Ken Rheberg Posted August 5, 2007 Share Posted August 5, 2007 Good Day.... There is a 28 minute "RealPlayer" formatted video interview completed in 1997 with ED HOFFMAN available for everyone here (Fair warning, the video clarity and brightness could be better).... http://www.freespeech.org/videodb/viewers/...p?media_id=5349 ....Does anyone have the computer hardware capability to capture the diagrams HOFFMAN presents in this interview? Thank You, in advance. Don Seems to be an error in your link above. Miles Mr. BALL - Now, tell me what you saw happen after the President's car passed - turned onto Elm from Houston. Mr. FOSTER - After he came onto Elm I watched the men on the track more than I was him. Then I heard this loud noise, sound like a large firecracker. Kind of dumbfounded at first and then heard the second one. I moved to the banister of the overpass to see what was happening. Then the third explosion, and they were beginning to move around. I ran after I saw what was happening. Mr. BALL - What did you see was happening? Mr. FOSTER - Saw the president slump over in the car, and his head looked just like it blew up. Mr. BALL - You saw that did you? Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - And what did you do then? Mr. FOSTER - Well, at that time I broke and ran around to my right - to the left - around to the bookstore. It is clear that Officer Foster, who was standing near Sam Holland atop the TU at Z-313, ran to a place in 20 to 30 seconds after Z-313 where he would have seen Ed's alleged scenario play out. Since there was no navigable pathway along the fence because of the blocking cars parked up against the fence, Ed's alleged sniper might have been delayed in his RUN to the steam pipe, in which case Sam Holland running at 60 seconds post Z-313 would then have seen Ed's alleged scenario play out. The distance from Holland's sniper's spot to the steam pipe is 40 yards. Think of running 40 yards, with rifle at port arms, down a pathway that narrowed to one to two feet in width, with a 5 foot fence on your left, which had protruding vertical metal posts protruding from its surface (!), and a row of 2 ft. high car bumpers hemming you in on your right. You would break your legs. I finally got the stream to work on Don's link above. It is a recap of Ed's book Eyewitness. But there was one astonishing addition. Ed says (signs) very precisely & clearly to his interpreter (co-author of Eyewitness, Ron Friedrich) that he (Ed) was interviewed in 1967 by an FBI agent who did not know sign language, but who, at the end of the interview, using pantomime: pointed at Ed, put his fingers to his lips showing a hush sign, pointed to his back (wallet) pocket, showed Ed a hand showing 5 fingers, followed by two fists (the hearing person's sign for 500 as Ed tells it). Ed says that he clearly understood by this pantomime that the FBI agent was bribing him to keep silent about what Ed had just told the FBI agent that he had seen on Nov. 22, 1963. The bribe was $500. Incredible! In more ways than one. There is no joy in Mudville, mighty Casey has struck out. . Miles, 1. You say: "It is clear that Officer Foster, who was standing near Sam Holland atop the TU at Z-313, ran to a place in 20 to 30 seconds after Z-313 where he would have seen Ed's alleged scenario play out." No, it's not clear that Foster ran ANYWHERE in 20 to 30 seconds after Z-313. Please answer the question that has been posed to you several times. I'll ask it again. **Where do you come up with Foster running at 20 to 30 seconds after Z313?** 2. You further say: ". . . in which case Sam Holland running at 60 seconds post Z-313. . . " But Dillard 3 shows Holland watching Tom Atkins running after camera car #1 at about 55-60 seconds post Z313. **Where do you come up with Sam Holland running at 60 seconds post Z-313?** Thanks. Ken Ken, As I have explained to you before several times I do not have available time to do research tasks which are easy to do but which can be time consuming, especially if I have to repeat these tasks for your convenience. You need to do this kind of elementary, housekeeping research on your own. Again, to repeat, you will have to do your own research in future without my help. Mr. BALL - Now, tell me what you saw happen after the President's car passed - turned onto Elm from Houston. Mr. FOSTER - After he came onto Elm I watched the men on the track more than I was him. Then I heard this loud noise, sound like a large firecracker. Kind of dumbfounded at first and then heard the second one. I moved to the banister of the overpass to see what was happening. Then the third explosion, and they were beginning to move around. I ran after I saw what was happening. Mr. BALL - What did you see was happening? Mr. FOSTER - Saw the president slump over in the car, and his head looked just like it blew up. Mr. BALL - You saw that did you? Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - And what did you do then? Mr. FOSTER - Well, at that time I broke and ran around to my right - to the left - around to the bookstore. Gary Mack estimates that the limo arrived at the east side of the TU 10 seconds after Z-313. My own calculations are 8 to 9 seconds. Foster's distance to run from his position at 10 seconds post Z-313 is 19 yards to reach a LOS of Hoffman's tableau at the north end of the TU. (See Photo) Foster would cover this distance in less that 10 seconds. However, if he took a full 10 seconds, then 10 sec. + 10 sec. = 20 sec. I say 20 to 30 sec. to allow for any variation. Sam Holland, according to Gary Mack & other researchers, is seen in Dillard 3 40 to 60 sec. post shooting. Sam was a fast runner as is seen in films of him running to the steam pipe. So, 10 sec. to cover 19 yards. Sam, therefore, could have arrived & would have arrived at Ed's tableau at between 50 to 70 sec. I said 60 sec., as an approximation of the probable. This means that known & identified witnesses could have & would have seen Ed's tableau, in addition to the other spectators ( McVey, KATY RR agent, etc.) already nearby the steam pipe at Z-313. No one saw Ed's tableau or reported seeing it, except Ed, from 225 yards away. Miles, Your 20-30 second theory regarding J.W. Foster continues to be nothing more than pure speculation. No matter how reasonable you may be on the length of time it would take him to go from point A to point B, the fact still remains that the start time for when he left the bridge is to this day unknown but considerably later than the 10 seconds you have assigned it. There are two reasons that it is considerably later, and they come from Foster himself. The only way around this is to question Foster’s reliability, yet you’re using Foster’s own statements to support your 20-30 second theory. The two reasons are: 1. While still on the bridge, he spoke to a police officer who believed shots had been fired from the bridge. Foster advised him that shots had not been fired from the bridge. 