Ed Hoffman's Activities and Observations

[Bill Miller]

Duke,

Regarding the apocryphal "Weitzman Report" which Miller claims to exist, but which others question if it ever existed, does this mean that Miller's excuse of being removed from hard copy is invalidated?

Therefore, one can conclude that it does not exist & never has existed. Yes?

I think a similar way of thinking led to people not believing there had been a shipping casket used to transport JFK's body on the evening of the assassination .... that is until many years later someone pointed out a receipt where someone signed off for it.

Bill Miller

[Duke Lane]

The burden of proof, however, is always upon the person who makes the claim to validate it, not on others to disprove it.

Yes, I witnessed that modus-operandi in action when several critics of Ed's story admitted they had not so much as read Ed Hoffman's book before attempting to cite certain things as fact.

Unless someone knows of this report's existence and can provide a citation to it, there's no sense in scouring everything you can lay your hands on to find it and then being told that you've simply looked in the wrong place, you need to keep looking because someone's "sure" it's somewhere, but wants you to do the legwork to (not) find it.

I will keep doing what I can to find it. I know this has come up in the past, thus I have a specific memory of it. Until then you guys can keep busy voicing opinions about other books you haven't read.

I, myself, never voiced an opinion about Ed's book, which I hadn't read; I voiced an opinion about Ed's story, which I was familiar with from three other and very different versions of Ed's story out there (not to mention much more widely circulated) - Crossfire, Breaking the Silence and, of course, The Men Who Killed Kennedy.

One presumes that with Ed telling the story to Marrs, Sloan and Turner - indeed, in the last, actually acting it out himself - one would have the "facts." But we learn in Eye Witness that American Sign Language (ASL) is not really a "standardized" language because you've got to be "qualified" to be able to "interpret" it ... and, unfortunately, none of the previous authors or their help were so qualified.

(I guess one must have a certificate in order to travel to Germany and pass as a native, or even know for certain that he's asking for a beer! But wait! German is a real language, even standardized - replete with idioms even! - very much unlike ASL?)

Thus, Ed's story "never changed," it was merely "misinterpreted" by everyone! English, to Ed, is "like a foreign language" ... sort of like it is to a native German speaker, or German is to an Anglophone, but "different" and not "understandable" like other foreign languages! Makes one wonder how the Chinese ever communicated with anyone when they don't even use the same alphabet ... or any alphabet at all!!

Ed's book, of course, begins by offering the caveat that "there is no proof that he was even present at the scene," and that "the only 'proof' he can show ... is his detailed description of the scene" (italics and quotes in the original). Unfortunately, that "detailed description" offers no proof when he doesn't describe "the scene" even close to accurately at all.

While Marrs and Sloan both offer that Ed's story contains things that "he couldn't have known if he wasn't there," each and every thing that he describes has, in fact, been published. That these facts aren't included in the FBI reports of 1967 and 1977 are due, of course, to the fact that the FBI wasn't "qualified" and thus "couldn't interpret" what Ed was saying.

And Sloan - whose account Ed's book describes as a "very good description of Hoffman's life and experience" compared to which "none" of the other accounts are "as complete" - tells us that Ed has "read every article and devoured every published detail about the case." Given that Ed's "corroborating details" didn't appear until Crossfire was published in 1985, that leaves an awful lot of "article and published detail about the case" for Ed to have "devoured."

As an example of these, Eye Witness states that Ed's story is "corroborated" by the testimony of Lee Bowers. This relates to a conversation Ed says he witnessed between "suit man" and another man in a plaid shirt prior to the shooting. This detail is revealed in Crossfire, which cites Bowers as saying:

One man, middle aged, or slightly older, fairly heavyset, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. 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.

(Note that "suit man" is missing his jacket in Bowers' decription! Are we even talking about the same man?)

In place of the ellipses there are Bowers' additional testimony (the above are actually Bowers' responses to two separate questions; there was another one in between) which reads that they were "standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together." [6H287] Tell me how giving "no appearance of being together" corroborates them having a "conversation!"

