Close-up of Duncan MacRae's Knoll shooter

[Miles Scull]

I can see you thinking Miles made some good points for you have never been to the site to know any better.

Bill

Could you repeat that sentence in Swahili? I might then be able to understand it

Duncan

Duncan

Ha! Good one. I think this went over someone's head.

I'm afraid that I too don't have the time to waste on this nonsense. Bill's counter arguments are pathetic in their logic & mean spirited in their tone, aside from being childishly ego rooted to the point of being risible.

I'll just leave it at this: Gary Mack told me some time ago that he now disassociates himself from Ed's story as a believable story & further that he regrets now that he ever recommended to Nigel Turner (director of The Men Who Killed Kennedy) that Turner might be interested in presenting Ed's story. QED

So, I leave Billy Goats Gruff & other nonsense from Les contes d'Hoffmann to you.

Now, then, back to work.

Miles

zoom...zoom

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

Thanks.

Since I don't doubt that a gunman was at that location, I guess I should have worded my question differently-- "Who claimed that they'd seen someone standing there wearing a hat?

Thanks,

--Thomas

Ed Hoffman was specific about the hat. In the MWKK interview ... Ed demonstrated how the guy straightened his coat and adjusted his hat as he walked east along the fence.

Bill

_________________________________

Thanks again, Bill.

To your knowledge, were there any other eyewitnesses besides Ed Hoffman who saw a shooter, wearing a hat, standing behind the fence at the time of the shooting (or immediately after it)?

Just curious.

Thanks,

--Thomas

_________________________________

"...beside Ed Hoffman...?"

Exactly. That's the issue, because if Ed Hoffman is shown to be a false witness, then Midget Man (AKA Hatman) is shown to be a concocted phantom.

Correcting a former error of mine, see this aerial with a yellow line showing Ed's alleged line of sight:

This line of sight is 267.02 yards long, more than 2 1/2 football fields. The line of sight traverses (goes through) a seven (7) lane highway which at the time in question is busily traveled be cars & eighteen wheelers, etc. This line of sight should be kept in mind when considering Ed's story because at this distance Ed's ability to identify the details presented in his story becomes extremely dubious.

Just taking one example out of a dozen Hoffman problems, consider that Ed says that "I (he) saw a puff of smoke. I thought it was a cigarette, but it wasn't , he had a gun." To an uncritical audience this sounds plausible. But, remember the 267 yard line of sight. As Ed is saying this he is standing by the picket fence aiming, by pantomime, an imaginary rifle over the fence at Elm. But, there's a problem. In Ed's pantomime Ed imitates what he saw his alleged sniper do by shouldering the imaginary rifle to his LEFT shoulder! Yes, that's right, Ed's sniper (a lefty ), as seen by Ed at a distance of 267 yards, had, as Ed pantomimes, his BACK toward Ed. Now, at this exact moment Ed sees a puff of smoke, again as Ed pantomimes to illustrate (using his hands), puff up beside of the alleged sniper's head but on the side of the sniper's head away from Ed. The obvious implication that Ed is at pains to make clear is that this puff of smoke emanated from the rifle at the rifle's chamber & not from the barrel in propulsion. What? The wind at the time was blowing south. Ed says only one shot was fired. Did Ed's sniper eject the casing instantly after firing? Ed does not mention the sniper or anyone else running to retrieve the ejected casing so it would not be found by the police (as it was, indeed, not found)... Well, this just one (typical) example of Ed's dog not hunting.

One other point. Here's a photo crop which illustrates that Ed's sniper's assistant would have been observed (as he was not, of course) by people standing a few feet away from the electrical box where Ed claims the assistant broke down the rifle & put it in a tool box. The red arrows indicate where individual spectators were standing as the limo went through the underpass. (left arrow probable, right certain) They would have seen the apocryphal rifle toss over the steam pipe. They did not see this, of course.