2. While still on the bridge, someone then informed him that a man was running up the tracks from the north end of the bridge, meaning the area of the switchbox. The man who told Foster this was probably one of the railroad workers nearby. It was only after #2 that Foster left the bridge. So these two events had to take place before Foster left. Neither had happened by the 10 second mark. The start time must then be much later than 10 seconds. That means your Foster theory as it now stands is in error and should not be relied upon by anyone. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted August 5, 2007 Author Share Posted August 5, 2007 There are two reasons that it is considerably later, and they come from Foster himself. The only way around this is to question Foster's reliability, yet you're using Foster's own statements to support your 20-30 second theory. The two reasons are: 1. While still on the bridge, he spoke to a police officer who believed shots had been fired from the bridge. Foster advised him that shots had not been fired from the bridge. 2. While still on the bridge, someone then informed him that a man was running up the tracks from the north end of the bridge, meaning the area of the switchbox. The man who told Foster this was probably one of the railroad workers nearby. It was only after #2 that Foster left the bridge. So these two events had to take place before Foster left. Neither had happened by the 10 second mark. The start time must then be much later than 10 seconds. That means your Foster theory as it now stands is in error and should not be relied upon by anyone. You may continue, if you wish, to quote discredited information to make your point. Quoting it more frequently does not make it more creditable. You do realize, of course, that Ed was not the only person to have essentially the same vantage point, don't you? That being the case, why did nobody else see this non-event? What about the two parking lot attendants? What about Bowers? ... Speaking of whom, would you care to elucidate the "suit man - plaid shirt man" conversation that is supposedly "confirmed" by Marrs' account of Bowers' testimony in Crossfire, to wit: One man, middle aged, or slightly older, fairly heavyset, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousrs. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket ... They were facing and looking up toward Main and Houston and following the caravan as it came down. How about the point made by Bill Sloan that "Ed read every article and devoured every published detail about the case?" You realize that every bit of "supporting evidence" comes from published sources, all before Ed's "forced" trip to the FBI in June 1967, don't you? Do you really believe that Ed's "friends" at TI really had his best interests at heart and wanted to help him get the story out, or do you believe that they were really doing it out of derision, hence their universal abandonment of him at the crucial moment of being interviewed by the FBI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 5, 2007 Share Posted August 5, 2007 Miles,Your 20-30 second theory regarding J.W. Foster continues to be nothing more than pure speculation. No matter how reasonable you may be on the length of time it would take him to go from point A to point B, the fact still remains that the start time for when he left the bridge is to this day unknown but considerably later than the 10 seconds you have assigned it. There are two reasons that it is considerably later, and they come from Foster himself. The only way around this is to question Foster’s reliability, yet you’re using Foster’s own statements to support your 20-30 second theory. The two reasons are: 1. While still on the bridge, he spoke to a police officer who believed shots had been fired from the bridge. Foster advised him that shots had not been fired from the bridge. 2. While still on the bridge, someone then informed him that a man was running up the tracks from the north end of the bridge, meaning the area of the switchbox. The man who told Foster this was probably one of the railroad workers nearby. It was only after #2 that Foster left the bridge. So these two events had to take place before Foster left. Neither had happened by the 10 second mark. The start time must then be much later than 10 seconds. That means your Foster theory as it now stands is in error and should not be relied upon by anyone. Ken Your 20-30 second theory regarding J.W. Foster continues to be nothing more than pure speculation. That is not correct. No matter how reasonable you may be on the length of time it would take him to go from point A to point B, the fact still remains that the start time for when he left the bridge is to this day unknown It is known. From Foster's testimony. but considerably later than the 10 seconds you have assigned it. Not so. Foster's testimony is clear. There are two reasons that it is considerably later, and they come from Foster himself. The only way around this is to question Foster’s reliability, yet you’re using Foster’s own statements to support your 20-30 second theory. The two reasons are: 1. While still on the bridge, Not so. he spoke to a police officer who believed shots had been fired from the bridge. No. Foster was talking to Haygood as Haygood ran up the knoll. So, Foster says "No" to Haygood in one second & then runs to see Ed's tableau which never happened. Sneed's account of what Foster said 30 years later is bogus. Foster advised him that shots had not been fired from the bridge. 