Ed Hoffman's Activities and Observations

[Bill Miller]

I think if anyone pays attention to the fact that what has been suggested to be a possible train is no taller than the railings of the underpass .... the notion of that being a train soon dissipates.

What, no three-engine locomotive with boxcars following?

The question is then: if we are almost certain that there was no train on the overpass at the time, but J.W. Foster described it nevertheless, can we rely on any of what he said in No More Silence?

We can't rely on his description of the train; we can't rely on his claim to having searched the cars in the railroad yard; why should we rely on the statement about a man approaching him and telling him about someone running away down the tracks?

Let's not say that it's not true ... but is it reliable? If so, why?

Well, have you not ever told of an event you saw only to find out that you mis-recalled a particular instance - Did that mean that everything else you remembered was unreliable? I will often try to look for things that might add support to someone's observations.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

You seem to want to know where the train is. (The train that just went by. )

Here you are:

That's definitely the tail end of a train, i.e., a boxcar ... but is it moving or stationary?

If it's moving, how long after the shooting was this frame taken, and how fast would a train have to have been moving to get to where it is in this image by then?

I think Bowers said that he didn't allow any trains to be moving before the police had a chance to search them all.

Bill

[Antti Hynonen]

Bill,

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Bill Miller Posted Today, 04:22 PM

QUOTE(Duke Lane @ Jul 27 2007, 05:01 PM)

QUOTE(Bill Miller @ Jul 27 2007, 09:47 AM)

I think if anyone pays attention to the fact that what has been suggested to be a possible train is no taller than the railings of the underpass .... the notion of that being a train soon dissipates.

What, no three-engine locomotive with boxcars following?

The question is then: if we are almost certain that there was no train on the overpass at the time, but J.W. Foster described it nevertheless, can we rely on any of what he said in No More Silence?

We can't rely on his description of the train; we can't rely on his claim to having searched the cars in the railroad yard; why should we rely on the statement about a man approaching him and telling him about someone running away down the tracks?

Let's not say that it's not true ... but is it reliable? If so, why?

Well, have you not ever told of an event you saw only to find out that you mis-recalled a particular instance - Did that mean that everything else you remembered was unreliable? I will often try to look for things that might add support to someone's observations.

Bill Miller

[Duke Lane]

... We can't rely on his description of the train; we can't rely on his claim to having searched the cars in the railroad yard; why should we rely on the statement about a man approaching him and telling him about someone running away down the tracks?

Let's not say that it's not true ... but is it reliable? If so, why?

Well, have you not ever told of an event you saw only to find out that you mis-recalled a particular instance - Did that mean that everything else you remembered was unreliable? I will often try to look for things that might add support to someone's observations.

That's a non-sequitur. To say that you can't make a positive statement about something - "he is handsome" - is not to make a negative statement about it - "he's ugly."

The question is, can you rely on - depend confidently, have faith or confidence in - these descriptions as much as you can rely on anything else? To say that you can't is not to say that it's a lie, but it is questionable, i.e., not reliable.

That's all I'm asking, Bill: is it PROOF or is it SUPPOSITION?

Edited July 27, 2007 by Duke Lane

[Miles Scull]

Bill,

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Bill Miller Posted Today, 04:22 PM

QUOTE(Duke Lane @ Jul 27 2007, 05:01 PM)

QUOTE(Bill Miller @ Jul 27 2007, 09:47 AM)

I think if anyone pays attention to the fact that what has been suggested to be a possible train is no taller than the railings of the underpass .... the notion of that being a train soon dissipates.

What, no three-engine locomotive with boxcars following?

The question is then: if we are almost certain that there was no train on the overpass at the time, but J.W. Foster described it nevertheless, can we rely on any of what he said in No More Silence?

We can't rely on his description of the train; we can't rely on his claim to having searched the cars in the railroad yard; why should we rely on the statement about a man approaching him and telling him about someone running away down the tracks?

Let's not say that it's not true ... but is it reliable? If so, why?

Well, have you not ever told of an event you saw only to find out that you mis-recalled a particular instance - Did that mean that everything else you remembered was unreliable? I will often try to look for things that might add support to someone's observations.

Bill Miller

Duke,

Foster's WC testimony does not mention anyone reporting to him that someone was seen running up the tracks, nor that Foster ever went to the RR tracks to look into box cars. Foster says in fact that he DID NOT go to the RR tracks.

Sneed's book has Foster, 30 years later, saying the exact opposite.

Can Sneed be relied upon? Maybe Sneed misinterpreted Foster's tape. Note Sneed's account of Foster's tape reads not like a tape of someone speaking, but as a digest summation of a more lengthy passage of conversation.

Either way, neither Sneed or Foster are reliable after the 30 year time gap, for the reasons you state.

[Bill Miller]

The question is, can you rely on - depend confidently, have faith or confidence in - these descriptions as much as you can rely on anything else? To say that you can't is not to say that it's a lie, but it is questionable, i.e., not reliable.

That's all I'm asking, Bill: is it PROOF or is it SUPPOSITION?