I could add several other things, but the bottom line is that the actual description of "the scene" where Ed was - the only "proof" he has to show, in his own words - has never been published in the "popular press," although it has been on record since 1964. It is thus missing many crucial details that Ed would've known if he was there.

You'll soon enough learn what those were, and if you still believe that Ed was where he said he was and saw what he claimed to have seen ... well, suffice it to say that I'll be surprised. Maybe.

[Tim Gratz]

Oops! Wrong thread.

[Jack White]

The burden of proof, however, is always upon the person who makes the claim to validate it, not on others to disprove it.

Yes, I witnessed that modus-operandi in action when several critics of Ed's story admitted they had not so much as read Ed Hoffman's book before attempting to cite certain things as fact.

Unless someone knows of this report's existence and can provide a citation to it, there's no sense in scouring everything you can lay your hands on to find it and then being told that you've simply looked in the wrong place, you need to keep looking because someone's "sure" it's somewhere, but wants you to do the legwork to (not) find it.

I will keep doing what I can to find it. I know this has come up in the past, thus I have a specific memory of it. Until then you guys can keep busy voicing opinions about other books you haven't read.

I, myself, never voiced an opinion about Ed's book, which I hadn't read; I voiced an opinion about Ed's story, which I was familiar with from three other and very different versions of Ed's story out there (not to mention much more widely circulated) - Crossfire, Breaking the Silence and, of course, The Men Who Killed Kennedy.

One presumes that with Ed telling the story to Marrs, Sloan and Turner - indeed, in the last, actually acting it out himself - one would have the "facts." But we learn in Eye Witness that American Sign Language (ASL) is not really a "standardized" language because you've got to be "qualified" to be able to "interpret" it ... and, unfortunately, none of the previous authors or their help were so qualified.

(I guess one must have a certificate in order to travel to Germany and pass as a native, or even know for certain that he's asking for a beer! But wait! German is a real language, even standardized - replete with idioms even! - very much unlike ASL?)

Thus, Ed's story "never changed," it was merely "misinterpreted" by everyone! English, to Ed, is "like a foreign language" ... sort of like it is to a native German speaker, or German is to an Anglophone, but "different" and not "understandable" like other foreign languages! Makes one wonder how the Chinese ever communicated with anyone when they don't even use the same alphabet ... or any alphabet at all!!

Ed's book, of course, begins by offering the caveat that "there is no proof that he was even present at the scene," and that "the only 'proof' he can show ... is his detailed description of the scene" (italics and quotes in the original). Unfortunately, that "detailed description" offers no proof when he doesn't describe "the scene" even close to accurately at all.

While Marrs and Sloan both offer that Ed's story contains things that "he couldn't have known if he wasn't there," each and every thing that he describes has, in fact, been published. That these facts aren't included in the FBI reports of 1967 and 1977 are due, of course, to the fact that the FBI wasn't "qualified" and thus "couldn't interpret" what Ed was saying.

And Sloan - whose account Ed's book describes as a "very good description of Hoffman's life and experience" compared to which "none" of the other accounts are "as complete" - tells us that Ed has "read every article and devoured every published detail about the case." Given that Ed's "corroborating details" didn't appear until Crossfire was published in 1985, that leaves an awful lot of "article and published detail about the case" for Ed to have "devoured."

As an example of these, Eye Witness states that Ed's story is "corroborated" by the testimony of Lee Bowers. This relates to a conversation Ed says he witnessed between "suit man" and another man in a plaid shirt prior to the shooting. This detail is revealed in Crossfire, which cites Bowers as saying:

One man, middle aged, or slightly older, fairly heavyset, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. 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.

(Note that "suit man" is missing his jacket in Bowers' decription! Are we even talking about the same man?)

In place of the ellipses there are Bowers' additional testimony (the above are actually Bowers' responses to two separate questions; there was another one in between) which reads that they were "standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together." [6H287] Tell me how giving "no appearance of being together" corroborates them having a "conversation!"

I could add several other things, but the bottom line is that the actual description of "the scene" where Ed was - the only "proof" he has to show, in his own words - has never been published in the "popular press," although it has been on record since 1964. It is thus missing many crucial details that Ed would've known if he was there.

You'll soon enough learn what those were, and if you still believe that Ed was where he said he was and saw what he claimed to have seen ... well, suffice it to say that I'll be surprised. Maybe.

Each time I witnessed Ed telling his story, he had a qualified ASL interpreter.

First was a family member, his niece. All other times was his pastor, whose

name I think is Ron Friedrich. I seem to recall also that Ron is a certified

teacher of ASL.

Jack

[Miles Scull]

Each time I witnessed Ed telling his story, he had a qualified ASL interpreter.

First was a family member, his niece. All other times was his pastor, whose

name I think is Ron Friedrich. I seem to recall also that Ron is a certified

teacher of ASL.

Jack

Right.

This why I have complete confidence in Ron Friedrich's faithful & accurate translation of Ed's sign language on this nationally syndicated Internet show:

JFK Assassination

Glen interviews witness Ed Hoffman.

Series: Over the Shoulder

Episode: JFK Assassination

Produced: November 29, 1999 at 22:00:00

Viewing options

Play RealMedia format (28m 26s; for broadband users)

Producer: Glen Lynch

At the end of this taped show ( http://www.freespeech.org/videodb/index.ph...88&browse=0 ) Ed makes an incredible invention.

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 his interview with Ed, using pantomime did these four things in this sequence:

1.) The agent pointed at Ed,

2.) the agent, then, put his fingers to his lips showing to Ed a hush sign,

3.) the agent, then, pointed to his back (wallet) pocket so that Ed could see him so point,

4.) the agent, then, showed Ed a hand showing 5 fingers, followed by two fists (the hearing person's sign for 500 as Ed explains).

Ed, then, goes on to state 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: what he had seen on Nov. 22, 1963. The bribe Ed states was $500 from this FBI agent.

Of course, none of this ever happened.

Why? Just a couple obvious reasons:

Because, FBI agents, then as now, are highly trained & highly disciplined. The FBI agent did not know what Ed, a stranger to the agent, was going to reveal to him with any specificity.

An impromptu bride such as Ed describes could easily have become known. For example, Ed could have blown a whistle. Then, as this FBI agent well knew, J. Edgar Hoover, finding this out, would have cut off this agent's legs, off at the knees!

If Ed could make up such a absurdity is this nonsense tale, then what else could he make up?

Edited August 9, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Ed, then, goes on to state 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: what he had seen on Nov. 22, 1963. The bribe Ed states was $500 from this FBI agent.

Of course, none of this ever happened.

Why? Just a couple obvious reasons:

Because, FBI agents, then as now, are highly trained & highly disciplined. The FBI agent did not know what Ed, a stranger to the agent, was going to reveal to him with any specificity.

It seems that several assassination witnesses have blown the whistle on the agents misconduct when it came to their observations. To name just a few are Edna Hartman who told the agents that the furrow in the grass led back to the knoll and yet the agents reported she said the furrow led back to the TSBD. Arnold Rowland tried to tell these highly trained and disciplined individuals that there was a black man on the 6th floor with the man with the gun and the agents told him they were not interested in the other man. David Powers said that when he told the agents that he thought the shots came from the right front - the agents were then reported to try and sway Powers into changing that part of his story. I guess the FBI was only as disciplined as one wishes to believe.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Ed, then, goes on to state 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: what he had seen on Nov. 22, 1963. The bribe Ed states was $500 from this FBI agent.

Of course, none of this ever happened.

Why? Just a couple obvious reasons:

Because, FBI agents, then as now, are highly trained & highly disciplined. The FBI agent did not know what Ed, a stranger to the agent, was going to reveal to him with any specificity.

It seems that several assassination witnesses have blown the whistle on the agents misconduct when it came to their observations. To name just a few are Edna Hartman who told the agents that the furrow in the grass led back to the knoll and yet the agents reported she said the furrow led back to the TSBD. Arnold Rowland tried to tell these highly trained and disciplined individuals that there was a black man on the 6th floor with the man with the gun and the agents told him they were not interested in the other man. David Powers said that when he told the agents that he thought the shots came from the right front - the agents were then reported to try and sway Powers into changing that part of his story. I guess the FBI was only as disciplined as one wishes to believe.

