ran west along the wooden fence with a rifle and tossed it to a second man who was dressed like a railroad worker. The second man then disassembled the rifle and put it in a soft brown bag.
The Ed Hoffman story has always seemed iffy to me. Now I forget the reasons why. I will research this again.
-
On 8/12/2024 at 1:35 PM, Pat Speer said:
Oh please, Cliff. I have no faith in any of this stuff, and that is why I have been so controversial.
I don't trust anyone's ability to ascertain the truth on this case. That is why I have looked at so many different elements of the case. I have declared for 20 years that the evidence strongly suggests the single-bullet theory is nonsense, and you have been angry at me for most of that time for not sharing YOUR FAITH that the clothing evidence all by itself proves this, that no other evidence is needed, and that looking at the rest of evidence is folly.
So let's repeat. I have no faith in any of this. But I have many strong suspicions about many different aspects of the case, that lead me to suspect there was more to it than Oswald, and that the Johnson Administration engaged in a deliberate cover-up.
Now, to be clear, I studied philosophy as a young man, and this led me to completely reject the notion of "knowledge" and "faith."
I remember, for instance, that, upon reading Descartes' famous line "I think, therefore I am"--I immediately rejected it. How do we "know" that non-existent things don't think? And what is "thinking" anyhow? Could it be that what we think are thoughts are little more than burps or farts?
So, no, I do not have faith all the shots came from behind. In fact, I have worked with some of the most prominent doctors working on this case, and have helped them come up with arguments for a shot from the front.
"So let's repeat. I have no faith in any of this. But I have many strong suspicions about many different aspects of the case, that lead me to suspect there was more to it than Oswald, and that the Johnson Administration engaged in a deliberate cover-up.---PS
Pretty much ditto.
Except maybe I have only qualified suspicions, not even strong suspicions.
-
Always interesting to see early, especially same-day, primary materials re the JFKA.
Zapruder on 11/22 said he thought the shots had come from behind him, that is, the GK area.
That is what the Newman family thought also.
Ear witnesses are not perfect. But certainly many earnestly thought 11/22 shot sounds had come from the GK area.
A diversion? An actual assassin? No credible witness seems to have seen the actual GK gunsel.
https://x.com/FilesJFK/status/1819399814204764553
-
https://www.academia.edu/27497520/Zeroing_in_on_JFKs_fatal_head_shot?email_work_card=view-paper
The history of Harper fragment...ooof. Who knows?
This author concludes that JFK was struck by a storm-drain shot.
-
23 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:
Ben,
I'm responding to your post in red (below.)
Ben Cole wrote:
You are justified in hosting reservations and doubts about the true perps of the JFKA.
While some people claim to know what exactly happened on 11/22, down to minute physical details as well as the true perps...in the end, every one of these points remains legitimately debatable.
Who are these people, Ben?
While it is relatively easy to debunk the WCR/Lone Nut theory of the JFKA, it is a far more complicated matter to find and place all of the missing pieces of the JFKA jigsaw puzzle, especially since the perpetrators were so diligent about hiding and destroying the evidence (including numerous key witnesses.)
And you won't find much reference to JFK's extraordinarily inflammatory and bellicose Orange Bowl speech---vowing regime change in Cuba and installation of the BoP operatives in a new government in Havana---in the books by Douglass and Wiesak.
That is not their JFK! Yet it is also the historical JFK.
Have you even read Douglass's and Wiesak's excellent books, Ben?
As in the case of Lincoln, and other politicians, it's important to distinguish between their true policy positions and their public pronouncements in politicized contexts.
Lincoln often dissembled about his private opposition to slavery, to avoid alienating slave owners in Border states. (See The Fiery Trial by Eric Foner.)
Similarly, JFK and RFK were quite familiar with Red Scare paranoia.
In the case of the Orange Bowl speech, JFK was speaking to a community of Cuban Americans who were enraged about Allen Dulles's botched Bay of Pigs op. It was political damage control.
Those two books are nearly lyrical hagiographies of JFK, presented through a rose-tinted alt-left lens. They are attempts to harness the JFK legacy to certain present-day political biases.