Well, if you told me there was a firetruck in front of your house this morning only because you had heard a red truck with a ladder had been seen near there, then I would call that "supposition". If someone else said they witnessed a firetruck in front of your house, as well ... then I'd say that it is proof through collaboration.

Bill

[Duke Lane]

You seem to want to know where the train is. (The train that just went by. )

That's definitely the tail end of a train, i.e., a boxcar ... but is it moving or stationary?

If it's moving, how long after the shooting was this frame taken, and how fast would a train have to have been moving to get to where it is in this image by then?

I think Bowers said that he didn't allow any trains to be moving before the police had a chance to search them all.

Another non-sequitur.

Was that frame taken before Bowers or anyone even knew police would want to search anything?

If it was the tail end of a train that had just passed over the TU - despite plenty of evidence to the contrary - could it have gotten to where it is by the time the image was taken if it was travelling at a "normal" trainyard speed?

Trains were moving in the freight yard during the motorcade, y'know, "before the police had a chance to search them all." Whether one went over the TU is another question. What Bower did or didn't do after it became apparent the police might have an interest in them is not germane.

When was this frame taken in relation to the shooting?

Edited July 27, 2007 by Duke Lane

[Jack White]

You seem to want to know where the train is. (The train that just went by. )

Here you are:

That's definitely the tail end of a train, i.e., a boxcar ... but is it moving or stationary?

If it's moving, how long after the shooting was this frame taken, and how fast would a train have to have been moving to get to where it is in this image by then?

There is no train where someone has labeled "train".

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Duke,

Foster's WC testimony does not mention anyone reporting to him that someone was seen running up the tracks, nor that Foster ever went to the RR tracks to look into box cars. Foster says in fact that he DID NOT go to the RR tracks.

Sneed's book has Foster, 30 years later, saying the exact opposite.

Can Sneed be relied upon? Maybe Sneed misinterpreted Foster's tape. Note Sneed's account of Foster's tape reads not like a tape of someone speaking, but as a digest summation of a more lengthy passage of conversation.

Either way, neither Sneed or Foster are reliable after the 30 year time gap, for the reasons you state.

Miles makes a great point ... authors do tend to write what they think a witnessed said and not always what the witness actually said. One example - Posner's book had such occurrences show up in it.

Bill Miller

[Duke Lane]

The question is, can you rely on - depend confidently, have faith or confidence in - these descriptions as much as you can rely on anything else? To say that you can't is not to say that it's a lie, but it is questionable, i.e., not reliable.

That's all I'm asking, Bill: is it PROOF or is it SUPPOSITION?

Well, if you told me there was a firetruck in front of your house this morning only because you had heard a red truck with a ladder had been seen near there, then I would call that "supposition". If someone else said they witnessed a firetruck in front of your house, as well ... then I'd say that it is proof through collaboration.

So you're saying that you have complete confidence that what Foster described for Sneed is exactly the way it happened, then, correct?

If so, fair enough. Let's move on.

[Miles Scull]

You seem to want to know where the train is. (The train that just went by. )

Here you are:

That's definitely the tail end of a train, i.e., a boxcar ... but is it moving or stationary?

If it's moving, how long after the shooting was this frame taken, and how fast would a train have to have been moving to get to where it is in this image by then?

There is no train where someone has labeled "train".

Jack

Right Jack,

I think you may be on to something big that just might crack this difficult case wide open!

What do you think it is that the yellow arrow is pointing to?

[Bill Miller]

Was that frame taken before Bowers or anyone even knew police would want to search anything?

Did not Bowers say that the RR yard was full of cops right after the shooting and that he held the trains there until they were searched?

Bowers said, "I held off the trains until they could be examined, and there was some transients taken on at least one train."

Bill Miller

Edited July 28, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bernice Moore]

Bill:

You have personally met Ed Hoffman, could you tell me approximately how tall

he is..

Thanks B..

From memory - about 6' tall Ed was - give an inch or two possibly. I am 6'1" tall and I do not recall Ed being taller than I am.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Thanks Bill....appreciated...B

[Jack White]

You seem to want to know where the train is. (The train that just went by. )

Here you are:

That's definitely the tail end of a train, i.e., a boxcar ... but is it moving or stationary?

If it's moving, how long after the shooting was this frame taken, and how fast would a train have to have been moving to get to where it is in this image by then?

There is no train where someone has labeled "train".

Jack

Right Jack,

I think you may be on to something big that just might crack this difficult case wide open!

What do you think it is that the yellow arrow is pointing to?

I wouldn't want to guess. No intelligent person would.

Jack

[Miles Scull]

You seem to want to know where the train is. (The train that just went by. )

Here you are:

That's definitely the tail end of a train, i.e., a boxcar ... but is it moving or stationary?

If it's moving, how long after the shooting was this frame taken, and how fast would a train have to have been moving to get to where it is in this image by then?

There is no train where someone has labeled "train".

Jack

Right Jack,

I think you may be on to something big that just might crack this difficult case wide open!

What do you think it is that the yellow arrow is pointing to?

I wouldn't want to guess. No intelligent person would.

Jack

Another look: