Jump to content

Ed Hoffman is incorrect


Recommended Posts

Dear Larry,

Dear Lee, and to all Members...

I agree completely with all that you say in the above message.

In other words, my "X-Crew" may be an optical illusion or, at least, an artefact!

Indeed, the Sprocket Hole Area contain, not only two, but well, THREE images superimposed!

I think you must forgive and forget all the messages exchanges that I had with Mister Bill Miller. It was a longtime ago...

And... There, I rewind!

I may be wrong, I agree!

But till I have a firm certainty, I will continue to seek the truth and to investigate this section of the Zapruder EXTANT film.

I agree that I was wrong concerning ED Hoffman testimony!

If the guys which I saw are real human beings, these are not those that ED Hoffman saw!

For the remaining, It is too soon for firm declarations!

Larry, I am very pleased to have made your acquaintance.

As you noticed, my "Fr-English" is really bad but my eyes are always opened in the right direction.

You must, all, understand one thing!

I always try to be in the center, just between: G. Posner, B. Miller and J. Fetzer, J. White!

It is not always easy!

Meanwhile, and that is not negligible, I published a report on the real localization of Mary Moorman. You should read it attentively; For future experiments which you could make yourself.

The report in English: http://users.skynet.be/copweb/labo/co2/co2.htm

Le rapport en Français: http://users.skynet.be/copweb/labo/co2/co2-fr.htm

Respectfully my Dear Friends...

PS Do not put Marcel Dehaeseleer on fire immediately,... It is really too soon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Marcel - I am glad you attempted to try and duplicate Moorman's photo and it is unfortunate that you could not be there with Rick Janowitz to oversee the job. I was in the Plaza when Bill Miller and Robert Groden did a similar study. You may also recall that Unsolved History duplicated the photo, as well and they nailed it.

Let me make a recommendation and repeat what Miller and Lamson (a photographer by profession) posted about Moorman's photo in the past on other forums. When a camera is pointed on a downward angle - the vertical lines of walls and such will lean to one direction. When the camera is on the horizontal plane those same lines will truly be vertical. When the camera is pointed upward over the horizontal plane - the vertical lines will then lean the opposite direction of what they were when the camera was pointed downward.

Aside from the obvious point Miller raised about Mary's 54" lens height looking well "over" the tops of 58" tall motorcycle windscreens which White and Fetzer failed to see or understand, the vast height difference from being on the grass and then in the street will cause the wall above the knoll to rise and lower against the fence in the background. So one not only needs to have their camera tilted slightly downward as Moorman's was postured when looking at JFK, but they need to have the top of the wall exactly where it is seen against the stockade fence in Mary's photograph. That will only be achieved by being up in the grass at the curb as Mary was if they are using her camera lens height. If one is standing a camera back from the street on a tripod and only a few feet off the ground, the same line of sight (LOS) can be obtained, but it doesn't depict where Moorman stood. One can lay their camera on the ground and move even further up the sloping south pasture and probably find that same LOS and that wouldn't mean Moorman was laying on the ground up in the south pasture somewhere. What one should do is adjust their camera tripod height to 54" and move the camera around until all those things are aligned correctly. Groden and Miller started at the curb where Mary is seen in all the assassination films and it took those two guys about two minutes to get things aligned right.

One other thing - The fence has been moved since the time of the assassination. The details can be obtained through Gary Mack at the 6th floor Museum. It is important to have all these little intracacies worked out when wanting to do such experiments.

I hope the information oofered here has been helpful. Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

I met Ed Hoffman in the summer of 96' at Lancer's offices in Grand Prarrie, Tx. He signed a copy of his book for me and with the help of the office manager at the time {i don't remember his name } Hoffman explained to me what he saw .

To help in his explanation there was a mock-up of Dealy Plaza to scale in the office which Hoffman used to show me his vantage point and the activities he witnessed that day. He was extremely animated in his description and adamant that he was telling the true details as he saw them.

