Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ed Hoffman's Activities and Observations


Recommended Posts

Read Ed's book which rebuts such allegations.

If it's in a book, it must be true.

Have you read The Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy lately? Fascinating. Gripping, even. And absolutely factual, just ask the writers.

That said, if Ed didn't see Lee Oswald in the sixth floor window, he didn't see anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 357
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Read Ed's book which rebuts such allegations.

If it's in a book, it must be true.

Have you read The Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy lately? Fascinating. Gripping, even. And absolutely factual, just ask the writers.

That said, if Ed didn't see Lee Oswald in the sixth floor window, he didn't see anything.

Duke, not sure of what the significance of your new thread is, but while Ed didn't see Oswald, he did see something that points to a conspiracy. From day one, Ed said there was someone at the fence at the Hat Man location. Bowers description, along with Holland's didn't come out until a year later. Ed was deaf and described a man having a gun when others who could actually hear said that they heard a shot come from that same location. No detailed study of Moorman's photo had been done by the time Ed had initially told his story. Also, the smell of gunpowder near the fence and the smoke seen coming through the trees was also reported after the fact as I recall. Ed certainly put his head on the chopping block when he said he would like tpo take a lie detector test. My experience has been that liars don't ask for such examinations.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the same person Mr. Lane____________________________as of 1999

Dr. Richard H. Freeman

Chief Engineer,

Goddard Space Flight Center thanks sg

Forgive me, but I don't understand what that's about.

+++++++++++++ per this

On March 28, 1977, Richard H. Freeman, Texas Instruments, Richardson, Texas, was telephonically contacted by Special Agent [REDACTED] and was requested to contact Mr. Hoffman in an effort to communicate with him and to advise him if he could come to the Dallas FBI Office in order to make a personal visit to the area of Stemmons Freeway from where he observed the presidential motorcade on November 22, 1963.

thanks sg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke, not sure of what the significance of your new thread is, but while Ed didn't see Oswald, he did see something that points to a conspiracy. From day one, Ed said there was someone at the fence at the Hat Man location. Bowers description, along with Holland's didn't come out until a year later. Ed was deaf and described a man having a gun when others who could actually hear said that they heard a shot come from that same location. No detailed study of Moorman's photo had been done by the time Ed had initially told his story. Also, the smell of gunpowder near the fence and the smoke seen coming through the trees was also reported after the fact as I recall. Ed certainly put his head on the chopping block when he said he would like to take a lie detector test. My experience has been that liars don't ask for such examinations.

All things that point to a conspiracy are not necessarily true, any more so than those 888 pages published in 1964 prove that Lee Oswald took three lucky potshots at his hero.

From day one - more to the point, as of June 27, 1967, the first(?) recorded instance of Ed Hoffman contacting the FBI and telling his story - he had seen two men in white shirts leaving the rear of the TSBD and running north along the railroad tracks and then east.

Two hours later, after visiting the location he'd said he was at on 11/22/63, he went back to the Feebs and told them that, after all, he couldn't see the rear of the TSBD due to a stockade fence that was there and had been for a few years along the railroad tracks, according to Roy Truly, who was questioned about it. Hoffman figured - according to the FBI - that he must've seen the two men "on the fence or something else."

The point is that what he described in these two instances - and later - is NOT "someone at the fence at the Hat Man location." He did not tell that story to "the authorities" until 1977, well after the dates you describe above, and plenty of time to assimilate the others' stories into his own.

At that time (1977), he said the two men were "dressed in some type of white suits, and both wore ties." This differs from a man in a suit and another in striped "engineer's overalls" that he now describes.

Now it is always possible that he contacted the FBI who blew him off and never wrote anything down ... which of course to some people is proof positive that he contacted the FBI, they blew him off, and never wrote anything down. Or he could have told them something completely different than what they did write down since whatever they did write down is not what he says he told them, nothing like it at all, so clearly the written record is in error. Always is in this case.

In the 1967 report, Hoffman supposedly "stated he had discussed this matter with his father at the time of the assassination, and his father suggested that he not talk to anyone about this," which strongly suggests that this was the first time he'd contacted the authorities about it ... otherwise, why not say that and refer them to the earlier interview? "But," the report continues, "after thinking about what he saw" - for three years! - "Hoffman stated he decided to tell the FBI."