The most embarrassing aspect of Ed's story is the gross & stark implausibility of the "rifle toss" canard. Ed's story is that the assassin fires a shot from behind the picket fence from a spot near hatman; that the assassin then walks west down along the fence toward the elevated (3') steamline pipe at the north end of the triple underpass; that the assassin tosses his rifle to an assistant, possibly tossing it over the steamline pipe; that the assistant then proceeds to the northern most of two switch boxes to disassemble the rifle to put it in a bag; and, finally, both assassin & assistant then casually walk away unseen. Sound good? Unfortunately there's a massive problem here. In the Bell film two men can be seen at the north wall of the triple underpass, the wall that runs from the underpass to connect with the western end of the picket fence. These two men are seen at this wall as the limo goes through the underpass on the way to Parkland. These two men are, therefore, standing, at the critical time, about 15 feet (!!) away from the switch box where Ed's "assistant" breaks down the rifle. Since there are zero bushes or trees in this area, this means that the two men could have & would have SEEN the assassin toss the rifle to the assistant & would have SEEN the assistant carrying the rifle to the switch box, breaking it down & carrying it away in a bag. It is possible that Ed's "rifle toss" occurred before the assassin reached the steamline pipe; if so, then, the assistant would have had to have jumped over the 3' steamline pipe or to have ducked under it, while carrying the rifle. What makes this whole scenario laughably implausible is the consideration that the assassin is executing a plan of escape that is, in its conception, the exact oppose of a plan designed to succeed. The assassin & his assistant walk to where there is an extremely high likelihood that they will be seen, and seen by any number of witnesses who are in the area of the switch boxes to view the motorcade. In other words, the assassin & his advisers, realizing the dangers, would have first of all have ruled out Ed's scenario as being the worst possible exit strategy, the one plan most likely to fail, the one plan most likely to expose the assassin. Conclusion: Ed's dog don't hunt.

[Bill Miller]

Exactly. That's the issue, because if Ed Hoffman is shown to be a false witness, then Midget Man (AKA Hatman) is shown to be a concocted phantom.

Correcting a former error of mine, see this aerial with a yellow line showing Ed's alleged line of sight:

Miles,

Have you ever been to Dealey Plaza and seen Ed's view for yourself?

Can you tell the members of this forum what you know as to when Ed first told anyone what he had witnessed from atop of that Freeway?

Can you also correct your LOS to show the view Ed would have had to the RR boxes because if you do that, then you might better understand why it looked like the man went behind the RR box from where Ed stood.

I would also like to hear from you a logical explanation as to why you keep calling the Hat Man a midget, so please enlighten us? ( see illustration below)

Bill

Edited June 28, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Duke Lane]

Some comments ....

... Correcting a former error of mine, see this aerial with a yellow line showing Ed's alleged line of sight:

[see photo above]

This line of sight is 267.02 yards long, more than 2 1/2 football fields. The line of sight traverses (goes through) a seven (7) lane highway which at the time in question is busily traveled be cars & eighteen wheelers, etc. This line of sight should be kept in mind when considering Ed's story because at this distance Ed's ability to identify the details presented in his story becomes extremely dubious.

First, 0.02 yards is .72 inches. If anyone had a big belly, large nose, wide-brimmed hat, or breathed in or out, this "exact" measurement is already off. Who has ever said that anyone was anywhere with such exactitude, not off by even an inch? This 267.02 yards is so exact I'm not sure I can believe it's real!

The highway may have been seven lanes wide, but "at the time in question" it was not being "busily traveled by cars & eighteen wheelers, etc.," because the traffic was stopped and being held by DPD in anticipation of the motorcade's entering the highway. As I recall, it was south of the railroad bridge crossing the highway (toward the bottom of the photo). It was not released until after JFK's limo and at least the next couple of vehicles entered the highway. Unfortunately, there are no photos that I can think of, of the traffic stopped or exactly what it was comprised of (e.g., 18-wheelers, etc.), at least not from Hoffman's purported position (which may be off by as much as .03 yards anyway! ). Of course, if there were a batch of 18-wheelers stopped for the first several positions back, it would make the line of sight even more difficult if not utterly impossible.

The point is, simply, that the traffic wasn't moving, and you certainly don't know what was there if you didn't even know it was stopped.

There is also the issue of the trees to the west of the RR tracks: how high were they? Would they have impeded Hoffman's view 43 years ago like they do today? Does anyone know? Are there photos? I'm tending to doubt it.

Finally, please notice the configuration of that entrance ramp: the only way onto it is from Elm Street unless a driver did what everyone says the limo couldn't have done: jumped the curb to get on the highway from Main Street. Otherwise, this would mean that Hoffman (and his dad, was it?) had to have been among the very last cars permitted down Elm past Houston and onto the ramp before the motorcade had gotten near there. As I recall "watching" Hoffman's story, didn't he allude to if not actually say that he (or they) had decided to stop at the last moment as they saw the motorcade in the plaza on the other side of the highway?

