Jump to content
The Education Forum
Bill Miller

On the two men Bowers saw ....

Recommended Posts

Just so some people don't get taken in by a select few trying to distort the evidence if the case - let us examine some of the things found at this link http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm) that I believe are in gross error due to a lack of reasoning and logic. You see, it seems that at least one person has been using a reference to the site linked above in an attempt to discredit the Badge Man images and the two are not related in the least, in my opinion.

Misconception:

Bowers has been said to have been talking about the Badge Man and the hard hatted man alleged to be seen in the Moorman photo, but is that really the case? Badge Man was believed to be wearing a police uniform, while the other man wore a construction hat and what looks like a white polo/T-shirt. The men Bowers described wore a white shirt and a plaid shirt or jacket. Neither clothing description Bowers gave when testifying to the Commission matches the clothing attributed to the Badge Man and hard hat man. (see below)

BOWERS: "Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket."

It seems quite obvious to me that if the clothing descriptions do not match, Bowers was not referring to the Badge Man or hard hatted man when talking about the two men he saw during the assassination. (Period!)

At the link below - there was one individual who has gone astray from every other researcher and has said that the two men that Bowers described to the Commission were the men on the steps. The link he refers to for support of this is provided below ...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...0773&st=300

Let's get the story straight ... Bowers spoke of two men - not three. This is the first of several gross errors attributed to the claim that Bowers was talking about the men on the steps. It is also worth noting that the 'high ground' IS NOT the midway point of the stairway leading down to the street.

Another missed point by the poster claiming Bowers was talking about the men on the steps is that the man in the white shirt (something Bowers could not have seen had the man been standing on the steps with his back to the tower) was heavy set. Bowers said, "One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Is there anyone who has ever looked at the man standing next to Hudson on the steps and thought that this man was "heavy set" except for possibly Miles?

Dale Myers writes when talking about Bowers, "Although he doesn't expressly say so, BOWERS seems to be saying that the men are behind the stockade fence, since BOWERS is looking south from the railroad tower and cannot see the grassy incline that leads down to the mouth of the underpass." When Bowers was talking about the area behind the fence - he was obviously talking about the RR yard side of the fence for even the tower has been represented as being behind the fence. When discussing with Gary Mack about how anyone could confuse what Bowers was talking about, Gary replied, "I don't need others to interpret for me what Lee Bowers said vs. what Lee Bowers meant. I can read, and I have also interviewed two people who interviewed him extensively: filmmaker Emile de Antonio and researcher Jones Harris. de Antonio was the producer/director of the film Rush To Judgment. De, as he was called by his friends, told me directly that, without question, the most credible person he and Mark Lane interviewed for their documentary was Lee Bowers. De remembered vividly how Bowers described the events and what he saw before, during and after the assassination. There were two men behind the fence near the east corner. That was one of the main reasons Bowers appeared in the film.

Furthermore, Bowers had worked for years in that railroad tower and he certainly knew which side of the fence was north and which was south. When Bowers said, "Now I could see back, or the South side of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously there was no one there who could have had anything to do with either, as accomplice or anything else, because there was no one there at the moment that the shots were fired," he was clearly saying that there was no one on the south (Elm Street) side of the fence. And he was right - there wasn't! There were two men standing with groundskeeper Emmett Hudson and all three were on the steps a good distance away from the south side of the fence."

And while Miles likes to reference Dale Myers link as to where the men were located that Bowers was talking about seeing - Myers writes, "Once again, BOWERS seems to be indicating that the two men in question were in an area near the west end of the stockade fence." Need I remind everyone that the men Miles is talking about were over the slope of the hill EAST of the fence. This was yet another mistake Miles seems to have made.

Myers goes on to say, "How then, you might ask, could a man disappear behind the fence if BOWERS had a clear, unobstructed view? Answer: The man (and in this case, the men) were on the south side of the stockade fence, between the fence and Elm Street, not crouching on the north side of the fence getting ready to shoot the president." Myers, who is not an alteration believer of the assassination films makes a statement not supported by a single assassination film or photograph. Not one photo or film taken during the assassination shows anyone on the south side of the fence at the top of the slope. Hudson and the two men near him halfway down the stairway were the only witnesses west of the concrete wall on the knoll and one man took off running up the walkway and out of the area during the shooting and before JFK's limo had left the plaza and the other man sat down on the ground next to Emmett Hudson near the tree just west of the stairway. Neither Hudson or the man in the red shirt could have been seen by Lee Bowers at that point.