Except, of course, the written record is always in error. Contradictory stories are always true.

My experience is that liars do ask for polygraphs because (1) they think they can beat them, (2) the machines are reputedly unreliable, (3) they know they're not actually going to be subjected to one anyway, and (4) if on the off chance they are, there's probably a really good reason why the test failed (note: the test failed, not them!).

Really good liars actually believe their lies, and can pass the most rigid test imaginable. Having heart meds helps, too, and helps explain any test failures ... or precludes your having to take one in the first place because it would be unreliable.

As I'd noted, James Worrell was not in Dealey Plaza either, yet he took a free trip to Washington DC to testify under oath in front of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and other notables (and told newspaper and TV reporters, too) about things that he'd made up or only read about. If dumb Dicky can pull that off under those circumstances, I'm not terribly impressed by anyone hanging out on the grassy knoll telling me the God's Honest Truth. (Actually, I'm not terribly impressed by anyone hanging out on the grassy knoll, period!)

Now, of course, a verifiable official document of some sort dated in 1963 relating Ed Hoffman's story - or any version of it - might convince me otherwise. Since you're so certain of his story, I presume you have such an animal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the same person Mr. Lane____________________________as of 1999

Dr. Richard H. Freeman

Chief Engineer,

Goddard Space Flight Center thanks sg

+++++++++++++ per this

On March 28, 1977, Richard H. Freeman, Texas Instruments, Richardson, Texas, was telephonically contacted by Special Agent [REDACTED] and was requested to contact Mr. Hoffman in an effort to communicate with him and to advise him if he could come to the Dallas FBI Office in order to make a personal visit to the area of Stemmons Freeway from where he observed the presidential motorcade on November 22, 1963.

thanks sg

Good question. Goddard Space Flight Center switchboard - 301-286-2000

If you Google the name "Richard H. Freeman" you'll also come up with a bunch of CPAs, lawyers, estate planners and hospital administrators, among other things. Our guy and the Goddard guy - if they're not the same guy - both happen to be engineers, apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From day one - more to the point, as of June 27, 1967, the first(?) recorded instance of Ed Hoffman contacting the FBI and telling his story - he had seen two men in white shirts leaving the rear of the TSBD and running north along the railroad tracks and then east.

Two hours later, after visiting the location he'd said he was at on 11/22/63, he went back to the Feebs and told them that, after all, he couldn't see the rear of the TSBD due to a stockade fence that was there and had been for a few years along the railroad tracks, according to Roy Truly, who was questioned about it. Hoffman figured - according to the FBI - that he must've seen the two men "on the fence or something else."

The point is that what he described in these two instances - and later - is NOT "someone at the fence at the Hat Man location." He did not tell that story to "the authorities" until 1977, well after the dates you describe above, and plenty of time to assimilate the others' stories into his own.

Duke, would those be the same 'Feebs' that told Arnold Rowland that they were not interested in the other man on the 6th floor, or the same 'Feebs' that wrote in their report that Mrs. Hartman said that the furrow in the grass led back to the TSBD when she actually had said that it led back to the large tree on the knoll, or the same 'Feebs' that misstated Julia Ann Mercer's remarks about what she had witnessed just prior to the President's arrival and also managed to somehow get her statement signed with a signature that wasn't hers? Could it be the same 'Feebs' that had picked up a bullet on the south side of Elm Street which never made it into the record? How about what David Powers told Tip O'Neal about his experience concerning hearing shots from the right front of the President? Maybe that is the same 'Feebs' that had been telling everyone for years that there was no such thing as organized crime.

I appreciate your concern, but consider the messenger. Not once when there was signs of witness tampering going on in this case did I hear where any agent or Hoover wish to take a lie detector test, yet Hoffman wanted one - go figure?

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke, not sure of what the significance of your new thread is, but while Ed didn't see Oswald, he did see something that points to a conspiracy. From day one, Ed said there was someone at the fence at the Hat Man location. Bowers description, along with Holland's didn't come out until a year later. Ed was deaf and described a man having a gun when others who could actually hear said that they heard a shot come from that same location. No detailed study of Moorman's photo had been done by the time Ed had initially told his story. Also, the smell of gunpowder near the fence and the smoke seen coming through the trees was also reported after the fact as I recall. Ed certainly put his head on the chopping block when he said he would like to take a lie detector test. My experience has been that liars don't ask for such examinations.