If so, that would almost suggest that Hoffman was driving somewhere between the pilot police car and Curry's lead car!

Plausible? Actually, I'd suggest that Hoffman's car was the one that Tom Tilson saw as the limo sped by. You know, the one that wasn't there? So was Hoffman's.

[Bill Miller]

I can see you thinking Miles made some good points for you have never been to the site to know any better.

Bill

Could you repeat that sentence in Swahili? I might then be able to understand it

Duncan

Would adding a comma help? "I can see you thinking Miles made some good points, for you have never been to the site to know any better." Like with most critics ... I find that none of them have been to the site to know if what they say is true and correct, they have never researched the witness to see if their story has remained the same from day one, nor do they know what all has really been done to properly investigate the veracity of the witness. Instead we see arm chair researchers sitting back on their asses and not doing anything but citing untruths because they want to pretend to have this great interest in knowing the truth about JFK's murder just so long as they don't have to actually invest anything in finding out what it is.

Who among you can say whether or not Ed Hoffman has ever volunteered to take a lie detector test in an effort to prove that what he has said is true?

Who among you have ever met with Ed's family and friends to better understand how some of the discrepencies in what he has been alleged to say from time to time had come about?

To offer an example ... we see some moron try to make a case for a sign allegedly blocking Ed's view from even being able to see into the RR yard at the time of the assassination because of a sign that was in place at the time this person finally visited the plaza. This genius had never bothered to look at any of the assassination images so to know the sign was not a factor on the day JFK was killed, but who bothers with dtails when you're a critic - right!

How many of you arm chair researchers know that Ed has a poor vocabulary which inhibits his ability to get the points across that he wishes to make? How many of you have considered what this must be like when other interpreters have tried to understand Ed. I witnessed first hand Ed's difficulty and frustration with even trying to communicate things to his daughter who has been used to her father's disability all her life.

What would be interesting would be to see how many of you arm chair critic/researchers are actually here because you really believe you are searching for the truth. Anyone up for the same lie detector test that Ed has volutered to take?

Bill Miller

Edited June 18, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Some comments ....

... Correcting a former error of mine, see this aerial with a yellow line showing Ed's alleged line of sight:

[see photo above]

This line of sight is 267.02 yards long, more than 2 1/2 football fields. The line of sight traverses (goes through) a seven (7) lane highway which at the time in question is busily traveled be cars & eighteen wheelers, etc. This line of sight should be kept in mind when considering Ed's story because at this distance Ed's ability to identify the details presented in his story becomes extremely dubious.

First, 0.02 yards is .72 inches. If anyone had a big belly, large nose, wide-brimmed hat, or breathed in or out, this "exact" measurement is already off. Who has ever said that anyone was anywhere with such exactitude, not off by even an inch? This 267.02 yards is so exact I'm not sure I can believe it's real!

The highway may have been seven lanes wide, but "at the time in question" it was not being "busily traveled by cars & eighteen wheelers, etc.," because the traffic was stopped and being held by DPD in anticipation of the motorcade's entering the highway. As I recall, it was south of the railroad bridge crossing the highway (toward the bottom of the photo). It was not released until after JFK's limo and at least the next couple of vehicles entered the highway. Unfortunately, there are no photos that I can think of, of the traffic stopped or exactly what it was comprised of (e.g., 18-wheelers, etc.), at least not from Hoffman's purported position (which may be off by as much as .03 yards anyway! ). Of course, if there were a batch of 18-wheelers stopped for the first several positions back, it would make the line of sight even more difficult if not utterly impossible.

The point is, simply, that the traffic wasn't moving, and you certainly don't know what was there if you didn't even know it was stopped.

There is also the issue of the trees to the west of the RR tracks: how high were they? Would they have impeded Hoffman's view 43 years ago like they do today? Does anyone know? Are there photos? I'm tending to doubt it.

Finally, please notice the configuration of that entrance ramp: the only way onto it is from Elm Street unless a driver did what everyone says the limo couldn't have done: jumped the curb to get on the highway from Main Street. Otherwise, this would mean that Hoffman (and his dad, was it?) had to have been among the very last cars permitted down Elm past Houston and onto the ramp before the motorcade had gotten near there. As I recall "watching" Hoffman's story, didn't he allude to if not actually say that he (or they) had decided to stop at the last moment as they saw the motorcade in the plaza on the other side of the highway?

If so, that would almost suggest that Hoffman was driving somewhere between the pilot police car and Curry's lead car!

Plausible? Actually, I'd suggest that Hoffman's car was the one that Tom Tilson saw as the limo sped by. You know, the one that wasn't there? So was Hoffman's.

Duke

Some interesting points. The line of sight distance ( 267.02 yards) is a Google Earth calculation.

The fact that traffic was stopped at that section of the freeway puts Ed's story in yet further doubt. Note Ed claims he parked his car "here" & finger points to where he is sitting. What? A close look at the photo above & the clip below shows that there is nowhere for Ed to have parked his car "here" because the west embankment to the west of that section of the freeway is a steeply inclined fall away down toward the the motorcade access road & is physically blocked to vehicle access. Did Ed park on the highway where cars were backed up? Rum stuff.

Also note in Ed's reenactment (see clip below) of the assistant braking down the rifle at the electrical box that he (Ed as the assistant) is clearly in the view of anyone standing at the balustrade behind him, as they indeed were standing at the balustrade right behind him. He stands out like a fireplug!

It is the sheer accumulation of obvious points of factual impossibilities on which Ed weaves his fantasy story, the accumulation of contradiction after contraction, that ultimately condemns Ed to a limbo of strong doubt. Again, major experts, such as Gary Mack (who has spent years on the spot in & around Dealey Plaza as a prominent researcher & who is the long time curator of The 6th Floor Museum), have in time withdrawn from Ed as credible. QED

Here's a clip of Ed's folly:

http://www.prettyclip.com/play.php?video_id=hkw2mQr-W84

Edited June 18, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Duke Lane]

Duke, The line of sight distance (267.02 yards) is a Google Earth calculation.

The fact that traffic was stopped at that section of the freeway puts Ed's story in yet further doubt. Note Ed claims he parked his car "here" & finger points to where he is sitting. What? A close look at the photo above & the clip below shows that there is nowhere for Ed to have parked his car "here" because the west embankment to the west of that section of the freeway is a steeply inclined fall away down toward the the motorcade access road & is physically blocked to vehicle access. Did Ed park on the highway where cars were backed up? Rum stuff.

Also note in Ed's reenactment (see clip below) of the assistant braking down the rifle at the electrical box that he (Ed as the assistant) is clearly in the view of anyone standing at the balustrade behind him, as they indeed were standing at the balustrade right behind him. He stands out like a fireplug!

It is the sheer accumulation of obvious points of factual impossibilities on which Ed weaves his fantasy story, the accumulation of contradiction after contraction, that ultimately condemns Ed to a limbo of strong doubt. Again, major experts, such as Gary Mack (who has spent years on the spot in & around Dealey Plaza as a prominent researcher & who is the long time curator of The 6th Floor Museum), have in time withdrawn from Ed as credible. QED

Here's a clip of Ed's folly: http://www.prettyclip.com/play.php?video_id=hkw2mQr-W84

I was hanging out on the knoll one day when Ed started telling his story. I can certainly say that it's hard as hell to argue with a deaf-mute! I recall the story slightly differently than the clip shows it, walking up the entrance ramp to Stemmons Freeway, and perhaps it's my recollection of doing that that's making me think that that's what Ed said he'd done.

I don't recall how long the traffic had been stopped on Stemmons, only that it was, and it was before (south of) the RR bridge. I do recall, however, that there IS a shoulder that a car can park on along the left side of the freeway, nearest the ramp. I remember that because I remember there being about a dozen of us who took that walk with Ed and actually looked across the highway where he said he'd been standing. I don't remember that we were standing in traffic!!

Of course, in 43 years, lots of little highway details can change, like getting rid of a shoulder to accomodate more traffic. How recent is the photo here? While I'm sure there are photos of DP in the Volumes, I can't recall if any show as far west as the freeway. If so, maybe they'll show for certain.

So, Ed's story is within the realm of possibility, however vague, at least that far. I don't, however, believe a word of it.

Meanwhile, thanks for that clip. The interview with Gordon Arnold is absolutely unnerving, always has been. His realization that, if the things he was seeing in the colorized Moorman photo, including himself, were really all there, then he realized that he may have been the only person to have seen, up close and personal, a grassy knoll gunman. Frightening. After having seen that, I've never had a single doubt that the story he tells is 100% truthful.