Ofcourse , what he decibed was what was in his book. But I for one , believed him and still do.

Ed Hoffman was there and I wasn't. There is still room for Bowers, and Badgeman, and Constuction Worker Man and many others seen that day as well as weapons tossed, difting smoke, gunpowder smells, mechanic looking agents with dirty fingernails, muddy bumpers, footprints, cigarette butts, reversable coats and other witnessed things.

Because Ed didn't see every single detail that occurred behind the fence that day doesn't mean he was mistaken in what he did focus on in those few seconds.

If we take all the eye witnesses' statements together lines can be drawn from each to center on a point or points.

Let's not hack up the only real evidence we have so badly that all we have left is pieces of a puzzle that can't possibly fit together.

Jim Feemster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hoffman.htm

McAdams would have us believe that Ed Hoffman's story has changed multiple times over time.

... As indeed it has. Ed blames it on other people's "misinterpretation."

... His story as generally accepted and aired on Nigel Turner's "The Guilty Men," has a scenario in which one man in a suit throws a rifle to another man in a railroad worker's uniform, who promptly breaks it down, and the two wander off down the tracks.

This story seems to validate Gary Mack's work with jack White concerning the Badgeman and the Railroad worker, but it doesn't jive well with Lee Bowers, or James Files.

Did Ed see a 'gun' or a 'rifle?'

... Maybe Hoffman has allowed his memory to get the better of him over time, since he's also had the opportunity to be provided with new information ...

Ed's memory has simply "gotten better over time" as new information "corroborates" him and is added to his story as further "proof" of its veracity. Read the linked "Freeway Man" article and feel free to refute any of the evidence that proves Ed saw nothing on November 22, 1963.

At best, I'll allow that Ed was in the traffic jam, or passed it going the other way. "What traffic jam," you ask? Read the story. The real one. Nobody made up the circumstances to refute Ed's story before it even came to light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... As indeed it has. Ed blames it on other people's "misinterpretation."

I have watched Ed and his daughter become frustrated with each other because he was having trouble getting her to understand what it was he was trying to say. The two of them have been signing to each other for a life-time, so it doesn't take but a little hands on observation of being around Ed and his interaction with interpreters to understand how details get twisted and sometimes lost.

At best, I'll allow that Ed was in the traffic jam, or passed it going the other way.

You weren't there, so if you wish to not allow something ... don't allow the assassination to have taken place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please remember that it is a well-known phenomenon that those who suffer the loss of one sense, usually have hightened abilities with the remaining - this would apply even if he needed glasses. It is more a matter of attention and even a greater area of the brain used by the remaining senses.

Good point, Peter. I stood in the RR yard with Ed and looked at the traffic moving along Stemmons Freeway and I could see through the open car and truck windows and tell if it was a man or a woman on the passenger side of the vehicle. I am certain that Ed back then could see better than I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read the forthcoming new book about Ed's experiences, which clears up most

of the disinformation about Ed over the years. The main problem has been with ASL

interpreters who unintentionally misrepresent what Ed tries to explain. There are

few nuances possible in ASL. Finally his story will be accurately told in a forthcoming

book by two dedicated researchers.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read the forthcoming new book about Ed's experiences, which clears up most

of the disinformation about Ed over the years. The main problem has been with ASL

interpreters who unintentionally misrepresent what Ed tries to explain. There are

few nuances possible in ASL. Finally his story will be accurately told in a forthcoming

book by two dedicated researchers.

Jack

Excerpting very briefly from the soon-to-be-published book:

"........Interpreters unfamiliar with the details of Ed’s story often mistranslate plurals for singular.

Most nouns in American Sign Language do not have a distinct plural form. “Man” and “men” are

signed identically. At one meeting where Ed was telling his story, he referred to the police officer

standing by the railroad bridge, the interpreter voiced “policemen” for Ed’s singular “policeman.”

