Mike Rago Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Lee Bowers did not say the two men were behind the fence. This is how Lee Bowers describes the location of those two men. From the above quote "And one of them, from time to time as he walked back and forth, -uh- disappeared behind a wooden fence which is also slightly to the west of that" I have marked in yellow my interpretation of Lee Bowers description of where these two men were located. I believe this is the correct interpretation of Lee Bowers description. Those two men were in front of the fence. Mark Lane in a subsequent question to Lee Bowers does not refer to the men as being "behind the fence". Edited July 17, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 As you probably know, Mike, I suspect he was describing Hudson and Red Shirt Man (who I suspect was Mudd). Not sure what the yellow circle represents on your image, but the yellow rectangle makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted July 18, 2012 Author Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Lee Bowers could not see the men on the steps from his location. I asked you before but you did not answer...If F. Lee Mudd is Red Shirt Man why didn't he identify himself to the FBI ,during his interview, as the man on the steps? He should have been one of the easiest witnesses to identify , instead he is the hardest. Edited July 18, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Lee Bowers could not see the men on the steps from his location. I asked you before but you did not answer...If F. Lee Mudd is Red Shirt Man why didn't he identify himself to the FBI ,during his interview, as the man on the steps? He should have been one of the easiest witnesses to identify , instead he is the hardest. Have you been to the plaza? You can see Bowers' Tower from the steps, and can see the window through which Bowers was looking from within a few feet of where Hudson was standing in the Moorman photo. Kathy Beckett has posted photos proving this on several occasions. (I was there when she took the photos.) When one re-reads Bowers' testimony and statements to Lane, moreover, one sees that he says the men were between him and Elm, in front of the fence, and that one was middle-aged and heavy-set, wearing white, and the other wore plaid. This is a perfect description of Hudson and Red Shirt Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted July 18, 2012 Author Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) I have been to the plaza and you cannot see Bowers tower from the steps where the 3 men were standing. For completeness, Lee Bowers could not see the so called "Black Dog Man" either. The three men on the steps were not on the grass, they were on the steps. Here is a picture taken by Kathy Becket from the location were the men were standing on the steps. You cannot see Lee Bowers tower. Kathy goes on to say that you have to move to the grass to see the tower... When one re-reads bowers testimony he says the following... He was asked if the men were standing together or separately... Here is what Bowers replied... "They were standing within 10 to 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together as far as I knew" He also says "They were at the top of the incline and were very near two trees that were in the area" Here is where Mark Lane marked the location of the men in his video "Rush To Judgement". Mark Lane describes the location of the men as "around or near the fence" You still have not answered the F, Lee Mudd question. Edited July 18, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) I have been to the plaza and you cannot see Bowers tower from the steps where the 3 men were standing. For completeness, Lee Bowers could not see the so called "Black Dog Man" either. The three men on the steps were not on the grass, they were on the steps. Here is a picture taken by Kathy Becket from the location were the men were standing on the steps. You cannot see Lee Bowers tower. Kathy goes on to say that you have to move to the grass to see the tower... When one re-reads bowers testimony he says the following... He was asked if the men were standing together or separately... Here is what Bowers replied... "They were standing within 10 to 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together as far as I knew" He also says "They were at the top of the incline and were very near two trees that were in the area" Here is where Mark Lane marked the location of the men in his video "Rush To Judgement". Mark Lane describes the location of the men as "around or near the fence" You still have not answered the F, Lee Mudd question. There's no reason to believe Hudson and Red Shirt Man stood in that exact spot in the minutes leading up to the shots. Common sense would dictate that they moved around in the general area. Bowers, in fact, says the men he noticed were moving around. Should Hudson and Red Shirt Man have been moving around, they would have been in Bowers' direct line of sight as he looked to Elm Street. It seems perfectly logical, for that matter, seeing as Hudson and Red Shirt Man match Bowers' descriptions of the two men he saw, that they were indeed these men. Or do you think it a coincidence he said the men were dressed in the same manner as Hudson and Red Shirt Man, and told Lane there was no one behind the fence? I mean, are you really pushing that there were two men walking back and forth in Bowers' line of sight, dressed like Hudson and Red Shirt Man, who weren't Hudson and Red Shirt Man? As far as your Mudd question... Mudd was contacted after an article on his viewing the assassination ran in the local paper. (Here is a link to the FBI memo explaining why he was interviewed: http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=760403 The article in which he is called H. Lee Mudd follows.) There's no evidence he was interviewed as part of a search for the identities of the men in the Moorman photo. (There's no evidence the FBI--or Specter, who wrote a memo saying he was going to do so--tried to identify any of the unidentified witnesses in the photos and films.) There's also no evidence Mudd had ever seen the Moorman photo or Muchmore films, or that the local FBI agents interviewing him knew of the Moorman photo or Muchmore films. So your presenting that he should have identified himself in the Moorman photo, should he really have been one of the men in the photo, has no foundation. Edited July 18, 2012 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted July 18, 2012 Author Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) I mean, are you really pushing that there were two men walking back and forth in Bowers' line of sight... who weren't Hudson and Red Shirt man.? Yes I am saying that Lee Bowers saw TWO additional men that are not accounted for. I can show them to you if you wish. First, there is the man in the left background of this picture inside the pergola. He looks like he is wearing sunglasses. And second, there is this man seen about 15 seconds after the previous picture. Edited November 27, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 It's clear, Mike, that you want to believe what you want to believe, but we'll have to agree to disagree. I've read hundreds of articles on the assassination written between the day of the assassination and the publication of the Warren Report, and very few of them mention the Moorman photo. I don't recall even one of these, for that matter, asking that the men in the photo come forward and identify themselves, etc. Numerous photos of the Newman family crouching on the ground were published and broadcast n the days and months after the shooting, and I don't recall even one in which they were identified by name. The media, by and large, lost interest in the eyewitnesses once the police identified a suspect. They just didn't care. They had what they wanted: a commie symp with a pretty wife and a nutty mother--stories galore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted July 18, 2012 Author Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) If Mudd was Red Shirt Man he knew he was in the Moorman photo and he would have identified himself , as such , in the FBI interview, just like Emmett Hudson tried to do in his Warren Commission Testimony. Edited August 3, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Was Mudd a doctor? I recall something about a Dr. Mudd who helped someone who was wounded. Was it the dead Secret Service agent, before that was covered up? This is all so confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Newell Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Well Ron..Mary Surratt--Mary Lincoln--Mary Morman---Mary mother of.....What's that you say about coincidences Ron?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Skeen Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Has anyone determined the credibility of Lee's brother's story that Lee disappeared for a couple of days to reappear missing a finger and acting oddly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Has anyone determined the credibility of Lee's brother's story that Lee disappeared for a couple of days to reappear missing a finger and acting oddly? Wasn't that Stephen King's story about quitting smoking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Skeen Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Has anyone determined the credibility of Lee's brother's story that Lee disappeared for a couple of days to reappear missing a finger and acting oddly? Wasn't that Stephen King's story about quitting smoking? Are you asking for a link or attempting beginner's humor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Skeen Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Thank you for less sensational homework then Rivera. My original post made valid points but was deleted by moderators with subjective agendas...an unavoidable pitfall. I will try to remain mainstream, self absorbed and circular...yes circular meaning not one shred of new evidence has been a breakthrough since the altered Zapruder was released. So we will keep restudying endlessly mired stew hopelessly and eternally moshed by psychotic attention whores, dishonest authorities with a hundred different agendas, and sold out media. 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