Ed Hoffman's Activities and Observations

[Duke Lane]

Jack as promised........the full page showing the two photos taken by Bob Goodman, and Ed Hoffman printed on page 130..of "Triangle of Fire"..published in 1993......

Also the enlargment of the photos.....

Best B.......

Thanks, Kathy, tho' this doesn't appear to be Ed's actual line of sight if his map in Eye Witness is accurate. Is there likewise a plat showing where this photo was taken from (i.e., the place where Ed was standing)?

I realize this makes me a terrible and uninformed researcher - I am, after all, one of those terrible "Mary Ferrell's people" according to Harry Livingstone [KTT, p392, p582 fn. 191] - because I don't have every single book published on the topic, but I'll just have to try to live through that just like I somehow managed to live through Harry's diatribe.

[Bernice Moore]

Jack as promised........the full page showing the two photos taken by Bob Goodman, and Ed Hoffman printed on page 130..of "Triangle of Fire"..published in 1993......

Also the enlargment of the photos.....

Best B.......

Thanks, Kathy, tho' this doesn't appear to be Ed's actual line of sight if his map in Eye Witness is accurate. Is there likewise a plat showing where this photo was taken from (i.e., the place where Ed was standing)?

******************

If there was, I surely would have scanned it...

B...

[Miles Scull]

Jack as promised........the full page showing the two photos taken by Bob Goodman, and Ed Hoffman printed on page 130..of "Triangle of Fire"..published in 1993......

Also the enlargment of the photos.....

Best B.......

Thanks, Kathy, tho' this doesn't appear to be Ed's actual line of sight if his map in Eye Witness is accurate. Is there likewise a plat showing where this photo was taken from (i.e., the place where Ed was standing)?

******************

If there was, I surely would have scanned it...

B...

Hi B,

Thx again.

Just a couple of preliminary notes for now because of time constraints.

Why was Goodman there? And who was there on Nov. 22, 1963 at 12:30?

[Duke Lane]

[Reference unknown]: BM: It would be the--

DL: Again, perhaps I've missed something, or maybe you're thinking of someone else, but I don't see anything about a "rifle being tossed" - or

anything at all

being tossed, passed, handed off, or anything like that - in Seymour Weitzman's testimony, or

any

"support" for Ed's story ... except maybe that there were steam pipes in the railroad yard, which I don't think anyone is debating.

I can go look for my post if need be, but I am certain that I referenced WEITZMAN'S REPORT. It was in the REPORT where it was said that Weitzman was told by a witness that they seen SOMETHING tossed through the trees over near the steam pipe. It could have been a gun - a broom - a mop - or what ever, but the point I made is that something was seen being tossed by someone other than Ed Hoffman.

Bill, while you eagerly await that which I've "promised to deliver" to you and Jack, can you provide us with an update on what has become of your search for this "Weitzman report?" You had started to look for it, and left us with baited breath looking through CE2003, which contains nothing about any such report, but which you were going to continue to search for "as time allows:"

Rather than quoting your reference to a report, can you quote and source the report itself? I don't find anything about Weitzman's report in either Walt Brown's Global Index or Sylvia Meagher's. I'll check CE2003, but it doesn't ring a bell as having been there either.

That is a fair request, Duke .... and I can tell you that it is in the 26 Volumes for I have read it several times in the past. I have spent the better part of the morning doing searchers and I have found references to it, but no the report itself. Seymour Weitzman gave a report telling of this meeting with the man who saw something tossed near the steam pipe. Here is a link for those who wish to look for it ... I will continue to search for it as time allows.

http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/...Vol24_0111a.htm

Since it was a "fair request" about a week ago (excuse my math if needs be), I'm hoping you'll deliver upon it soon. I'd hate like hell to miss something that is "common knowledge" to "anyone who asked about it," especially since I've asked about it and you haven't been able to make it common knowledge as yet.

It's a "fair request" after all, and you ARE fair, aren't you? I mean, you wouldn't purposely not provide something you've cited just to make me look like "one of Mary Ferrell's people," would you?

[Jack White]

OK...so the line of sight of the photos is proved erroneous...why not post

that to begin with instead of being cute?

The photos being from a slightly different viewpoint does not prove Ed's

observations incorrect...just that TREES GREW HIGH SINCE 1963 and made

it impossible to shoot the photo from the correct spot. So?

