Bernice Moore Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 (edited) Hi Miles: I took your photo below, Bell frame I believe, and lightened it, cropped. I see the one RR spectator...........but do not see the other on the right, closest to the end of the cement railng,...could be.... but then could also simply be shadows, I cannot make out a spectator. Do you?? B...... Edited June 26, 2007 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Can anyone suggest/identify what is indicated by the red line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 (edited) Hi Miles:I took your photo below, Bell frame I believe, and lightened it, cropped. I see the one RR spectator...........but do not see the other on the right, closest to the end of the cement railng,...could be.... but then could also simply be shadows, I cannot make out a spectator. Do you?? B...... Hi B., Thx. On the Bell: two at left red line, one possible at right red line. Is the white suit man (red arrow) the original spectator? Possibles: Do you know which (whose?) photo this is? How long has the red arrow man been there? Notice how far the individual's body images extend above the balustrade from an upward angle shot up. So much & more would have been visible from Sam's level position (at Z-313) at the balustrade & beyond. Edited June 26, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 The third image in response #48 is a frame from the Jimmy Darnell/WBAP-TV film. The scene was filmed almost exactly one minute after the shooting stopped. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted July 10, 2007 Author Share Posted July 10, 2007 If you look closely at the photos, aerial maps taken that day, you, and others, I believe might see that there was brush, on the other side of the fence perhaps, as well as, a small tree, in that corner.. whatever was growing in that area..that you mention above.. ... possibley could have blocked the view, could be ?? I do not know for sure...But the photo you have taken was done so in the 90s..... Good point, but the photo below is conclusive as it was shot on either 11-23-63 or, as Gary says, on 11-24-63. There is zero vegetation growth at the area in question at the time in question! I've been silent on this question since having received and read a copy of Ed Hoffman's book, Eyewitness, because I'd raised some questions that I'm still awaiting an answer to. When I receive them, I'll continue my posting here, or will if I don't hear anything back in the next few weeks.Meanwhile, I did want to point out that "the area in question" having vegetation or not is not within the confines of this photo, but is below (to the west of) the railroad tracks on the slope leading up to the tracks from the level of Commerce St, in the park area between Stemmons Freeway and the tracks, shown in this overhead from Yahoo maps: For the sake of later discussion, I've also noted (in red) where Hoffman says he'd parked his car along the entrance ramp, (in green) where he says he was standing, and (in blue) where he says he exited his car from Stemmons after the limo had gone by him. The white cross is to the left of the vegetation in question. More later on the bearing of the colored dots, except to note now that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs." Ed's book hasn't provided those as yet to my satisfaction. I'll explain later after he's had a reasonable time to respond to my queries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Satellite photos do not exist of this area in 1963. Contemporaneous photos show NO VEGETATION in that area in 1963, so the satellite photo is irrelevant. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Cheslock Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Read Ed's book which rebuts such allegations Bill Ed Hoffman is as very reliable witness. The interpreter who helped him the most is the Rev. Ron Friedrich. In the introduction of Ed's book, Rev. Friedrich explains the problems encountered by Ed when he was trying to explain his story. The book will, among other things, fill in gaps of information left by earlier chroniclers, correct errors published by other researchers, document specific mistranslations by Sign Language interpreters, some of which have led to published errors, etc. The book addresses repeated criticisms, such as "Ed Hoffman keeps changing his story," Why didn't he come forward sooner to tell authorities what he saw," etc. Ron concludes the introduction of the book by stating that the mocking of Ed has faded into silence as collections of photos are published, and researchers dig deeper to discover things were just as Ed has described them: There was indeed a police officer stationed on the railroad bridge over Stemmons Freeway. The Secret Service agent standing in the car behind the presidential limousine was indeed holding a weapon. The view between Ed's purported perch on the freeway and the north stockade fence at Dealey Plaza was indeed clear, treeless, in the moments before, during, and after the assassination. Ed Hoffman has to be dealt with and ridiculed because what he saw does not coincide with the official version of the assassination. Bill C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted July 10, 2007 Author Share Posted July 10, 2007 Satellite photos do not exist of this area in 1963.Contemporaneous photos show NO VEGETATION in that area in 1963, so the satellite photo is irrelevant. Jack That's not the point, Jack. The point is that the first photo doesn't even show the area in question. The satellite image is only to show the correct AREA, not whether it had any vegetation in it or not. The first is like pointing out that Badgeman doesn't appear in Ike Altgens' photo, so "obviously" there's nobody there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 (edited) If you look closely at the photos, aerial maps taken that day, you, and others, I believe might see that there was brush, on the other side of the fence perhaps, as well as, a small tree, in that corner.. whatever was growing in that area..that you mention above.. ... possibley could have blocked the view, could be ?? I do not know for sure...But the photo you have taken was done so in the 90s..... Good point, but the photo below is conclusive as it was shot on either 11-23-63 or, as Gary says, on 11-24-63. There is zero vegetation growth at the area in question at the time in question! I've been silent on this question since having received and read a copy of Ed Hoffman's book, Eyewitness, because I'd raised some questions that I'm still awaiting