All things that point to a conspiracy are not necessarily true, any more so than those 888 pages published in 1964 prove that Lee Oswald took three lucky potshots at his hero.

From day one - more to the point, as of June 27, 1967, the first(?) recorded instance of Ed Hoffman contacting the FBI and telling his story - he had seen two men in white shirts leaving the rear of the TSBD and running north along the railroad tracks and then east.

Two hours later, after visiting the location he'd said he was at on 11/22/63, he went back to the Feebs and told them that, after all, he couldn't see the rear of the TSBD due to a stockade fence that was there and had been for a few years along the railroad tracks, according to Roy Truly, who was questioned about it. Hoffman figured - according to the FBI - that he must've seen the two men "on the fence or something else."

The point is that what he described in these two instances - and later - is NOT "someone at the fence at the Hat Man location." He did not tell that story to "the authorities" until 1977, well after the dates you describe above, and plenty of time to assimilate the others' stories into his own.

At that time (1977), he said the two men were "dressed in some type of white suits, and both wore ties." This differs from a man in a suit and another in striped "engineer's overalls" that he now describes.

Now it is always possible that he contacted the FBI who blew him off and never wrote anything down ... which of course to some people is proof positive that he contacted the FBI, they blew him off, and never wrote anything down. Or he could have told them something completely different than what they did write down since whatever they did write down is not what he says he told them, nothing like it at all, so clearly the written record is in error. Always is in this case.

In the 1967 report, Hoffman supposedly "stated he had discussed this matter with his father at the time of the assassination, and his father suggested that he not talk to anyone about this," which strongly suggests that this was the first time he'd contacted the authorities about it ... otherwise, why not say that and refer them to the earlier interview? "But," the report continues, "after thinking about what he saw" - for three years! - "Hoffman stated he decided to tell the FBI."

Except, of course, the written record is always in error. Contradictory stories are always true.

My experience is that liars do ask for polygraphs because (1) they think they can beat them, (2) the machines are reputedly unreliable, (3) they know they're not actually going to be subjected to one anyway, and (4) if on the off chance they are, there's probably a really good reason why the test failed (note: the test failed, not them!).

Really good liars actually believe their lies, and can pass the most rigid test imaginable. Having heart meds helps, too, and helps explain any test failures ... or precludes your having to take one in the first place because it would be unreliable.

As I'd noted, James Worrell was not in Dealey Plaza either, yet he took a free trip to Washington DC to testify under oath in front of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and other notables (and told newspaper and TV reporters, too) about things that he'd made up or only read about. If dumb Dicky can pull that off under those circumstances, I'm not terribly impressed by anyone hanging out on the grassy knoll telling me the God's Honest Truth. (Actually, I'm not terribly impressed by anyone hanging out on the grassy knoll, period!)

Now, of course, a verifiable official document of some sort dated in 1963 relating Ed Hoffman's story - or any version of it - might convince me otherwise. Since you're so certain of his story, I presume you have such an animal?

Right Duke, totally concur.

The untenable position of Ed's apologists is exposed in the contortions they must go through with nonsense assertions of vapor like this:

" Well, you see, I have actually talked to Ed privately. He has explained to me personally that all of the contradictions & inconsistencies about Ed's story are not so. But, unfortunately, I can't tell you how Ed has corrected all of the contradictions & inconsistencies of his story, but I can assure you that he told me all about it & I believe him. So, therefore, you see, Ed's story must be & is true. Surely you see that. It's just as true as that Lee did it. Right? Better believe it, son. You can trust me on this." :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke and Miles,

After this thread began circulating the difficulties you had with Ed Hoffman's story, it was suggested that the two of you read Ed's book which, as Bill Miller said, "rebuts such allegations." In spite of this suggestion, neither of you have indicated that you would be reading the book any time soon. Yet you continue your attack on Ed and now "Ed's apologists." In the end, however, you're only hurting yourselves. The issue isn't whether or not you ultimately believe Ed's story. The issue is your credibility. You really need to fully investigate this matter. Then let the chips fall where they may. Debra Conway has agreed to email you both a copy of Ed's book in PDF format. There will be no charge. Just email Debra that you are interested, and then read the book. Thanks.