Bill Miller

These instances have nothing what so ever to do with an interview that Ed had with the FBI in 1967. That's 1967.

If you think Ed's story is credible, then you probably also think, which is your right, that proof of the reality of floating Arnold is secreted in the unfindable "Weitzman Report" ! Yes?

I've heard rumours that there is yet come to the forum yet more research analysis which cinches the argument that Ed's rifle toss account could not have occurred. This researcher is now completing his summation.

Please wait. Thx

Edited August 10, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Ken Rheberg]

I believe you can contact Ed Hoffman's pastor and certified ASL translator at:

Ron.E.Fredrich@deaftec.sprint.com

He'd be able, if interested and if politely asked to ask Ed if he wants to participate. Try to be civil....if you can! Whatever else you think of him, Mr. Hoffman is a very decent human being. I also think a truthful one...but you can judge on your own.

For all those who missed it last month (post #97), based on discussions I've had with both Ron Friedrich and Ed's family, due to a combination of old age, diabetes, a head-on auto collision, and congestive heart failure, Ed's condition is so fragile that he is unable to participate in conferences or even discuss the subject anymore. They all stand behind Ed and his story.

Ken

[Duke Lane]

I believe you can contact Ed Hoffman's pastor and certified ASL translator at: Ron.E.Fredrich@deaftec.sprint.com

He'd be able, if interested and if politely asked to ask Ed if he wants to participate. Try to be civil....if you can! Whatever else you think of him, Mr. Hoffman is a very decent human being. I also think a truthful one...but you can judge on your own.

Your comment about my civility is completely uncalled for, unless of course you consider it to be "uncivil" to have an opposing view to your own. Your entire experience with me - which is 100% limited to this board - has been civil (tho' I can't say the same for mine with you); you have no cause whatsoever to think I'd be any different elsewhere.

I have repeatedly said that I have nothing personal against Ed, and that I likewise consider him a kind and gentle man. That doesn't mean that I have to believe his story.

Ron has a vested interest in Ed's story, and I'm sure he's not the only qualified ASL translator in the area. It seems, however, that Ed may not be up to an interview - or so I've heard - so the question is moot.

I have judged the story ... on facts, many or most of which will soon be published for the first time ever ... and they are not 40-year old memories of aging men. Eye Witness tells us that Ed has no proof - emphasis in the original - of having been where he said other than his "detailed description" of the scene.

Crossfire cites a couple of examples of things he "couldn't have known if he wasn't there," particularly there being a cop on the railroad bridge (there were actually two), spectators on the highway (not exactly true, but close enough), and Hickey's AR-15.

But there's more, and that Ed didn't tell us about those things, and they are very significant to his story. They are things that have not been written about ever before, and hence not part of the "assassination lore" - and we must remember that Sloan says (and Eye Witness does not refute, instead calling Breaking the Silence "a very good description of Hoffman's life and experience" compared to which "none" of the other accounts are "as complete" - Eye Witness, 3, 24) that Ed has "read every article and devoured every published detail about the case" and thus he would presumably know "assassination lore."

The details I'm referring to are a lot like the things that cops leave out of murder reports so that only the perp who was actually there would know anything about them. If he had mentioned these - even alluded to them obliquely - I'd say that despite sworn testimony to the contrary, Ed was probably there. But he didn't - and they are absolutely critical to his story - and that proves that he wasn't.

(Tell me: If I showed you a photograph taken from south of where Ed was standing, including the highway and entrance ramp with the limousine on it, and there was no Ed in that photo, would that change your mind? Or would that be the ONLY proof you'd accept? Be honest ... "if you can!")

[Duke Lane]

Are the troops in retreat, or at least regrouping?

[Miles Scull]

Are the troops in retreat, or at least regrouping?

Duke,

Did you know that Ed pantomimed the sniper shooting with the rifle butt to his right shoulder in the video tape documentary "BEYOND JFK" 1992?