Sometimes translation errors occur when there is a similarity between a standard sign and an

unusual body gesture. For example, Ed described how he wanted to get the attention of the officer

on the railroad bridge, but was frightened by the Secret Service agent pointing the rifle. Ed

demonstrated how he quickly lowered his arms and the interpreter misunderstood and voiced,

“They turned off the light.”........"

Virtually all problems with perceptions of Ed's story relate to unintentional misinterpretations

by well-meaning translators.

Publication of the book will be announced soon.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, can you give the title yet or publisher?

Also, looking for this as well:

On this thread ("Ed Hoffman is incorrect") in post # 17 there is mentioned a "Flier" which may still be in existence. See post below.

Can anyone point to where this "Flier" may still be found? Thx.

post.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read the forthcoming new book about Ed's experiences, which clears up most

of the disinformation about Ed over the years. The main problem has been with ASL

interpreters who unintentionally misrepresent what Ed tries to explain. There are

few nuances possible in ASL. Finally his story will be accurately told in a forthcoming

book by two dedicated researchers.

Jack

Excerpting very briefly from the soon-to-be-published book:

"........Interpreters unfamiliar with the details of Ed's story often mistranslate plurals for singular.

Most nouns in American Sign Language do not have a distinct plural form. "Man" and "men" are

signed identically. At one meeting where Ed was telling his story, he referred to the police officer

standing by the railroad bridge, the interpreter voiced "policemen" for Ed's singular "policeman."

Sometimes translation errors occur when there is a similarity between a standard sign and an

unusual body gesture. For example, Ed described how he wanted to get the attention of the officer

on the railroad bridge, but was frightened by the Secret Service agent pointing the rifle. Ed

demonstrated how he quickly lowered his arms and the interpreter misunderstood and voiced,

"They turned off the light."........"

Virtually all problems with perceptions of Ed's story relate to unintentional misinterpretations

by well-meaning translators.

Publication of the book will be announced soon.

Jack

As someone who has met Hoffman several times in person, I always felt great confidence in his attempt to tell the truth, his intelligence, perceptiveness and a lack of any 'agenda' or seeking of notoriety, etc. i.e. I have always felt his testimony deseerved great consideration. Anyone could make a mistake in what they think they saw. I'm inclined to believe Ed Hoffman - or most of what he claims. I also have seen, when he was signing, for the interpreter to have to ask him what he meant [because the sign was ambiguous or confusing] - and I'm sure there were times when they mis-interpreted, without asking for clarification, without any intention to deceive.

Jack, can you give the title yet or publisher?...of not, keep us notified when you can.

It is not up to me to announce details of the publication. That is up to publisher/author.

I was asked to read the completed manuscript to look for errors. I think I violated no

confidence to excerpt a couple of paragraphs devoted to the gist of this important forthcoming

publication. My understanding is that the book is ready to be published.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J – You ever heard… Have you ever heard the story of Ed Hoffman?

JF – Yes, I’ve heard of him. I don’t know who he is, but I’ve heard of him.

J – He is the deaf guy who was up on Stemmons and he says he saw a guy essentially in your position, but he saw him toss a rifle to somebody else. Have you got any idea …

JF – I never tossed anything to anybody! Never!

J – Okay …

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

Also, I cannot for the life of me, see a man fire a weapon, a rifle, like the man Ed Hoffman said he saw, throw it to someone else, while he runs off. If they catch this other guy with the rifle, what’s keeping him from telling on the one who pulled the trigger? I would never give a weapon to anyone that I had just used, to trust them to get rid of it. That is plain stupid.

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

Do I know Ed Hoffman? No, but I know who he is. I was the only one behind the fence. But there was another man in the railroad yard walking by some boxcars. I kept my eyes on him in case he should become a problem, that I might have to eliminate.