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke and Miles,

After this thread began circulating the difficulties you had with Ed Hoffman's story, it was suggested that the two of you read Ed's book which, as Bill Miller said, "rebuts such allegations." In spite of this suggestion, neither of you have indicated that you would be reading the book any time soon. Yet you continue your attack on Ed and now "Ed's apologists." In the end, however, you're only hurting yourselves. The issue isn't whether or not you ultimately believe Ed's story. The issue is your credibility. You really need to fully investigate this matter. Then let the chips fall where they may. Debra Conway has agreed to email you both a copy of Ed's book in PDF format. There will be no charge. Just email Debra that you are interested, and then read the book. Thanks.

Ken

Great, Ken! Will do & thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke and Miles,

After this thread began circulating the difficulties you had with Ed Hoffman's story, it was suggested that the two of you read Ed's book which, as Bill Miller said, "rebuts such allegations." In spite of this suggestion, neither of you have indicated that you would be reading the book any time soon. Yet you continue your attack on Ed and now "Ed's apologists." In the end, however, you're only hurting yourselves. The issue isn't whether or not you ultimately believe Ed's story. The issue is your credibility. You really need to fully investigate this matter. Then let the chips fall where they may. Debra Conway has agreed to email you both a copy of Ed's book in PDF format. There will be no charge. Just email Debra that you are interested, and then read the book. Thanks.

Ken

I would also take the time to recommend getting Trask book "That Day in Dallas" and look at the Murry photo on page 81. That photo shows a fair portion of the parking lot from what appears to be the LOS from the corner of the westmost shelter out to the RR car sitting on the NW side of the parking lot. The tower Bowers sat in during the shooting is in that photo and can be used to get one's bearings as to where the photo was taken from. Then instead of hanging one's hat on a figure of speech like that Holland used, one can actually look at the photo to get a sense of the way the cars were parked in the lot. I remember from Bowers statements as to how a car came into the RR yard and had driven up near the location of where the two men had been positioned while waiting for the motorcade to arrive. (The sea must have been at low tide at that time) From the Murry photo on page 81, it appears that bumper to bumper must have meant to Holland that the cars were parked facing the same way (side by side) ... and not actually up against one another like the impression some have given to Holland's remarks. It also appears that there is ample room to walk in front of the cars as seen in the same Murry photo, but in all fairness to the critics - it does not show the north side of the east to west stretch of fence in question. The photograph does however look like it shows the area that led to the fence that ran north and south. There seems to be enough information in that photo to show that what Holland called a 'sea of cars' differs somewhat from what the photo shows and that the rest may be left up to interpretation and the choice of words used to describe it.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke and Miles,

After this thread began circulating the difficulties you had with Ed Hoffman's story, it was suggested that the two of you read Ed's book which, as Bill Miller said, "rebuts such allegations." In spite of this suggestion, neither of you have indicated that you would be reading the book any time soon. Yet you continue your attack on Ed and now "Ed's apologists." In the end, however, you're only hurting yourselves. The issue isn't whether or not you ultimately believe Ed's story. The issue is your credibility. You really need to fully investigate this matter. Then let the chips fall where they may. Debra Conway has agreed to email you both a copy of Ed's book in PDF format. There will be no charge. Just email Debra that you are interested, and then read the book. Thanks.

Ken

Great, Ken! Will do & thanks!

Thanks to Debra Conway for sending Ed Hoffman's booklet Eyewitness.

This booklet was last updated in 1997 & was originally published by Lancer in 1995. It is extremely scarce. I found only 1 copy available on Abebooks ( http://www.abebooks.com/ ) & it was offered at $250.00! Wow.

I think Lancer is planning a new printing of Eyewitness. I would recommend to any researcher interested in the Ed Hoffman question that he should he should carefully examine Ed's booklet because it presents a lot of data that is necessary to have to combine with other data in order to reach a comprehensive appreciation of the current state of research on the subject.

Without Eyewitness only a partial evaluation is possible. Get this booklet!

Having said this, it should be added that Ed's booklet does not answer certain important questions & in fact raises questions that only additional data analysis, incorporating data not found in Eyewitness, can address.