2. While still on the bridge, No. You are misquoting Sneed. Sneed says that Foster said 30 years later that he Foster was at the north end of the bridge, not still on it, when someone told him of a man seen running up the tracks. someone then informed him that a man was running up the tracks from the north end of the bridge, meaning the area of the switchbox. The man who told Foster this was probably one of the railroad workers nearby. No. It was only after #2 that Foster left the bridge. No. So these two events had to take place before Foster left. No. Neither had happened by the 10 second mark. The start time must then be much later than 10 seconds. No. That means your Foster theory as it now stands is in error and should not be relied upon by anyone. Wrong. My statement of the facts should be believed. Your analysis is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 5, 2007 Share Posted August 5, 2007 Miles,Your 20-30 second theory regarding J.W. Foster continues to be nothing more than pure speculation. No matter how reasonable you may be on the length of time it would take him to go from point A to point B, the fact still remains that the start time for when he left the bridge is to this day unknown but considerably later than the 10 seconds you have assigned it. There are two reasons that it is considerably later, and they come from Foster himself. The only way around this is to question Foster’s reliability, yet you’re using Foster’s own statements to support your 20-30 second theory. The two reasons are: 1. While still on the bridge, he spoke to a police officer who believed shots had been fired from the bridge. Foster advised him that shots had not been fired from the bridge. 2. While still on the bridge, someone then informed him that a man was running up the tracks from the north end of the bridge, meaning the area of the switchbox. The man who told Foster this was probably one of the railroad workers nearby. It was only after #2 that Foster left the bridge. So these two events had to take place before Foster left. Neither had happened by the 10 second mark. The start time must then be much later than 10 seconds. That means your Foster theory as it now stands is in error and should not be relied upon by anyone. Ken Your 20-30 second theory regarding J.W. Foster continues to be nothing more than pure speculation. That is not correct. No matter how reasonable you may be on the length of time it would take him to go from point A to point B, the fact still remains that the start time for when he left the bridge is to this day unknown It is known. From Foster's testimony. but considerably later than the 10 seconds you have assigned it. Not so. Foster's testimony is clear. There are two reasons that it is considerably later, and they come from Foster himself. The only way around this is to question Foster’s reliability, yet you’re using Foster’s own statements to support your 20-30 second theory. The two reasons are: 1. While still on the bridge, Not so. he spoke to a police officer who believed shots had been fired from the bridge. No. Foster was talking to Haygood as Haygood ran up the knoll. So, Foster says "No" to Haygood in one second & then runs to see Ed's tableau which never happened. Sneed's account of what Foster said 30 years later is bogus. Foster advised him that shots had not been fired from the bridge. 2. While still on the bridge, No. You are misquoting Sneed. Sneed says that Foster said 30 years later that he Foster was at the north end of the bridge, not still on it, when someone told him of a man seen running up the tracks. someone then informed him that a man was running up the tracks from the north end of the bridge, meaning the area of the switchbox. The man who told Foster this was probably one of the railroad workers nearby. No. It was only after #2 that Foster left the bridge. No. So these two events had to take place before Foster left. No. Neither had happened by the 10 second mark. The start time must then be much later than 10 seconds. No. That means your Foster theory as it now stands is in error and should not be relied upon by anyone. Wrong. My statement of the facts should be believed. Your analysis is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 5, 2007 Share Posted August 5, 2007 (edited) No, no indeed, because my proof of the invalidity of Ed's alleged story is set out irrefutably in the "Weitzman Report" which you have promised to produce, but which you have persistently failed to produce because, obviously, it does not exist & never did exist. These repeated misstatements of fact on your part seriously compromise your position as a believable commentator. Strange. Common Miles - you must be joking. I'm in the mountains of British Columbia for the summer and 26 Volume sets of the WC are hard to come by in the forest. But rest assured about one thing .... If I look up the report that I am thinking about and I find that I stated something in error - it will only have happened up to that point. There will be no constant and consistent misstating that point as if to sell my position to those who may not know the case well enough to know any better. So we are clear here ... there is a difference in stating something in error until proven wrong Vs. stating something in error after you know what you are saying is erroneous. In the latter - one is purposely posting misinformation and I'd rather admit I made a mistake rather than to be labeled someone who knowingly misstates the facts .... which must make you feel terrible. BTW, how are you coming on validating what you claim about Foster's dash off the underpass with the photographic record? Bill Miller . Edited August 5, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 5, 2007 Share Posted August 5, 2007 You do realize, of course, that Ed was not the only person to have essentially the same vantage point, don't you? That being the case, why did nobody else see this non-event? What about the two parking lot attendants? What about Bowers? Duke, have you not read Bower's testimony? Bowers said that he lost track of the man in dark clothing because he got busy with his work. I personally do not believe that Bowers didn't keep an eye on what happened in front of him because of the magnitude of what just happened, but for what ever reason it was - he said he lost track of the man. Wouldn't it be nice to interview the guy who flashed the fake SS badge ... maybe he saw Ed's guy - you think! Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Rheberg Posted August 5, 2007 Share Posted August 5, 2007 There are two reasons that it is considerably later, and they come from Foster himself. The only way around this is to question Foster's reliability, yet you're using Foster's own statements to support your 20-30 second theory. The two reasons are: 1. While still on the bridge, he spoke to a police officer who believed shots had been fired from the bridge. Foster advised him that shots had not been fired from the bridge. 