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

As for Ed Hoffman’s statement, I think he got a little confused or tried to add a little extra, kind of dress it up. Then again, maybe he believes he saw it that way. I know there were other people in the railway yard that morning like the “tramps.” Also, one of the boxcars was loaded with explosives. Did you know that? And that they could be detonated by radio or manual control? So who knows who he was really looking at. The only thing he got right was me kneeling down putting the weapon away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/hoffmanview.bmp

There were at least 8 people on the railroad bridge, much closer by. Many of them went around to look what occurred behind the fence (where they saw a puff of smoke from under the large tree). Not to mention those on the lawn south of Elm street, facing the picket fence. None of them saw any of of the activity Hofmann described?

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read the forthcoming new book about Ed's experiences, which clears up most of the disinformation about Ed over the years. The main problem has been with ASL interpreters who unintentionally misrepresent what Ed tries to explain. There are few nuances possible in ASL. Finally his story will be accurately told in a forthcoming book by two dedicated researchers.

Excerpting very briefly from the soon-to-be-published book:

"........Interpreters unfamiliar with the details of Ed's story often mistranslate plurals for singular. Most nouns in American Sign Language do not have a distinct plural form. "Man" and "men" are signed identically. At one meeting where Ed was telling his story, he referred to the police officer standing by the railroad bridge, the interpreter voiced "policemen" for Ed's singular "policeman." Sometimes translation errors occur when there is a similarity between a standard sign and an unusual body gesture. For example, Ed described how he wanted to get the attention of the officer on the railroad bridge, but was frightened by the Secret Service agent pointing the rifle. Ed demonstrated how he quickly lowered his arms and the interpreter misunderstood and voiced, "They turned off the light."........"

Virtually all problems with perceptions of Ed's story relate to unintentional misinterpretations by well-meaning translators. Publication of the book will be announced soon.

Although I'm fairly confident that this will be "explained" in the book (since I know that the authors have seen "Freeway Man"), what one must most wonder are two things:

1) why Ed wanted to get the attention of a "lone" officer on the railroad bridge (there were two) when there were a dozen cops on motorcycles on the highway forming a barricade to hold back traffic for the motorcade's progress - and kept it stopped for no less than 15 minutes and, as I recall, quite a bit longer - yet Ed did not attempt to get any of their attention, but ran by them all and took off in his car; and

2) why all of these officers, involved in the security of the presidential motorcade, would allow a man to run down the highway waving his arms, run directly by them (and not halt, as he was probably ordered to do ... if he was there, which he wasn't), and continue to his car to speed off in apparent pursuit of the motorcade, yet not one of them saw fit to concern themselves with him in the least.

Should we assume that DPD, knowing that the President had just been shot, saw a twenty- or thirty-something year old guy running along the highway and realized that there was no way that he could've had anything to do with the shooting and, when Ed didn't respond to their orders to stop, knew that Ed was just a harmless deaf-mute?

Did Ed perhaps think that the cops on motorcycles were too busy holding traffic to chase after his gunmen, and instead that the cop on top of the railroad bridge had perhaps a little more time on his hands?

The motorcycle cops didn't react to Ed simply because he wasn't there, and Ed didn't try to get their attention because he didn't know - until I researched and wrote "Freeway Man" - that they were even there. Otherwise, they would've been in his story - because they'd had to have been - and Ed would probably have an "investigatory witness" arrest report at DPD just like Ken Wilson did in Fort Worth ... despite his report having "mysteriously disappeared."

Burying his head in the sand doesn't save the ostrich from the lion's assault, and yours won't ever put Ed on the highway.

Virtually all the problems with the story lie with people who are intent on believing it no matter what the facts are, and perpetuating it at any cost, including that of The Truth (our "only client?" Well, I suppose if the WC could ignore it, so can we, eh?). In the end, it's all about "the book," and continuing the conspiracy of commercialism.

After all, some people still would like to believe that Ken Wilson was really David Atlee Phillips (tho' it doesn't seem as if First Hand Knowledge is still in circulation).

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...