Duke & others are engaged in continuing research. For my part, I would like to stress that even if problems are still found with Ed's story, it should be understood that that fact in no way reflects on Ed as a well meaning & sincere person who is only telling it like he saw it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke and Miles,

After this thread began circulating the difficulties you had with Ed Hoffman's story, it was suggested that the two of you read Ed's book which, as Bill Miller said, "rebuts such allegations." In spite of this suggestion, neither of you have indicated that you would be reading the book any time soon. Yet you continue your attack on Ed and now "Ed's apologists." In the end, however, you're only hurting yourselves. The issue isn't whether or not you ultimately believe Ed's story. The issue is your credibility. You really need to fully investigate this matter. Then let the chips fall where they may. Debra Conway has agreed to email you both a copy of Ed's book in PDF format. There will be no charge. Just email Debra that you are interested, and then read the book. Thanks.

Ken

Great, Ken! Will do & thanks!

Thanks to Debra Conway for sending Ed Hoffman's booklet Eyewitness.

This booklet was last updated in 1997 & was originally published by Lancer in 1995. It is extremely scarce. I found only 1 copy available on Abebooks ( http://www.abebooks.com/ ) & it was offered at $250.00! Wow.

I think Lancer is planning a new printing of Eyewitness. I would recommend to any researcher interested in the Ed Hoffman question that he should he should carefully examine Ed's booklet because it presents a lot of data that is necessary to have to combine with other data in order to reach a comprehensive appreciation of the current state of research on the subject.

Without Eyewitness only a partial evaluation is possible. Get this booklet!

Having said this, it should be added that Ed's booklet does not answer certain important questions & in fact raises questions that only additional data analysis, incorporating data not found in Eyewitness, can address.

Duke & others are engaged in continuing research. For my part, I would like to stress that even if problems are still found with Ed's story, it should be understood that that fact in no way reflects on Ed as a well meaning & sincere person who is only telling it like he saw it.

I can might suggest that people not be afraid to speak to other researchers who did interview these witnesses because sometimes we have asked questions that no one else thought to do. Not everything makes it into print, nor was thought of at the time so to be asked. How many of us have read the transcripts of witnesses testimony where we kept asking ourselves 'why they are not asking the question that we want to know about?' The specific condition of the back of the President's head as seen by those in and around the limo and at Parkland Hospital could be one example. Gordon Arnold's story for another example was eventually covered and the interviewer never asked Gordon what he was wearing at the time of the assassination. Gary Mack was the first researcher to ask Gordon this all important question years after Gordon's story had first broke. That didn't mean that Gordon hadn't told other people what specific clothes he had worn that day - it just means the research community as a whole had not heard about it at the time. So no one should ever be afraid to ask more questions in hopes that there may be more information out there to be considered.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have taken the liberty to reply to the post below that I have taken from another thread.

BM

Advanced Member

***

Group: Members

Posts: 251

Joined: 17-February 06

Member No.: 4318

QUOTE(Duncan MacRae @ Jun 23 2007, 11:39 AM) *

Check your PM

Duncan

Duncan,

Got it & thanks. surfing.gif

While working on some photos of Duncan Man at the fence, came across this & added some lines in red which show witness spectators

at the balustrade nearby (15 to 10 feet) the switch box who certainly would have seen Ed Hoffman's sniper & his assistant were

same there at the steam pipe & switch box at the time in question. Of course, these witnesses didn't report seeing anyone per Ed's description.

Thought you might be interested, for your archive.

Note the limo passing through the underpass for a timing marker.

Reduced: 90% of original size [ 796 x 339 ]- Click to view full image

The switch box in question is here, with red arrows to the spectators:

As has been stated before - beware of figures of speech. From where Ed was located on Stemmons Freeway, anyone can disappear from view and/or appear to be stopped near the RR boxes and never have gotten right up to the boxes. It makes a difference depending on the angle at which they are seen. An example might be offered by way of the Willis photo. The witnesses in Phil's photo can appear to look to be shoulder to shoulder, yet when seen from Bronson's angle they obviously are much more spaced apart than how they appeared in the Willis photo.

About the witnesses mentioned above - Someone standing at the particular spot along the RR bridge cannot see beyond the edge of the fence. In fact, none of those two witnesses ever said anything about the man throwing something near the steam pipe following the shooting as was reported to Seymour Weitzman by another witness who was on the underpass. Nothing is ever cut and dry.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...