Again. How would you know, if you haven't read the books?
Douglass, at points, waxes in near-evangelical terms about certain witnesses, and asserts that an LHO double was exfiltrated from near Dealey Plaza C-47 on 11/22 using a river-wash bed near downtown Dallas. Based on a single witness statement, but Douglass explains the exfiltration as fact. That is typical Douglass. Another lady said she saw Jack Ruby near the TSBD in the aftermath of the JFKA, and so that is presented as a Truth, with some mystical references to higher powers. And so on.
Huh? That is the most nonsensical misinterpretation of Douglass's profound work I've read anywhere.
There are theological references to Thomas Merton and Roman Catholicism in Douglass, but their relevance to JFK's geopolitical vision has, obviously, sailed way over your head, Ben.
Douglass does discuss the Wayne January/Redbird data, including January's claim that Oswald had visited Redbird prior to 11/22/63.
Wiesak's presentation of Middle East events is shot through with grotesque historic errors. I wonder who financed her book.
Which errors are those, Ben? Specify.
I hope you're not basing your erroneous concepts on the MIC propagandist, Griffith.
Back on point, after reading both books, you will no closer to getting to the bottom of the JFKA than otherwise, and possibly misled a bit by Douglass' book.
It may be that elites organized the JFKA, as posited by Douglass and many others.
Complete bunk. People can learn a great deal about the CIA-suppressed history of JFK from both of these great books.
But that is speculative, and it may also be the JFKA was perped out of the JMWave Miami Station, and Cuban exile community---the very same group JFK was robustly demagoguing in the Orange Bowl.
And did JMWave and the Cubans also handle the sham Bethesda autopsy, the mainstream media narrative, the FBI, the Warren Commission, and the comprehensive cover up of the JFKA?
Other serious researchers have built explanations of the JFKA as perped by the Mafia.
They were CIA contractors, as Giancana openly admitted.
IMHO, it is less likely that Castro operatives in the US perped the JFKA.
My reason for being skeptical of the Castro-JFKA connection are many, but the follow-up siamese-twin RFK1A, and indeed even the Scott Enyart photo negatives heist of 1996, point to a domestic organization with institutional staying power and resources, based in the US.
It's called the CIA, Ben.
However, to give your view fair hearing, it can be said that after several US-based assassination attempts on Castro, some conducted during the JFK presidency, in some regards Castro would have been justified in trying to return the favor.
If Castro listened to JFK's Orange Bowl late 1962 speech, he heard JFK vow to have Castro removed from office, and likely the island entirely, if not from life itself.
One can legitimately ponder Castro's reaction to JFK's saber-rattling and bald threats.
Castro, surely, knew that JFK and Kruschev had negotiated a peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
That included agreements to curtail CIA black ops against Cuba.
Castro also knew that JFK had refused TWICE to attack Cuba with the U.S. military-- in April of 1961, and in October of 1962.
He probably interpreted the Orange Bowl speech as political damage control.
WN- I have read the Douglass and Wiesak books.
No need to reiterate my views on those two books.
-
9 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:
A more pertinent question is, could the speech, coming close on the heels of the Cuban Missile Crisis where Castro felt betrayed by the Soviets, have motivated Castro or elements in his leadership or intelligence agencies to assassinate JFK?
KB-
You are justified in hosting reservations and doubts about the true perps of the JFKA.
While some people claim to know what exactly happened on 11/22, down to minute physical details as well as the true perps...in the end, every one of these points remains legitimately debatable.
And you won't find much reference to JFK's extraordinarily inflammatory and bellicose Orange Bowl speech---vowing regime change in Cuba and installation of the BoP operatives in a new government in Havana---in the books by Douglass and Wiesak.
That is not their JFK! Yet it is also the historical JFK.
Those two books are nearly lyrical hagiographies of JFK, presented through a rose-tinted alt-left lens. They are attempts to harness the JFK legacy to certain present-day political biases.