2. While still on the bridge, someone then informed him that a man was running up the tracks from the north end of the bridge, meaning the area of the switchbox. The man who told Foster this was probably one of the railroad workers nearby. It was only after #2 that Foster left the bridge. So these two events had to take place before Foster left. Neither had happened by the 10 second mark. The start time must then be much later than 10 seconds. That means your Foster theory as it now stands is in error and should not be relied upon by anyone. You may continue, if you wish, to quote discredited information to make your point. Quoting it more frequently does not make it more creditable. You do realize, of course, that Ed was not the only person to have essentially the same vantage point, don't you? That being the case, why did nobody else see this non-event? What about the two parking lot attendants? What about Bowers? ... Speaking of whom, would you care to elucidate the "suit man - plaid shirt man" conversation that is supposedly "confirmed" by Marrs' account of Bowers' testimony in Crossfire, to wit: One man, middle aged, or slightly older, fairly heavyset, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousrs. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket ... They were facing and looking up toward Main and Houston and following the caravan as it came down. How about the point made by Bill Sloan that "Ed read every article and devoured every published detail about the case?" You realize that every bit of "supporting evidence" comes from published sources, all before Ed's "forced" trip to the FBI in June 1967, don't you? Do you really believe that Ed's "friends" at TI really had his best interests at heart and wanted to help him get the story out, or do you believe that they were really doing it out of derision, hence their universal abandonment of him at the crucial moment of being interviewed by the FBI? Lee Bowers, Bill Sloan and Ed's friends have nothing to do with my question which has yet to be answered. Miles: Where do you come up with Foster running at 20 to 30 seconds after Z313? Ultimately, it all boils down to this: How do you know when Foster left the bridge? You really don't know. It's all speculation fueled by ignoring/downplaying contradictory information. Ed's story has not been irrefutably proven to be invalid. Not by a longshot. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 5, 2007 Share Posted August 5, 2007 (edited) Lee Bowers, Bill Sloan and Ed's friends have nothing to do with my question which has yet to be answered.Miles: Where do you come up with Foster running at 20 to 30 seconds after Z313? Ultimately, it all boils down to this: How do you know when Foster left the bridge? You really don't know. It's all speculation fueled by ignoring/downplaying contradictory information. Ed's story has not been irrefutably proven to be invalid. Not by a longshot. Ken Ken, In all fairness to Miles ... didn't he say that he hasn't got time to do research ... or was that just an impression I got somewhere along the way ... hmmmmm? Bill Edited August 5, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 5, 2007 Share Posted August 5, 2007 Some here seem to think they can retroactively read the minds of witnesses 45 years after the fact; they assume that others would react the same way they would. In reality, nobody knows, and speculation is not research. For instance suppose on 11-22 you were one of the first people to run (whatever number of seconds it took) behind the picket fence, and there was a man in a police uniform with a rifle...would your reaction be: 1. He is a suspect. 2. He is a policeman stationed there for security. 3. Not to notice him, since he did not seem unusual. Each person might get a different impression if they noticed the man, but my opinion is most people would NOT think he was a suspect...UNLESS THEY OBSERVED HIM DOING SOMETHING SUSPICIOUS. Likewise, if they saw a man in overalls and a railroad cap putting something in a bag IN THE RAIL YARDS, they would NOT think he was a suspect...UNLESS THEY OBSERVED HIM DOING SOMETHING SUSPICIOUS. In a situation like the events of 11-22, reading people's mind retroactively is a fruitless exercise. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Miles,Your 20-30 second theory regarding J.W. Foster continues to be nothing more than pure speculation. No matter how reasonable you may be on the length of time it would take him to go from point A to point B, the fact still remains that the start time for when he left the bridge is to this day unknown but considerably later than the 10 seconds you have assigned it. There are two reasons that it is considerably later, and they come from Foster himself. The only way around this is to question Foster’s reliability, yet you’re using Foster’s own statements to support your 20-30 second theory. The two reasons are: 1. While still on the bridge, he spoke to a police officer who believed shots had been fired from the bridge. Foster advised him that shots had not been fired from the bridge. 2. While still on the bridge, someone then informed him that a man was running up the tracks from the north end of the bridge, meaning the area of the switchbox. The man who told Foster this was probably one of the railroad workers nearby. It was only after #2 that Foster left the bridge. So these two events had to take place before Foster left. Neither had happened by the 10 second mark. The start time must then be much later than 10 seconds. That means your Foster theory as it now stands is in error and should not be relied upon by anyone. Ken Your 20-30 second theory regarding J.W. Foster continues to be nothing more than pure speculation. That is not correct. No matter how reasonable you may be on the length of time it would take him to go from point A to point B, the fact still remains that the start time for when he left the bridge is to this day unknown It is known. From Foster's testimony. but considerably later than the 10 seconds you have assigned it. Not so. Foster's testimony is clear. There are two reasons that it is considerably later, and they come from Foster himself. The only way around this is to question Foster’s reliability, yet you’re using Foster’s own statements to support your 20-30 second theory. The two reasons are: 1. While still on the bridge, Not so. he spoke to a police officer who believed shots had been fired from the bridge. No. Foster was talking to Haygood as Haygood ran up the knoll. So, Foster says "No" to Haygood in one second & then runs to see Ed's tableau which never happened. Sneed's account of what Foster said 30 years later is bogus. Foster advised him that shots had not been fired from the bridge. 