And that Ed pantomimed the sniper shooting with the rifle butt to his left shoulder in The Men Who Killed Kennedy 1988?

What does this say about consistency?

Over on the Black Dog thread, Arnold is eliminated as a witness to there being a pathway along the fence line. See the thread.

Holland only verified that there was passage along the fence line only along the 10 feet of the fence in the area of the trampled muddy area & did NOT confirm in any way that the length of the fence down to the steam pipe had a pathway running along next to the fence.

Things are quiet.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Duke Lane]

Duke, Did you know that Ed pantomimed the sniper shooting with the rifle butt to his right shoulder in the video tape documentary "BEYOND JFK" 1992? And that Ed pantomimed the sniper shooting with the rifle butt to his left shoulder in The Men Who Killed Kennedy 1988? What does this say about consistency?

The bigger question might be: what does Ed's ability to pantomime shooting a rifle from either shoulder say about why that little detail about the rifle is not included in any of the FBI reports from '67 and '77?

Is it because:

1. the FBI wasn't and isn't qualified to interpret ASL;
   
2. they never played "shoot-'em-up" as kids;
   
3. they were trying to discredit Ed's story before he'd told it;
   
4. federal agents lie constantly and consistently;
   
5. Ed didn't include it in what he "told" them; or
   
6. none of the above?
   

A few more of these, and I'm going to send the list off to Letterman!

Over on the Black Dog thread, Arnold is eliminated as a witness to there being a pathway along the fence line. See the thread. Holland only varifyied that there was passage along the fence line only along the 10 feet of the fence in the area of the trampled muddy area & did NOT confirm in any way that the length of the fence down to the steam pipe had a pathway running along next to the fence.

Sez who? "CSW"?

[Bill Miller]

I have repeatedly said that I have nothing personal against Ed, and that I likewise consider him a kind and gentle man. That doesn't mean that I have to believe his story.

Ron has a vested interest in Ed's story,

One could think that those who came out critiquing Ed without even bothering to read his book - also had an invested interest.

Bill Miller

[Duke Lane]

I have repeatedly said that I have nothing personal against Ed, and that I likewise consider him a kind and gentle man. That doesn't mean that I have to believe his story.

Ron has a vested interest in Ed's story,

One could think that those who came out critiquing Ed without even bothering to read his book - also had an invested interest.

"Vested." If one knew the meaning of the word, one would not think what you say they might. Exactly the opposite would be true.

There are many, many people who never even knew - and many who still don't - that Ed had ever published anything. It's not as if it's ever been widely publicized or advertised - there's not even anything on the publisher's own forum. I've been to the freeway with Ed, and based on that - and really, anything else - I think most people are entitled to form their own impressions on what input they've got, which is never 100% of everything possible.

I thinketh thou protesteth overmuch. But ... it's all you've got on this one.

[Bill Miller]

There are many, many people who never even knew - and many who still don't - that Ed had ever published anything. It's not as if it's ever been widely publicized or advertised - there's not even anything on the publisher's own forum. I've been to the freeway with Ed, and based on that - and really, anything else - I think most people are entitled to form their own impressions on what input they've got, which is never 100% of everything possible.

You could have been to the mountain top with Martin Luther King - so what? All being on the freeway would tell you was that Ed could have seen into the RR yard just as he claimed he did. In fact, I believe you have already said that much. Hey ... I was just outside and I noticed that the sun feel warm shining down on me ... want to hear me critique the sun based on this revelation? It is like listening to the arm chair researchers talking about some of the variances in Ed's story as told by different interpreters. Ed's daughter has known her father all her life and I got a good taste of what it was like for even her to translate for him. Ed does not have a good understanding of the English language, thus some of his signs in putting sentences together are incorrect. I recall the frustration Ed's daughter had with him over even some of the little things that didn't mean anything. That frustration was also shared by Ed at times as well. Unless someone had this additional information, then they too would be puzzled by his past statements. So many times there is more to a story than whats written on the cover of a book - get my point.

Bill Miller