Douglass, at points, waxes in near-evangelical terms about certain witnesses, and asserts that an LHO double was exfiltrated from near Dealey Plaza on a C-47 military aircraft on 11/22 using a river-wash bed near downtown Dallas. Based on a single witness statement, but Douglass explains the exfiltration as fact. That is typical Douglass. Another lady said she saw Jack Ruby near the TSBD in the aftermath of the JFKA, and so that is presented as a Truth, with some mystical references to higher powers. And so on.
Wiesak's presentation of Middle East events is shot through with grotesque historic errors. I wonder who financed her book.
Back on point, after reading both books, you will no closer to getting to the bottom of the JFKA than otherwise, and possibly misled a bit by Douglass' book.
It may be that elites organized the JFKA, as posited by Douglass and many others.
But that is speculative, and it may also be the JFKA was perped out of the JMWave Miami Station, and Cuban exile community---the very same group JFK was robustly demagoguing in the Orange Bowl.
Other serious researchers have built explanations of the JFKA as perped by the Mafia.
IMHO, it is less likely that Castro operatives in the US perped the JFKA.
My reason for being skeptical of the Castro-JFKA connection are many, but the follow-up siamese-twin RFK1A, and indeed even the Scott Enyart photo negatives heist of 1996, point to a domestic organization with institutional staying power and resources, based in the US.
However, to give your view fair hearing, it can be said that after several US-based assassination attempts on Castro, some conducted during the JFK presidency, in some regards Castro would have been justified in trying to return the favor.
If Castro listened to JFK's Orange Bowl late 1962 speech, he heard JFK vow to have Castro removed from office, and likely the island entirely, if not from life itself.
One can legitimately ponder Castro's reaction to JFK's saber-rattling and bald threats.
-
On 8/11/2024 at 12:56 AM, Kevin Balch said:
There is a general and unmistakable trend in the US of declining managerial, administrative and operational competence. Examples include screwed up rollouts of FAFSA, Obamacare, Boeing problems with aircraft and spacecraft, US Navy ship collisions, software upgrades that cosmetically rearrange appearances with no apparent increase in functionality or efficiency. I resisted pressure for a colonoscopy because I judge the risk from the procedure higher than the benefits offered based on my family history, previous colonoscopy determination of an absence of any polyps. I will reconsider this if I detect any relevant changes that suggest a colonoscopy is warranted.
So I can believe secret service incompetence as well as breakdown in communications between the secret service and local law enforcement. But I also expect the investigation to be incompetent as well.
"But I also expect the investigation to be incompetent as well."---KB
Thanks for your collegial commentary.
Not only may the TAA investigation be incompetent, it may be complicit.
Accessories After the Fact?
-
21 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:
No animus on my part, Ben.
I'm simply interested in bona fide education vs. disinformation.
Disinformation promotes ignorance-- the opposite of education.
Weren't you once a critic of CIA Operation Mockingbird?
As for the sham Bethesda autopsy vs. the Parkland medical testimony, does anyone on the forum seriously doubt that the JFK assassination evidence was aggressively suppressed and altered from Day One?
It has taken years of hard work by dedicated, independent researchers to bring the true facts about JFK's assassination to light.
WN-
Op Mock then as now, I say.
But...what is purported to an authentic x-ray of the rear of JFK's post-JFKA skill shows on bullet hole in the low rear area.
I cannot tell if the skull x-ray is authentic or not. Serious people say it is.
If the x-ray is authentic, it suggests there was no explosion outward in the rear of JFK's skull.
I am left with reasonable doubts about the direction of shots that struck JFK.
-
3 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:
JFK put 15,000 advisors in Vietnam to placate Joint Chiefs of Staff among others urging combat troops. He authorized the Bay of Pigs under false pretenses perpetuated by Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell of the CIA, among others. Under pressure from them and some of the JCS less than three months into his new presidency. "How could I ever have been so stupid" I believe is a close approximation of a statement by him afterwards.
I agree with your sentiments.
But JFK was President and has to take responsibility for his actions. He put the 15,000 troops, called "advisors" into SV. He must have had reasons, and I believe JFK thought he was supporting Western liberal democracy ideals in doing so.