The book should have specified exactly where the photos were made

from. I suspect that they moved around till they could see thru the

trees, but they should have realized that the photos might be scrutinized.

Jack

[Duke Lane]

Why was Goodman there? And who was there on Nov. 22, 1963 at 12:30?

Miles, while I see your point, I think one thing is off-base, that being the perspective of which is the lamp post and which is the sign support, or what you've called the "direction sign trestle."

You'll note in MacIntyre that there is a lamp post nearer to the camera than the sign support, as well as one farther from the camera than it. In an extreme close-up of that you're looking at in the above image - or by magnifying it - you can actually see the shadows cast by all three lamp posts. These should be able to be lined up two ways:

[1] to determine exactly where MacIntyre's shot was taken; and

[2] to determine exactly where the "re-enactment" photo was taken.

Note where the northern-most edge of the TU seems to be - to the right of the sign structure - while your LOS appears to point well to the north of that, north even of the picket fence line. Start from the TU and work your way backward instead. The LOS would be only be a little different, but different nonetheless.

Since if I read correctly (and being a terrible researcher - not to mention "one of Mary Ferrell's people" [that witch, haha!] and did I mention that every word Harry wrote was true? - I may not have been able to read, or understand what I've read), the location of the photo was made at Ed's direction, we should have either:

[1] Ed's location that coincides with the maps (plural) he'd provided in his book; or

[2] Ed's location that does not coincide with the book.

If [2], we're then left with a conundrum of where Ed actually was.

The vertical perspective is likewise important because what he could've seen from the east-side shoulder would have been different than what he could've seen from across the highway due to five lanes of traffic (in 1963). There is little enough of both the lamp post and sign support to make any positive estimate. These shots are either telephoto or crops, or both; the moire patterns suggest "both."

Unfortunately, I've gotten a couple of system updates in the past few hours (Windows and virus software, at least), which seem to have interfered with my ability to take screen-shots and paste them into anything, so I'll have to continue this in an edit later on.

Take this one step at a time. I'll add in the screen-shots shortly, I hope.

EDIT: Okay, screen-shots working ....

At close magnification, the line is a little to the right of the lamp post and to the left of the sign support, as so:

Extending that line, we get:

Such that this seems to be the correct LOS of the Goodman photo, which doesn't put Ed anywhere near where he claimed to have been, thus either [1] the photo is wrong (i.e., [a] Ed placed Bob in the wrong spot, or Bob ignored Ed and went with the best vantage point), or [2] nobody's gotten the story quite right to date. (Personally, I'd go with [1b] myself.)

Ed's map, while not exact or to scale, would put his actual LOS somewhere between these two lines:

This is, of course, only to determine the correct locus for Ed: where he put himself, or where Bob put him later on and unbeknownst to Ed to "prove" the point ... and disprove it while he was at it! (This should help us to learn something about research that we obviously don't already know!)

So, to prove any OTHER point, we would first need to determine exactly where Ed was. Perhaps the Magi might be willing to give us Locusts (lesser and lower than Grasshoppahs!) some direction here ... we needn't have much exactitude, but a little nudge might help ....

(Somehow, I don't think a lot of help will be forthcoming. C'mon, guys, this story needs all the help it can get!)

For the sake of mentioning it, this would appear to be MacIntyre's LOS, with the first lamp post to the left of the sign support, and with the third column of windows on the Sheriff's Office building being just to the left of the sign itself. Seem about right?

Edited July 31, 2007 by Duke Lane

[Duke Lane]

OK...so the line of sight of the photos is proved erroneous ... why not post that to begin with instead of being cute?

The photos being from a slightly different viewpoint does not prove Ed's observations incorrect ... just that TREES GREW HIGH SINCE 1963 and made it impossible to shoot the photo from the correct spot. So?

The book should have specified exactly where the photos were made from. I suspect that they moved around till they could see thru the trees, but they should have realized that the photos might be scrutinized.

Aww, c'mon, Jack, be a sport! After all, Miles and I are just a couple of hacks who'd never read Ed's book and therefore know nothing and never will, while you and Bill are respected researchers who've actually even won awards and support Ed's story without reservation or equivocation!

I mean, what's a little "erroneous" between friends, eh? Besides, if either of us had said that up-front, nobody would have believed either of us (especially given Harry Livingstone's low esteem of my associations! And did I mention Lisa Pease's denunciation of me as "a CIA plant," not to even mention your own, since retracted?).