[Bill Miller]

So, Ed's story is within the realm of possibility, however vague, at least that far. I don't, however, believe a word of it.

I am curious ... nothing you said in this post hinted as to why you didn't believe Ed Hoffman ... why? Who was there to assist in the interpreting?

Meanwhile, thanks for that clip. The interview with Gordon Arnold is absolutely unnerving, always has been. His realization that, if the things he was seeing in the colorized Moorman photo, including himself, were really all there, then he realized that he may have been the only person to have seen, up close and personal, a grassy knoll gunman. Frightening. After having seen that, I've never had a single doubt that the story he tells is 100% truthful.

You are correct. Did you know that Arnold moved away from everyone at that interview and broke down a cried. Like Ed, Gordon is another one who told of his experience immediately following the assassination and because people didn't hear about Gordon's story until 15 years later ... some of them choose not to believe what he had to say.

Bill

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Here is another close-up of the area.

I am trying to discover what the

shapes may represent.

I hope this is of interest.

EBC

Edited June 18, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Bill Miller]

Here is another close-up of the area.

I am trying to discover what the

shapes may represent.

I hope this is of interest.

EBC

This is what I see Eugene. A man with a policeman's hat which I have outlined, aiming a rifle at Kennedy. I've colorised the face. The badge on the cap can be seen clearer on your enhancement.

Where is the consideration for perspective such as how things get much smaller the further the distance is from the camera? This alleged floating cop torso has been outlined to the size of Hudson and the guys on the steps despite it being much further from the camera. This fact alone should tell a half intelligent person that no matter what they think they see - its too damned big to be someone at the fence when seen at that distance from Moorman's camera. In post #51 .... note the capture of the stand-in shooter from the fence to the people below .... do they not appear much smaller just as "perspective" would dictate. But considering that some of you don't think in the realm of the real physical world, then don't let common physics stop you from appearing inept at photo interpretation. The next thing I expect you guys to be doing is trying to make a case for the faces seen on Mt. Rushmore as being real people. (sigh~)

Bill Miller

Edited June 18, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Here is another close-up of the area.

I am trying to discover what the

shapes may represent.

I hope this is of interest.

EBC

This is what I see Eugene. A man with a policeman's hat which I have outlined, aiming a rifle at Kennedy. I've colorised the face. The badge on the cap can be seen clearer on your enhancement.

Where is the consideration for perspective such as how things get much smaller the further the distance is from the camera? This alleged floating cop torso has been outlined to the size of Hudson and the guys on the steps despite it being much further from the camera. This fact alone should tell a half intelligent person that no matter what they think they see - its too damned big to be someone at the fence when seen at that distance from Moorman's camera. In post #51 .... note the capture of the stand-in shooter from the fence to the people below .... do they not appear much smaller just as "perspective" would dictate. But considering that some of you don't think in the realm of the real physical world, then don't let common physics stop you from appearing inept at photo interpretation. The next thing I expect you guys to be doing is trying to make a case for the faces seen on Mt. Rushmore as being real people. (sigh~)

Bill Miller

I suggest you get your eyes tested Bill...........................Again

I remember you posting an absolutely ridiculous gif maybe 2 years ago where you slid the figure down to Hudson to make your point..absolutely absurd which holds no sunstance. The figure is well within the realms of reality. I aint buying your analysis in this instance, and I doub't anyone else will. If you put your " perspective theory " in to action with reference to Midget Hatman, then his hat would in reality be twice the size of the one Hoss used to wear in Bonanza.

Edited June 25, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

Here is another close-up of the area.

I am trying to discover what the

shapes may represent.

I hope this is of interest.

EBC

Once again, EBC, superb work, as also Duncan's!

Here are a couple of crops having to do with the improbability of Ed Hoffman's fairy tale.

Sam Holland stated that as he ran to the shooter's position by the picket fence he encountered a "sea" of parked cars which required jumping over & dodging around. These crops show the nonsensically of Ed's tale. Navigating down the fence immediately next to the fence with a rifle no less would have been impossible in the time short allotted. The only option for Ed's fantasy shooter would have would have been to have proceeded to the steam pipe with great difficulty (Holland) along a path about a car's length distance away from & parallel to the fence. With a rifle!

This maneuver would have exposed Ed's phantom to the immediate attention of all persons about the area. Note how easy it would have been for the certain spectators at the balustrade to have seen the apocryphal rifle toss over the steam pipe. [Then of course Ed's boy strolls back toward the Pergola to be spotted & discovered by onrushing police as the odd man out.] Ridiculous on the face of it. Obviously, such an exit post facto is ideal for ensuring that the assassin gets caught red handed with rifle at port arms. Remember the balustrade spectators would have heard the loud report of a rifle firing & would have instinctively looked east to have seen Ed's joy boy tossing the rifle into orbit. And would have seen Mr. Assistant high stepping like a furtive cartoon character, RIFLE IN HAND, over to the switch box.

Finally, the most obvious reason, in the planning of the sniper's exit by the sniper & his advisory team, to NOT choose Ed's absurdity scheme is the consideration of the high risk involved in an unexpected yet predictable accident occurring. What if, for example, in tossing the rifle over the steam pipe it was dropped accidentally in the hurry & haste of the moment? What if by chance someone decided to move his car by the steam pipe during the time in question? What if Bowers was looking, as he was? Etc., etc.,...etc. The sniper team thinkers were not idiots, neither was the sniper who wanted to live.

A few notes: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hoffman.htm

Edited June 18, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Sam Holland stated that as he ran to the shooter's position by the picket fence he encountered a "sea" of parked cars which required jumping over & dodging around. These crops show the nonsensically of Ed's tale. Navigating down the fence immediately next to the fence with a rifle no less would have been impossible in the time short allotted. The only option for Ed's fantasy shooter would have would have been to have proceeded to the steam pipe with great difficulty (Holland) along a path about a car's length distance away from & parallel to the fence. With a rifle!

This maneuver would have exposed Ed's phantom to the immediate attention of all persons about the area. Note how easy it would have been for the certain spectators at the balustrade to have seen the apocryphal rifle toss over the steam pipe. [Then of course Ed's boy strolls back toward the Pergola to be spotted & discovered by onrushing police as the odd man out.]Ridiculous on the face of it. Obviously, such an exit post facto is ideal for ensuring that the assassin gets caught red handed with rifle at port arms. Remember the balustrade spectators would have heard the loud report of a rifle firing & would have instinctively looked east to have seen Ed's joy boy tossing the rifle into orbit. And would have seen Mr. Assistant high stepping like a furtive cartoon character, RIFLE IN HAND, over to the switch box.

Once again I would be interested to see who among you could pass a lie detector test asking if you are merely a xxxxx. Holland said it took about 2 minutes before he and the others got to the place where he had heard the shot near the fence. The assassination images support Holland's estimate. The 'sea of cars' phrase was a figure of speech. In fact, the photos of the cigarette butts on the ground and the footprints in the mud showed plenty of room between the car and the fence, but hopefully your posting a photo non-related to the day of the assassination will serve its purpose by fooling at least some of the people who reads your replies.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I suggest you get your eyes tested Bill...........................Again. Even Mr Magoo could tell that I have not outlined the figure twice the size of Hudson...Consult Waldo next time before you post such a ridiculous statement.

It is little wonder that you make the errors that you do. Just so you know ... ignorance is not a defense. Here is what I said ... "This alleged floating cop torso has been outlined to the size of Hudson and the guys on the steps despite it being much further from the camera." It appears that you have not a clue as to how much further down the fence this alleged floating cop torso of yours is. I even used the view looking back the other way and asked if you could see the problem pertaining to the size issue in what you allege to be a person. It is obvious that you do not understand perspective.

The simple illustration that even a beginning art student is taught about deals with perspective. The distance down the fence that Duncan is saying he sees a human head and torso is roughly the same size as the individuals seen on the steps and they are much closer to Moorman's camera. This can be verified by cropping out Duncan's alleged figure and moving it to Hudson's location. Duncan has been shown his error in the past, but refuses to accept the laws of 'perspective' when it comes to distance. This illustration is for those who have had beginners art or are intelligent enough to understand such a simple rule of physics. The red heads show how dramatically the same head should DECREASE in size as it is moved further from the camera. If the head stays the same size, then the further away head cannot be what Duncan believes it to be for it is too large to be a real person.

Bill Miller

Edited June 18, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Duke Lane]

So, Ed's story is within the realm of possibility, however vague, at least that far. I don't, however, believe a word of it.

I am curious ... nothing you said in this post hinted as to why you didn't believe Ed Hoffman ... why? Who was there to assist in the interpreting?

Meanwhile, thanks for that clip. The interview with Gordon Arnold is absolutely unnerving, always has been. His realization that, if the things he was seeing in the colorized Moorman photo, including himself, were really all there, then he realized that he may have been the only person to have seen, up close and personal, a grassy knoll gunman. Frightening. After having seen that, I've never had a single doubt that the story he tells is 100% truthful.

You are correct. Did you know that Arnold moved away from everyone at that interview and broke down a cried. Like Ed, Gordon is another one who told of his experience immediately following the assassination and because people didn't hear about Gordon's story until 15 years later ... some of them choose not to believe what he had to say.

Call it what you will; I like the term "bullxxxx factor." Hoffman's story reeks with it, Arnold's doesn't.

There's another guy who hangs out on the Knoll on "JFK Day" each year, a retired DPD cop. There's no question at all that he's that much. The story that he tells people is that he was an undercover narc in 1963, complete with long hair (what constituted "long" in 1963's Dallas, I have no idea) and grubby clothes. He is, he says, one of the officers who subdued Oswald and hustled him outside, apparently quite clearly recognized by the beat cops who were in the theater.

All you need to do is hear him tell the story and you know it's loaded with the "bullxxxx factor," even without the knowledge that there's no such individual pictured in any of the extant photos of the arrest, or consideration of how beat cops would recognize an undercover operative, or why they'd let some grubber get involved with their collar without proof of his identity. Is anyone going to suggest that undercover narcs, then or now, carry their badge with them?

While Ed Hoffman cannot speak, with or without fanciful intonations, everything about his delivery has the same "feel" as the cop's (of course, I have a slightly different idea about why he actually injects himself into all of this).

I seem to recall that, on the occasion I'm thinking of - it was only the first time I'd seen him - there was a young woman interpreting for him, but that's no matter. I walked with him and the crowd over to the Stemmons entry and looked across toward TSBD. First I noticed that it was a pretty good distance to be able to see much detail, at least given my relatively poor, but corrected, eyesight (while I do agree that someone without eyesight typically tends to have acute hearing, I don't necessarily buy into the theory that someone who cannot speak or hear has compensatory eyesight. Why would they need to develop that?).

Second was the stand of trees east of the tracks: you simply couldn't see through or over them. Of course, as I've said, it is possible that they had grown over the intervening 30-40 years, but the question would be how much. I'm trying to locate the photo of the limo speeding onto the Stemmons entrance on the west side of the TU ... it strikes me that not only does it not show Tom Tilson's black sedan parked where he'd said he'd seen it, but that it may also show part of the park immediately west of the tracks and east of the highway. It's the only thing I can think of that might show the contemporaneous height of those trees.

Still, they would've needed to have been barely more than shoots (no pun intended) to be seen through or over then.

The pantomime of the rifle break-down also threw me for a loop, as someone also noted above: why would someone break down a rifle within just a few feet of people who might very well have seen him do so? Even with a "sea of cars," this activity would have been observable by almost anyone on top of the bridge, including two cops (which last point, of course, proves nothing!).

Frankly, just about anyone who hangs out on the knoll on JFK Day with a grand story to tell - with very few provable exceptions, such as Bill Newman ... and there's nothing "grand" about his story except that it doesn't jibe with the "sniper's nest" theory - automatically has a credibility issue. When they return year after year and often times in between simply underscores the "bullxxxx factor." IMHO, of course.

As an aside to all of this, it's often been my contention that all anyone shooting from the parking lot area had to do was either blend into the crowd somehow (which a "cop" in uniform or someone with USSS creds might be able to do), or simply duck into one of the cars' trunks, rifle in hand, keep quiet, and wait to be driven away. That would, in any case, be a better way to hide and get rid of the weapon(s) than running it through open railroad yards in relatively plain sight.

As for Gordon Arnold, nobody short of a professional, trained and seasoned Hollywood or Broadway actor could pull of the shattering realization that he did on film without it being real. He also mentioned that he'd never told anyone until that morning, and then only as an offhand remark, about the "railroad man" he'd seen later. The man was shaking and quite obviously stricken. Hollywood, he wasn't.

(In reading further the McAdams-site post on Hoffman, it's clear that he had some issues right from the git-go with what he could see and couldn't see, not far at all from my own uninformed opinions about the trees, etc.)