No doubt, JFK regretted the BoP op. He properly fired Dulles afterwards.
See my related post on JFK's Orange Bowl speech.
-
It was December 29, 1962, mere weeks after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when President JFK appeared in the Orange Bowl in Miami, in the very heart of the roiling and virulently anti-Castro Cuban exile community, to deliver the most inflammatory speech ever given by a US President regarding Cuba.
"I want to express my great appreciation to the brigade for making the United States the custodian of this flag. I can assure you that this flag will be returned to this brigade in a free Havana." ---That is JFK's opening sentence of his speech, and he is referring to the Flag of the Cuban Invasion Brigade.
The Cuban Invasion Brigade carried out the unsuccessful Bay of Pigs operation, in April 1961.
JFK added, "All of you members of the brigade, and members of their families, are following an historic road, one which has been followed by other Cubans in other days, and, indeed, by other patriots of our hemisphere in other years--Juarez, San Martin, Bolivar, O'Higgins--all of whom fought for liberty, many of whom were defeated, many of whom went in exile, and all of whom came home."
There is more--
"For your small brigade is a tangible reaffirmation that the human desire for freedom and independence is essentially unconquerable. Your conduct and valor are proof that although Castro and his fellow dictators may rule nations, they do not rule people; that they may imprison bodies, but they do not imprison spirits; that they may destroy the exercise of liberty, but they cannot eliminate the determination to be free. And by helping to free you, the United States has been given the opportunity to demonstrate once again that all men who fight for freedom are our brothers, and shall be until your country and others are free."
Well, you get the idea.
This late 1962 speech by JFK raises two questions:
1. JFK was indisputably breathing fire-and-brimstone down in Miami. Was JFK sincere, or---as with every pol---was he pandering to a crowd? Or even temporarily caught up with the emotions of the moment? How does the undeniable Orange Bowl version of JFK square with later interpretations of the JFK Presidency?
2. Did the Cuban exile community, related mercs, CIA assets, and the JMWave Miami Station take umbrage at JFK's remarks, and then JFK's perceived lack of follow through? And these Orange Bowl promises were made after JFK was perceived (unfairly in my view) with having yanked the rug out from the BoP op?
I have pondered if JFK's Orange Bowl speech triggered fresh hopes, that were then dashed by his inactions on Cuba, and that triggered subsequent umbrage taken by the very intense, self-righteous and aggrieved anti-Castro community.
-
49 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:
So, perhaps, the Earth is flat then, eh, Ben?
It all depends merely on ones point of view?
To use the old Orwell/Solzhenitsyn/WCR metaphor, perhaps 2+2=5?
WN-
How do you explain the X-ray showing the back of JFK's skull and a single small bullet hole near the base of the skull?
The x-ray conflicts with the many statements made by doctors at Parkland.
So I have reasonable doubts about what happened on 11/22.
PS. As a moderator could you please try to moderate? That is, try to encourage collegial conversations as opposed to statements drenched in animus?
-
41 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:
Ben,
Anyone who has taken the time to read Wiesak's book won't retain any illusions about JFK's true position on Vietnam, and on anti-colonialism, in general. It can't be explained more cogently.
But, if you're getting your concept of "history" from Michael Griffith, I can't help you.
You have your views, and I have mine.
-
8 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:
Ben,
Have you read Monica Wiesak's book, America's Last President?
IMO, everyone on this JFKA forum should read her book.
Michael Griffith summed up my views on Monica W's book in his review, that you can read Amazon review section.
I don't dare discuss Griffith's review here, because it will bring the anti-Semitic crackpots out of the woodwork, and derail a pretty good, collegial thread.
-
I think there was a second gunsel on 11/22. And a diverionary smoke- and-bang show on the GK.
The LN 'ers have different point of view, and most CT'ers disagree with me.
So...censorship time?
Surely, reasonable doubt attends to all scenarios.
-
7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Thanks all. And William, I probably should have put something in there about Clark. Because that was pretty accurate.
Kevin, did you know that Benjy N slept in Jared Kushner's bedroom while he was a young diplomat in New York?
Finally, Ben, the remarkable thing about Kennedy is that he resisted going to war in four instances when he was encouraged to do so by just about everyone in the room and where Ike and Nixon would have supported him:
Cuba, Bay of Pigs
Laos
Vietnam
Cuba, Missile Crisis
There is diamond in the new version of John Newman's book, JFK and VIetnam. Kennedy calls a meeting about the decision to implement NSAM 111. That is equipment and advisors but no combat troops to Indochina. He is the last one to arrive. Listens to some small talk. He then takes over the meeting with, "Once policy is decided, those on the spot either fall in line, or they get out!"
He then let that sink in. He followed it up with this, "Now who is going to carry out my policy in Vietnam?"
McNamara raised his hand silently. And that is who Kennedy entrusted with his withdrawal plan which began about five months later with a visit to McNamara by Galbraith.
And which LBJ undid in about three months after Kennedy was killed.
I largely agree, although JFK did put 15000 troops into SV and authorized the BoP op.
And, as stated, JFK had no reservations about waging total war on and seeking unconditional surrender from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
JFK's book, "Why England Slept" is a warning against complacency when autocratic powers are arising.
-
Controversial contributions are what make a forum.
I probably agree with 90% of what you have written.
However, of late I've come to consider that many nations are responsible for what they do and not everything can be blamed on America. Libya was in fact destabilized by the unnecessary bombing conducted by Hilary Clinton and pals. But that was decades ago, and the place is still a oppressive violent toilet along with many other Middle East Islamic nations.
No one forced Putin/Russia to invade Ukraine, which hardly had a military. I blame Putin for that war.
The world is full of crappy governments, and some national cultures are underwhelming, to put it mildly.
JFK had no reservations about making war, and demanding unconditional surrender from Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.
-
BTW, I think the LN crowd misses something, which the CT'ers do also.
In general, LN'ers are so determined to prevail with their LN view...they fail to consider whether LHO could have been in on a small assassination plot of the President.
This holds a lot of water. We know LHO was in TSBD, had access to TSBD6, but his whereabouts are unknown during the actual shooting. LHO was known to have owned a rifle, and is thought to have had connections to underworld figures and the intel state, and to have been a Castro sympathizer.
Perhaps LHO organized a small sordid JFKA plot. IMHO, there had to be a second gunman, due to rapid sequence of shots.
Like everyone else, I have no solid evidence who were LHO's co-conspirators.
Remember: LHO left the TSBD in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA, and got a revolver. Why?
On the other side, the CT'ers want to exonerate LHO entirely. LHO was just a guy packing boxes that day, rosy cheeked and whistling while he worked, when the CIA perped the JFKA. Then LHO, a CIA asset, went home and armed himself, although he was absolutely innocent, had no clue what happened. And decided to go watch a movie, and strike up conversations with other theater-goers.
For reasons unknown, the CIA made a patsy out of one of their own assets.
Is declaring that LHO was one of the JFKA assassins a falsehood?
Is declaring that LHO acted alone a falsehood?
Are we so sure?
-
I am not really a fan of Patrick Bet-David, but somehow he has generated a following in the last couple decades or so, and he has done many, many episodes on the JFKA, so give credit where credit is due.
In any event, it is good to keep up with the news environment.
Of note here: I think the black-vaulting of the JFK Records has set up a toxic environment, in which other conspiracy theories can flourish. The government does not even pretend---it keeps secrets regarding the JFKA. After 60 years or more. That is corrosive to public trust.
For the record, I have no hard view on whether Trump Assassination Attempt (TAA) was a conspiracy or not.
I lean towards the lone-nut explanation. But the lapse in security is inexplicable.
-
11 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:
Ben,
There is overwhelming scientific, forensic, and historical evidence debunking the false Allen Dulles/WCR "Lone Nut" narrative. If you haven't figured that out yet, I advise you to do more reading and less writing.
You also need to study the basics about Newtonian physics and human anatomy.
Did you study any science in college?