2. While still on the bridge, No. You are misquoting Sneed. Sneed says that Foster said 30 years later that he Foster was at the north end of the bridge, not still on it, when someone told him of a man seen running up the tracks. someone then informed him that a man was running up the tracks from the north end of the bridge, meaning the area of the switchbox. The man who told Foster this was probably one of the railroad workers nearby. No. It was only after #2 that Foster left the bridge. No. So these two events had to take place before Foster left. No. Neither had happened by the 10 second mark. The start time must then be much later than 10 seconds. No. That means your Foster theory as it now stands is in error and should not be relied upon by anyone. Wrong. My statement of the facts should be believed. Your analysis is wrong. Addendum: As Duke has said, Sneed's recounting of Foster's taped comments of Foster's recall of 30 year old events has been discredited. One of the forum's foremost pundits has made this cogent remark: QUOTE 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sneed with Foster remembering: "After the shooting, one officer ran up and said that the shots came from the overpass, and I told him they didn't. Then I moved around to the end of the viaduct where somebody said some man had run up the railroad track from that location. So I proceeded up to the yards to check the empty boxcars to see if anybody had run up that way. I was in the yards maybe ten to fifteen minutes looking in the cars, but I didn't find anything. Nor did I see anything suspicious behind the picket fence or see anyone with Secret Service or FBI identification, as some have stated. From there I moved on down to the book store and walked on down to the south side of Elm..." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In 1964 Foster states that he never went to the RR cars. Foster explains why he did not. In 1964 Foster explains each of his movements & also indicates why he made them. The Sneed account has the earmarks of a confusion of memory. Foster's 25 to 30 year recall has probably faltered & invented an interpolation which did not occur. Otherwise Foster lied to the Warren Commission. Now, to suggest the Foster was deliberately lying to the WC in order to hide evidence of an assassin other than Oswald does not make sense, because the WC already had Holland's testimony of the smoke, etc. A tortured stretch. One thing to consider, however, is that Foster in 1964 said that he ran to the north end of the underpass BEFORE the limo entered the underpass. This would place Foster, along with the other spectators who were already there at that time, at the switch box area at 20 to 30 seconds after Z-313. In other words, Foster was joining other spectators nearby the switch box & steam pipe BEFORE Hoffman's scene could possibly have been played out. In other words, Foster would have arrested Ed's sniper's assistant with rifle in hand or Foster would have been shot dead as he encountered Ed's assistant in the act. Thus, if ''someone'' had really seen somebody running up the tracks & if that running somebody really had been Ed's Sniper's assistant, then that "someone" would also have seen Ed's sniper's assistant catch the tossed rifle, disassemble it, bag it & run up the tracks with the bag. Is one to assume that the "someone" who saw somebody running up the tracks ALSO missed seeing everything else Ed's story tells, just as every one of the other spectators nearby the steam pipe & the switch box ALSO missed everything Ed's story tells? Somebody seen running up the tracks at the time in question actually disproves Hoffman's story! Why? Just because only the running man was seen & nothing else. It is possible that someone did see somebody running up the tracks, but on the logic that person must have been seen running up the tracks BEFORE Z-313. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Thus, Sneed's account being discredited on the logic, it is clear that the contemporaneous testimony of Foster must be taken as accurate: Mr. BALL - Now, tell me what you saw happen after the President's car passed - turned onto Elm from Houston. Mr. FOSTER - After he came onto Elm I watched the men on the track more than I was him. Then I heard this loud noise, sound like a large firecracker. Kind of dumbfounded at first and then heard the second one. I moved to the banister of the overpass to see what was happening. Then the third explosion, and they were beginning to move around. I ran after I saw what was happening. Mr. BALL - What did you see was happening? Mr. FOSTER - Saw the president slump over in the car, and his head looked just like it blew up. Mr. BALL - You saw that did you? Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - And what did you do then? Mr. FOSTER - Well, at that time I broke and ran around to my right - to the left - around to the bookstore. Foster began his run BEFORE the limo passed under the TU. 20 to 30 seconds is accurate. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The photographic evidence combined with the reiterated testimony of Sam Holland shows, on the logic, that the cars parked along the picket fence on Nov. 22nd, 1963 at 12:30 PM were parked close up to the picket fence. Thus, there was not an open, navigable pathway down long the fence, adjacent to the fence. Thus, Ed's story, if it implies a quick run along the fence to the steam pipe by an assassin, is invalidated. Consider the absurdity of the implication of insisting that there HAD to be such a pathway along the fence. Hoffman's repeated testimony from various interviews indicates that there were 10 to 12 cars (pickup trucks) parked along the fence. Would everyone of those cars have been parked, for some mysterious, counter intuitive reason, 3 feet away from the fence, thus making a pathway? What? Parking the cars three feet away from the fence BLOCKS the flow lane as seen here (red arrows)! That's why the cars are parked close up to the fence: in order to keep open the flow lane. OTHERWISE, there is gridlock. On this consideration at least some of the cars were parked as close as 18 inches away from the fence. Very probably, some of the cars were as close as 12 inches (or even less!) from the fence. This precludes a pathway for the required run along the fence. (A side note: the morning rain left the ground muddy along the fence (Hoffman). Along the alleged pathway to the steam pipe. Here is the sniper running a muddy, slippery impossibly narrow pathway of 40 yards. A recipe for a pratfall with a rifle at port arms & broken limbs. And a recipe for a bungled assassination. Didn't happen.