Coming from someone with your credentials (I am SO trying not to say "photogammetry" here! ), it has much more meaning and credibility. Thank you.

Clearly, Ed did not take Bob to where he actually was, or else Bob couldn't follow simple instructions and decided to take a "better" picture ... which must clearly be the case because nobody understands what a deaf-mute is telling them anyway. (Doubt it? Read Ed's book.)

Or, of course, you can always blame it on the trees.

The more "exacting" this story becomes, the more "evidence" that's developed, the fuzzier are the details and the more room that's created to wiggle.

Since you're only a few miles away in Fort Worth, maybe you could hop into downtown and take better pictures for us? I'll even do the shooting since I can dodge traffic better ... just tell me where to stand.

(Amazingly, we don't have to do all of this by the forum, but then I wouldn't want anyone to see you in my company, especially the "Dealey Plaza Denizens," of which Bob was one for many years if not still, am I not right? But I can pick you up at Luby's John White if you'd like! )

[Jack White]

OK...so the line of sight of the photos is proved erroneous ... why not post that to begin with instead of being cute?

The photos being from a slightly different viewpoint does not prove Ed's observations incorrect ... just that TREES GREW HIGH SINCE 1963 and made it impossible to shoot the photo from the correct spot. So?

The book should have specified exactly where the photos were made from. I suspect that they moved around till they could see thru the trees, but they should have realized that the photos might be scrutinized.

Aww, c'mon, Jack, be a sport! After all, Miles and I are just a couple of hacks who'd never read Ed's book and therefore know nothing and never will, while you and Bill are respected researchers who've actually even won awards and support Ed's story without reservation or equivocation!

I mean, what's a little "erroneous" between friends, eh? Besides, if either of us had said that up-front, nobody would have believed either of us (especially given Harry Livingstone's low esteem of my associations! And did I mention Lisa Pease's denunciation of me as "a CIA plant," not to even mention your own, since retracted?).

Coming from someone with your credentials (I am SO trying not to say "photogammetry" here! ), it has much more meaning and credibility. Thank you.

Clearly, Ed did not take Bob to where he actually was, or else Bob couldn't follow simple instructions and decided to take a "better" picture ... which must clearly be the case because nobody understands what a deaf-mute is telling them anyway. (Doubt it? Read Ed's book.)

Or, of course, you can always blame it on the trees.

The more "exacting" this story becomes, the more "evidence" that's developed, the fuzzier are the details and the more room that's created to wiggle.

Since you're only a few miles away in Fort Worth, maybe you could hop into downtown and take better pictures for us? I'll even do the shooting since I can dodge traffic better ... just tell me where to stand.

(Amazingly, we don't have to do all of this by the forum, but then I wouldn't want anyone to see you in my company, especially the "Dealey Plaza Denizens," of which Bob was one for many years if not still, am I not right? But I can pick you up at Luby's John White if you'd like! )

XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXX.

Jack

[Duke Lane]

XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXX.

Jack

Wow! Redacted posts! Now I feel like I'm at the National Archives!! Now this is research!!

Keep it comin', y'all, ah's learning as fast as ah kin, ay-yup!

PS - Love from Harry!

[Bill Miller]

It's a "fair request" after all, and you ARE fair, aren't you? I mean, you wouldn't purposely not provide something you've cited just to make me look like "one of Mary Ferrell's people," would you?

I am in the mountains of British Columbia where I spend the majority of the year, thus I am not in reach of the 26 volumes. I have contacted several other researchers who might be able to help, but two are out of town - one didn't know - and the other said he'd look when he had free time. This subject is old news and Weitzman's report had been discussed on Lancer long ago. I will try and do a search in more detail as time allows it.

Does anyone by chance have Mark Lanes book called "Rush to Judgment" because in the index it should have Weitzman's name and Lane was pretty good at referencing the 26 volumes when necessary. Possibly someone can assist us here?

Bill

[Dave Curbow]

It's a "fair request" after all, and you ARE fair, aren't you? I mean, you wouldn't purposely not provide something you've cited just to make me look like "one of Mary Ferrell's people," would you?