JFK was not killed by a fatal bullet fired from the TSBD. His head was knocked violently backward by a bullet that entered his right upper forehead and blew his brain matter and an occipital skull fragment backward behind the limo. So, in addition to all of the other contrary facts, the Lone Nut theory is debunked by Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum.
Nor was Oswald a loner. He had multiple contacts with various CIA and FBI assets.
There are matters of fact and matters of opinion-- evidence-based truth, and false opinions based on erroneous "alternate facts," (to use Kellyanne Conway's term.)
In my discussions with you, since you joined this forum, you have often struggled to understand the difference between facts and opinions.
People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
Can you, at least, acknowledge that disinformation is propagated in our mainstream and social media?
WN-
You have your views, and I have mine.
Certainly, Pat Speer is a highly intelligent and knowledgable JFKA researcher, and he has drawn different conclusions than you regarding the direction of shots that struck JFK.
If I recall correctly, Tink Thompson also concludes JFK was struck from behind. Both intelligent individuals, Speer and Thompson, have spent decades studying the JFKA.
My take is there is a great deal of legitimate disagreement from which direction bullets struck JFK. I suspect the shots from the GK were a diversion, but that is a suspicion, not a statement of fact.
For what the JFK x-rays are worth, which may not be much, they appear to show a bullet hole near the rear base of his skull.
I do not disparage your views, or wonder if you have basic understanding of physics. Perhaps you do, perhaps you don't.
As for LHO being a loner, maybe he was, maybe not, as a general characterization (I think largely not).
What I did say, without reservation, is that no one has ever identified LHO's co-conspirators for 11/22, or even come close.
Nor did anyone see LHO when shots rang out.
The LN crowd has reasons for their views. I disagree with those views.
My view is the WC was a government investigation-prosecution, without defense counsel present. A posthumous show trial, or kangaroo court.
But, even a truly guilty man can be found guilty in a show trial. The fact that the WC investigation was biased does not alone exonerate LHO.
BTW, Larry Hancock's circumspect, careful presentations are probably the gold standard for JFKA-RFK1A research. Worth emulating.
-
10 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:
Ben,
No one is "speaking truth to power" by posting disinformation-- known falsehoods.
That's a reductio ad absurdum-- i.e., "speaking truth" by speaking falsehoods?
But I think we all agree that censorship is generally problematic, except in cases of hate speech and/or ad hominem defamation based on falsehoods (i.e., libel.)
So, except in cases of hate speech, or libel, we are forced to rely on the knowledge, honesty, and patience of forum members to correct forum disinformation-- including Lone Nutter-ism.
The LN'ers have a few powerful indisputable facts in their quivers. As a moderator, I advise you treat LN'ers exactly the same as you treat CT'ers, and refrain from making disparaging commentary about LN'ers.
1. Not one person has ever testified they saw LHO when shots rang out 11/22/63. He wasn't visible during that time.
2. While I suspect LHO had co-conspirators who made made him the patsy...no one has even come close to showing, let alone proving, who they were. I have an informed guess, and no more than that.
3. Reasonable and intelligent people believe that JFK was only shot from behind. See Pat Speer. (Speer is not an LN'er. I am only pointing out that the premise that JFK was shot from the front is not a conclusion shared by all.)
4. LHO was known to own a rifle, and had uncontested access to TSBD6, from which someone pointed a rifle and fired during the JFKA, according to multiple contemporary witnesses.
----
In my humble opinion, the timing of shots precludes a lone gunman during the JFKA. JFK and Connally are struck within a second or so by separate bullets.
Others disagree with my version of the timing of JFKA shots.
So what is malinformation or falsehoods? Or divine truth?
JFKA Horshoe Theory: 'The Radical Left' and 'Extreme Right' come together to blame Israel, Zionism and Zionists for JFK's Assassination
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Benjamin Cole
MK-
There are a lot of anti-Semitic crackpots in the world. You can't fight 'em all.
I enjoy your posts, even if I disagree on some issues.
You appear refreshingly free of the usual range of political, religious and racial biases, and for that I salute you. The devil of partisan insanity has not grabbed you by the lapels.
There is QAnon, and then there is Jew-Anon!