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Rheberg Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Miles,Your 20-30 second theory regarding J.W. Foster continues to be nothing more than pure speculation. No matter how reasonable you may be on the length of time it would take him to go from point A to point B, the fact still remains that the start time for when he left the bridge is to this day unknown but considerably later than the 10 seconds you have assigned it. There are two reasons that it is considerably later, and they come from Foster himself. The only way around this is to question Foster’s reliability, yet you’re using Foster’s own statements to support your 20-30 second theory. The two reasons are: 1. While still on the bridge, he spoke to a police officer who believed shots had been fired from the bridge. Foster advised him that shots had not been fired from the bridge. 2. While still on the bridge, someone then informed him that a man was running up the tracks from the north end of the bridge, meaning the area of the switchbox. The man who told Foster this was probably one of the railroad workers nearby. It was only after #2 that Foster left the bridge. So these two events had to take place before Foster left. Neither had happened by the 10 second mark. The start time must then be much later than 10 seconds. That means your Foster theory as it now stands is in error and should not be relied upon by anyone. Ken Your 20-30 second theory regarding J.W. Foster continues to be nothing more than pure speculation. That is not correct. No matter how reasonable you may be on the length of time it would take him to go from point A to point B, the fact still remains that the start time for when he left the bridge is to this day unknown It is known. From Foster's testimony. but considerably later than the 10 seconds you have assigned it. Not so. Foster's testimony is clear. There are two reasons that it is considerably later, and they come from Foster himself. The only way around this is to question Foster’s reliability, yet you’re using Foster’s own statements to support your 20-30 second theory. The two reasons are: 1. While still on the bridge, Not so. he spoke to a police officer who believed shots had been fired from the bridge. No. Foster was talking to Haygood as Haygood ran up the knoll. So, Foster says "No" to Haygood in one second & then runs to see Ed's tableau which never happened. Sneed's account of what Foster said 30 years later is bogus. Foster advised him that shots had not been fired from the bridge. 2. While still on the bridge, No. You are misquoting Sneed. Sneed says that Foster said 30 years later that he Foster was at the north end of the bridge, not still on it, when someone told him of a man seen running up the tracks. someone then informed him that a man was running up the tracks from the north end of the bridge, meaning the area of the switchbox. The man who told Foster this was probably one of the railroad workers nearby. No. It was only after #2 that Foster left the bridge. No. So these two events had to take place before Foster left. No. Neither had happened by the 10 second mark. The start time must then be much later than 10 seconds. No. That means your Foster theory as it now stands is in error and should not be relied upon by anyone. Wrong. My statement of the facts should be believed. Your analysis is wrong. Addendum: As Duke has said, Sneed's recounting of Foster's taped comments of Foster's recall of 30 year old events has been discredited. One of the forum's foremost pundits has made this cogent remark: QUOTE 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sneed with Foster remembering: "After the shooting, one officer ran up and said that the shots came from the overpass, and I told him they didn't. Then I moved around to the end of the viaduct where somebody said some man had run up the railroad track from that location. So I proceeded up to the yards to check the empty boxcars to see if anybody had run up that way. I was in the yards maybe ten to fifteen minutes looking in the cars, but I didn't find anything. Nor did I see anything suspicious behind the picket fence or see anyone with Secret Service or FBI identification, as some have stated. From there I moved on down to the book store and walked on down to the south side of Elm..." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In 1964 Foster states that he never went to the RR cars. Foster explains why he did not. In 1964 Foster explains each of his movements & also indicates why he made them. The Sneed account has the earmarks of a confusion of memory. Foster's 25 to 30 year recall has probably faltered & invented an interpolation which did not occur. Otherwise Foster lied to the Warren Commission. Now, to suggest the Foster was deliberately lying to the WC in order to hide evidence of an assassin other than Oswald does not make sense, because the WC already had Holland's testimony of the smoke, etc. A tortured stretch. One thing to consider, however, is that Foster in 1964 said that he ran to the north end of the underpass BEFORE the limo entered the underpass. This would place Foster, along with the other spectators who were already there at that time, at the switch box area at 20 to 30 seconds after Z-313. In other words, Foster was joining other spectators nearby the switch box & steam pipe BEFORE Hoffman's scene could possibly have been played out. In other words, Foster would have arrested Ed's sniper's assistant with rifle in hand or Foster would have been shot dead as he encountered Ed's assistant in the act. Thus, if ''someone'' had really seen somebody running up the tracks & if that running somebody really had been Ed's Sniper's assistant, then that "someone" would also have seen Ed's sniper's assistant catch the tossed rifle, disassemble it, bag it & run up the tracks with the bag. Is one to assume that the "someone" who saw somebody running up the tracks ALSO missed seeing everything else Ed's story tells, just as every one of the other spectators nearby the steam pipe & the switch box ALSO missed everything Ed's story tells? Somebody seen running up the tracks at the time in question actually disproves Hoffman's story! Why? Just because only the running man was seen & nothing else. It is possible that someone did see somebody running up the tracks, but on the logic that person must have been seen running up the tracks BEFORE Z-313. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Thus, Sneed's account being discredited on the logic, it is clear that the contemporaneous testimony of Foster must be taken as accurate: Mr. BALL - Now, tell me what you saw happen after the President's car passed - turned onto Elm from Houston. Mr. FOSTER - After he came onto Elm I watched the men on the track more than I was him. Then I heard this loud noise, sound like a large firecracker. Kind of dumbfounded at first and then heard the second one. I moved to the banister of the overpass to see what was happening. Then the third explosion, and they were beginning to move around. I ran after I saw what was happening. Mr. BALL - What did you see was happening? Mr. FOSTER - Saw the president slump over in the car, and his head looked just like it blew up. Mr. BALL - You saw that did you? Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - And what did you do then? Mr. FOSTER - Well, at that time I broke and ran around to my right - to the left - around to the bookstore. Foster began his run BEFORE the limo passed under the TU. 20 to 30 seconds is accurate. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The photographic evidence combined with the reiterated testimony of Sam Holland shows, on the logic, that the cars parked along the picket fence on Nov. 22nd, 1963 at 12:30 PM were parked close up to the picket fence. Thus, there was not an open, navigable pathway down long the fence, adjacent to the fence. Thus, Ed's story, if it implies a quick run along the fence to the steam pipe by an assassin, is invalidated. Consider the absurdity of the implication of insisting that there HAD to be such a pathway along the fence. Hoffman's repeated testimony from various interviews indicates that there were 10 to 12 cars (pickup trucks) parked along the fence. Would everyone of those cars have been parked, for some mysterious, counter intuitive reason, 3 feet away from the fence, thus making a pathway? What? Parking the cars three feet away from the fence BLOCKS the flow lane as seen here (red arrows)! That's why the cars are parked close up to the fence: in order to keep open the flow lane. OTHERWISE, there is gridlock. On this consideration at least some of the cars were parked as close as 18 inches away from the fence. Very probably, some of the cars were as close as 12 inches (or even less!) from the fence. This precludes a pathway for the required run along the fence. (A side note: the morning rain left the ground muddy along the fence (Hoffman). Along the alleged pathway to the steam pipe. Here is the sniper running a muddy, slippery impossibly narrow pathway of 40 yards. A recipe for a pratfall with a rifle at port arms & broken limbs. And a recipe for a bungled assassination. Didn't happen.) We'll just have to take one of your conclusions at a time. This one is an example of using your misunderstanding of what someone has said as proof to bolster your argument. In this case, I'm talking about the statement of J.W. Foster as told to Larry Sneed. Here's what you quoted from Foster with your original emphasis in bold to make your point: ********* Sneed with Foster remembering: "After the shooting, one officer ran up and said that the shots came from the overpass, and I told him they didn't. Then I moved around to the end of the viaduct where somebody said some man had run up the railroad track from that location. So I proceeded up to the yards to check the empty boxcars to see if anybody had run up that way. I was in the yards maybe ten to fifteen minutes looking in the cars, but I didn't find anything. Nor did I see anything suspicious behind the picket fence or see anyone with Secret Service or FBI identification, as some have stated. From there I moved on down to the book store and walked on down to the south side of Elm..." ********** And here's your response in bold to my point #2 about the above quote you posted regarding a police officer and a railroad worker approaching Foster and the impact of that on the timing of Foster leaving the bridge: 2. While still on the bridge, No. You are misquoting Sneed. Sneed says that Foster said 30 years later that he Foster was at the north end of the bridge, not still on it, when someone told him of a man seen running up the tracks. (Miles' response) someone then informed him that a man was running up the tracks from the north end of the bridge, meaning the area of the switchbox. The man who told Foster this was probably one of the railroad workers nearby. No. (Miles's response) ********** Miles. You say I'm misquoting Sneed. First, we're not talking about Sneed. We're talking about Foster. You go on to say that Foster said he was at the north end of the bridge, not still on it, when someone told him of a man seen running up the tracks. Wrong. Foster did not say he was at the north end of the bridge when someone told him of a man seen running up the tracks. Here's the quote again from Foster: "Then I moved around to the end of the viaduct where somebody said some man had run up the railroad track from that location." "Then I moved. . ." This is when Foster moved. "Then." ". . . around to the end of the viaduct. . ." This is where Foster moved. The north end of the bridge. There was a precipitating event to the move that took place "Then." That event which had to take place first before Foster could say "Then" was ". . . one officer ran up. . ." Already having happened was none other than ". . . where somebody said. . ." Somebody had already said that some man had run up the railroad track. This was probably one of the railroad workers. This happened first. Then an officer ran up. And then and only "Then" did Foster move to the end of the bridge. It was not and could not have been any other way. Are you clear on this now? Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted August 6, 2007 Author Share Posted August 6, 2007 Lee Bowers, Bill Sloan and Ed's friends have nothing to do with my question which has yet to be answered. Ken, Perhaps then, under separate cover, you won't mind answering those questions I'd raised? These were: You do realize, of course, that Ed was not the only person to have essentially the same vantage point, don't you? That being the case, why did nobody else see this non-event? What about the two parking lot attendants? What about Bowers? ... Speaking of whom, would you care to elucidate the "suit man - plaid shirt man" conversation that is supposedly "confirmed" by Marrs' account of Bowers' testimony in Crossfire, to wit: One man, middle aged, or slightly older, fairly heavyset, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousrs. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket ... They were facing and looking up toward Main and Houston and following the caravan as it came down. How about the point made by Bill Sloan that "Ed read every article and devoured every published detail about the case?" You realize that every bit of "supporting evidence" comes from published sources, all before Ed's "forced" trip to the FBI in June 1967, don't you? Do you really believe that Ed's "friends" at TI really had his best interests at heart and wanted to help him get the story out, or do you believe that they were really doing it out of derision, hence their universal abandonment of him at the crucial moment of being interviewed by the FBI? What Foster said in 1964 and sometime in 1987 or after are immaterial. Once something has been shown not to be true, it should be discarded and no longer used to support some silly argument. Who cares how long it took him to get to the end of the overpass, or if he was actually "on" or "off" of it when he supposedly talked to someone? Es machts nichts! Frankly, it doesn't even matter if Foster said that he'd watched the "rifle toss" himself and chased the guy down the railroad tracks, it remains that Ed didn't see it happen, and that's what this is all about, isn't it? Foster cannot "corroborate" something Ed didn't see. Even if Foster saw it, it hardly proves that Ed did. Beware the other foot falling. Meanwhile, can you comment on the above please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 It is known. From Foster's testimony.but considerably later than the 10 seconds you have assigned it. Not so. Foster's testimony is clear. Miles, you have been asked repeatedly if Foster's leaving the underpass during the time frame he said is supported by the photographic record .... why are you not able to answer that simple question? Is it not a thing that a responsible researcher would want to know so to insure that what he post is accurate? I mean, you pulled the same thing with Holland's remarks about immediately running to the RR yard, but it was shown that Holland was in error over his time sequence of the events following the shooting. Now if it your position that as long as a witness said it, then it must be true, then we will apply that kind of thinking to every witness and see where it leads. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 (edited) What Foster said in 1964 and sometime in 1987 or after are immaterial. Once something has been shown not to be true, it should be discarded and no longer used to support some silly argument. Who cares how long it took him to get to the end of the overpass, or if he was actually "on" or "off" of it when he supposedly talked to someone? Es machts nichts! Where was this type of thinking when days were wasted reading post saying how Holland immediately ran off the underpass. I also got to say that it sounds ridiculous when someone tries to use what one witnesses didn't see to prove a point. A handful of witnesses saw a bullet spark off the street - many more witnesses never saw it happen and the reason why is that many of those witnesses who didn't see it happen were probably looking at something else at that moment. An earlier line was drawn in the sand pertaining to what Ed Hoffman could and could not see. Then the LOS was changed because it had been misrepresented at one point. Eventually it was determined that Ed's LOS could have allowed him to see down the fence line. Now Foster is on a different LOS and we are being told that he should have been able to see anything that Ed witnessed ... am I the only one seeing what is wrong with that position?? There was a three car train sitting stationary - did this effect Foster's vision? How about the way the cars were parked between he and the area being discussed??? Has anyone actually gone out and looked at the RR yard from where Foster was positioned???? Any information one way or the other would be helpful. Foster cannot "corroborate" something Ed didn't see. Even if Foster saw it, it hardly proves that Ed did. I think the above quote falls under the 'I won't see it until I believe it' mentality. I mean think about this ... 'If Ed described something that Foster saw as well - it doesn't mean that Ed saw it.' What kind of a position is that to take on anything? On the plus side - it shows just how solid these witnesses are for someone to have to resort to the type of thinking I quoted above. Bill Miller Edited August 7, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 (edited) Email from Duke Lane: How did Ed get past the cops? I only said that I didn't believe the story because of his wide-eyed way of telling it. Facts are facts. I guess you don't like them. Thirteen minutes, my friend, and 17 motorcycle cops. If I didn't know that they existed before, does that mean that they're imaginary? I think not. Deal with it. This story is concluded. It is a matter of record. So sorry. My recommendation is to renege while you can. You also "seem to recall" a "Weitzman report" that you have yet to provide. "Seem to recall" all you want, it ain't gonna make it real. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs." You just plain ol' don't have any. You, sir, seem very much to be a fraud. The only question is "why? The above was an email I had gotten from Duke Lane. The fact that I have stated that I am in the mountains of British Columbia where sets of the 26 volumes are non-existent obviously didn't register with this poor individual who seems to have came off sounding like a lunatic IMO. For the record, I cited a report that I believe I have read and posted on in the past. If I am mistaken, then I will admit it once that is shown. What I do not need is some over emotional individual who thinks they can wow me with such nonsense. In the future, Duke ... make your post to the Ed Forum and save your drama for the select few who enjoy that tabloid type mentality. You jokers who had not even read Hoffman's book had made more misstatements than anyone I had ever seen. At one point I was thinking the Guinness World Record people should be here reading this stuff. I find it pathetic that you are willing to spout such venom over something I cannot defend at the moment because of my circumstances while not once making such remarks about the things you and Miles were misstating over and over. Your remarks tell me that you don't operate on reasoning, but rather on emotion and your email can stand as a testament to that fact. J. McAdams writes: I'm inclined to think that Hoffman was there, since his tale about having a long gun waved at him sounds plausible given what Hickey picked up the AR-15. And Hoffman mentions seeing a cop on the railroad bridge over the Stemmons. The cop was there, and that's not a standard piece of conspiracy lore. Bill Miller Edited August 7, 2007 by Bill Miller 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