I am in the mountains of British Columbia where I spend the majority of the year, thus I am not in reach of the 26 volumes. I have contacted several other researchers who might be able to help, but two are out of town - one didn't know - and the other said he'd look when he had free time. This subject is old news and Weitzman's report had been discussed on Lancer long ago. I will try and do a search in more detail as time allows it.

Does anyone by chance have Mark Lanes book called "Rush to Judgment" because in the index it should have Weitzman's name and Lane was pretty good at referencing the 26 volumes when necessary. Possibly someone can assist us here?

Bill

Volume 7, page 109 at the end of his testimony

Dave

[Jack White]

I think this is a tempest in a teapot.

The Bob/Ed photos show lots of trees which were not there in 1963.

Bob/Ed went to Ed's location to see whether they could see the fence and signal boxes from that distance.

Trees were in the way.

They moved a little to the right where there was a break in the trees.

They could see the box and fence through the break and shot photos.

They were not interested in a line of sight, but what could be seen from about where Ed was.

That is what the photos show.

Jack

[Duke Lane]

I am in the mountains of British Columbia where I spend the majority of the year, thus I am not in reach of the 26 volumes. I have contacted several other researchers who might be able to help, but two are out of town - one didn't know - and the other said he'd look when he had free time. This subject is old news and Weitzman's report had been discussed on Lancer long ago. I will try and do a search in more detail as time allows it.

Does anyone by chance have Mark Lanes book called "Rush to Judgment" because in the index it should have Weitzman's name and Lane was pretty good at referencing the 26 volumes when necessary. Possibly someone can assist us here?

Volume 7, page 109 at the end of his testimony

Dave

The latter we're already aware of and had discussed several pages back. The "firecracker" incident had nothing to do with a "rifle toss."

As to Lane's RTJ cites, the vast majority - if not all of them - referred to his description of the "7.65 Mauser" rifle, as does his affidavit:

...Who after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:

Yesterday, November 22, 1963, I was standing

at the corner of Main and Houston, and as the President passed and made his turn going

west toward Stemmons, I walked casually around. At this time my partner was behind

me and asked me something. I looked back at him and heard 3 shots. I ran in a

northwest direction and scaled a fence towards where we thought the shots came from.

Then someone said they thought the shots came from the old Texas Building. I imme-

diately ran to the Texas Building and started looking inside. At this time Captain

Fritz arrived and ordered all of the sixth floor sealed off and searched. I was

working with Deputy S. Boone of the Sheriff's Department and helping in the search.

We were in the northwest corner of the sixth floor when Deputy Boone and myself spotted

the rifle about the same time. This rifle was a 7.65 Mauser bolt action equipped with

a 4/18 scope, a thick leather brownish-black sling on it. The rifle was between

some boxes near the stairway. The time the rifle was found was 1:22 pm. Captain

Fritz took charge of the rifle and ejected one live round from the chamber. I then

went back to the office after this.

All of Lane's citations relative to Weitzman are to his testimony, the Report, and the above-quoted affidavit. It does not have anything relative to the TU area after his arrival there, other than that someone there said the shots had come from the TSBD. He doesn't even mention the firecracker/skull-piece.

All 26 volumes can be searched online, as Mr Bill knows well from from earlier posting suggesting that other people to look through CE2003, to which he provided a linke, and from which the above is taken. The onus is on Mr Bill to find his own cites ... unless he knows better than to waste his time looking, and would prefer the failure to find this "Weitzman report" be someone else's rather than his own! Being in the mountains of BC has nothing to do with it if he's able to post here, but it does sound convincing.

[Duke Lane]

I think this is a tempest in a teapot. The Bob/Ed photos show lots of trees which were not there in 1963. Bob/Ed went to Ed's location to see whether they could see the fence and signal boxes from that distance. Trees were in the way. They moved a little to the right where there was a break in the trees. They could see the box and fence through the break and shot photos. They were not interested in a line of sight, but what could be seen from about where Ed was. That is what the photos show.

Well, I suppose that's fine ... but we'll find this LOS to be important anyway. I might try to get a clearer copy, albeit even later than these. I, of course, have never doubted what could be seen from Ed's location, only whether there was anyone there.

[Bill Miller]

If someone wants to know anything about those photos, then ask Jack or email Gary Mack for if anyone knows the specifics - it would most likely be them. As for where Hoffman was positioned .... did he not say that the President passed below him as he came out from under the overpass and that is when he saw the President's head wound ... I think it was.

Bill Miller