an answer to. When I receive them, I'll continue my posting here, or will if I don't hear anything back in the next few weeks.Meanwhile, I did want to point out that "the area in question" having vegetation or not is not within the confines of this photo, but is below (to the west of) the railroad tracks on the slope leading up to the tracks from the level of Commerce St, in the park area between Stemmons Freeway and the tracks, shown in this overhead from Yahoo maps: For the sake of later discussion, I've also noted (in red) where Hoffman says he'd parked his car along the entrance ramp, (in green) where he says he was standing, and (in blue) where he says he exited his car from Stemmons after the limo had gone by him. The white cross is to the left of the vegetation in question. More later on the bearing of the colored dots, except to note now that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs." Ed's book hasn't provided those as yet to my satisfaction. I'll explain later after he's had a reasonable time to respond to my queries. Duke, The absence of any vegetation in the green zone (see below) means that lines of sight from points 1, 2 & 3 are not obstructed. This means that the persons standing at those positions at Z-313 time, as they were, could have & would have seen Ed's actors' rifle toss & disassembly, if those actions occurred before Sam Holland came racing around the north end of the underpass from point 3, his position at Z-313. Again, note that as the cars are parked as seen here along & next to the picket fence, abutting the fence, there is no free or easy passage down along the fence. Not clear on your post above, but look forward to your ideas. Edited July 10, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted July 10, 2007 Author Share Posted July 10, 2007 Duke,The absence of any vegitation in the green zone (see below) means that lines of sight from points 1, 2 & 3 are not obstructed. This means that the persons standing at those positions at Z-313 time, as they were, could have & would have seen Ed's actors' rifle toss & disassembly, if those actions occurred before Sam Holland came racing around the north end of the underpass from point 3, his position at Z-313. Again, note that as the cars are parked as seen here along & next to the picket fence, abutting the fence, there is no free or easy passage down along the fence. Not clear on your post above, but look forward to your ideas. Miles, I take your point, no problem at all. The vegetation that I've heard of is that which may or may not have obstructed Ed's view of the scene, which is what I pointed out in the satellite image, it being a point of contention whether Ed could have seen what he said he'd seen. Forgive me if I somehow missed the point that there was vegetation supposedly obstructing the view from the overpass: I never knew that to be an issue in Ed's story since Ed wasn't on the overpass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 (edited) Duke,The absence of any vegetation in the green zone (see below) means that lines of sight from points 1, 2 & 3 are not obstructed. This means that the persons standing at those positions at Z-313 time, as they were, could have & would have seen Ed's actors' rifle toss & disassembly, if those actions occurred before Sam Holland came racing around the north end of the underpass from point 3, his position at Z-313. Again, note that as the cars are parked as seen here along & next to the picket fence, abutting the fence, there is no free or easy passage down along the fence. Not clear on your post above, but look forward to your ideas. Miles, I take your point, no problem at all. The vegetation that I've heard of is that which may or may not have obstructed Ed's view of the scene, which is what I pointed out in the satellite image, it being a point of contention whether Ed could have seen what he said he'd seen. Forgive me if I somehow missed the point that there was vegetation supposedly obstructing the view from the overpass: I never knew that to be an issue in Ed's story since Ed wasn't on the overpass. Duke, That's correct. Ed said he saw 3 or 4 figures on the overpass, when there were actually 15 or more there, Sam Holland included. The critique of Ed's story is that with so many persons nearby the steam pipe, then how is it that no one but Ed, 265 yards away, saw Ed's rifle toss & disassembly? Edited July 10, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 It is proper to question Ed's story, as it is with any witness. It is improper to question his veracity. He is telling the truth as he believes it. It is not improper to question his INTERPRETATION of what he saw. He has reported WHAT HE SAW to the best of his ability. The possibility exists that what he saw was some activity unrelated to the assassination, as suspicious as it seemed to him. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 (edited) It is proper to question Ed's story, as it is with any witness.It is improper to question his veracity. He is telling the truth as he believes it. It is not improper to question his INTERPRETATION of what he saw. He has reported WHAT HE SAW to the best of his ability. The possibility exists that what he saw was some activity unrelated to the assassination, as suspicious as it seemed to him. Jack Well said Jack! I have repeatedly said that Ed is telling the truth as he saw it. The only reason or purpose to examine Ed's story is to establish the verifiability of the implications of certain aspects of Ed's account. You & I agree, don't we, that Sarti shot a frangible at 33 ft from the fence corner? M Edited July 10, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 It is proper to question Ed's story, as it is with any witness.It is improper to question his veracity. He is telling the truth as he believes it. It is not improper to question his INTERPRETATION of what he saw. He has reported WHAT HE SAW to the best of his ability. The possibility exists that what he saw was some activity unrelated to the assassination, as suspicious as it seemed to him. Jack Well said Jack! I have repeatedly said that Ed is telling the truth as he saw it. The only reason or purpose to examine Ed's story is to establish the verifiability of the implications of certain aspects of Ed's account. You & I agree, don't we, that Sarti shot a frangible at 33 ft from the fence corner? M I believe Ed's story. I do not believe ANYTHING about Sarti. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 (edited) dupe Edited July 10, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now