And if one looks at the view of the overhanging tree foliage from Bowers elevated view 14' into the air, then it seem reasonable that a darker dressed man walking into the corner of the stockade fence would become dificult to see behind the tree foliage.

Bowers said,"The other individual was uh - slighter build and had either a plaid jacket or a plaid shirt on and he - uh - is walking back and forth was in and out of sight, so that I could not state for sure whether he was standing there at the time of the shots or not." This too, tells a careful observer that Bowers is not talking about the men on the steps for none of those men had moved from their position as President Kennedy rounded the corner and rode down Elm Street.

Myers adds an opinion in Bowers statement when Lee said, "Now I could see back or the South side of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired." What Bowers was saying to most everyone else who has ever read his testimony was that he could see over the top of the fence from his elevated view and there was no one standing on the SOUTH side of the fence that could have been an accomplice to the men he saw standing on the RR yard side of the fence.

Myers writes, "Asked if the two men were in the area at the time the motorcycle officer came up the incline, BOWERS said:

BOWERS: "I - as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not say. The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The one in the white shirt, yes; I think he was."" It should be stated that at the time the cycle cop went up the knoll - Hudson and the man in the red shirt were sitting on the ground and out of sight from Bowers field of view, thus Lee could not have been talking about Hudson and/or the man with him.

Myers went on to say this about Gordon Arnold, "he made his way in front of the fence, filmed the motorcade, heard a shot fired from behind the stockade fence go passed his left ear, and crouched in horror as a uniformed policeman (wearing no hat, with dirty hands) emerged from behind the fence shaking and crying (in the 1978 GOLZ version, ARNOLD says it was two different policemen), kicked him, and stole the film from his camera". Myers biased slanted view comes through loud and clear as he misrepresents what Arnold had done and/or said. For instance, Arnold never said he was crouching - that is a spin that Myers gives Gordon's accounting of the event. Arnold never said that a cop stole his film either. Gordon said the officer asked him if he was filming the assassination and when Gordon answered to the affirmative, then the cop asked for the film. Myers' spin seems to try to make Arnold's claim look made up or at least exaggerated, but a closer look shows that to be what Myers has done, not Arnold.

So why the gross misrepresentation of what Lee Bowers was said to have witnessed? Keep in mind that the same poster has asked, "If BM is shooting at JFK, then why does he appear to be shooting at Moorman?" This person (Miles) offers no information of the diversity of how a muzzle flashed is dispersed out the end of a gun barrel. If one goes to the Moorman Polaroid and look at where JFK was in relation to the LOS between Badge Man and Moorman at the time Mary's photograph was taken, they might see that with the distance Badge Man is from the camera that a slight variation in the angle of his gun barrel could make a difference between Badge Man shooting at Moorman or at JFK's head. In fact, the slightest degree of change when talking about distance can make a big difference as to where the shot finally ends up when it has passed its target. Miles offered nothing to the contrary other than his opinion which relies on nothing scientific or geometrical in support of it.

Bill Miller

More information on Bowers comes from Debra Conway. Debra writes, "I interviewed the supervisor for the railroad yard and Bower's boss's superior. He told us that Bowers told him and his direct boss that he did see the two men BEHIND THE FENCE and he thought at least one of them was shooting. He said he didn't go further with it because he was afraid. He didn't want his life threatened or ruined being the main witness against Lee Oswald being the lone shooter.

This information, as Gary Mack stated, has long been known and ignored by those who wish to change Bowers' statements to suit their own theories.

Edited by Bill Miller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This information, as Gary Mack stated, has long been known and ignored by those who wish to change Bowers' statements to suit their own theories.

Just for the record...You can count me out as "One of those"

I believe Bowers story completely. I believe he is the best and most reliable witness for a shooter behind the fence.

Duncan

Duncan,

Here's the demolition of Miller's nonsense.

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman.htm

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm

Pay close attention to the footnotes.

Note Miller has not read the full & complete Lane interview with Bowers which Myers cites.

QED

Photos explain how Bowers could & did see all he reported to Lane:

BowersView2Opt2---3-CROP-Sharp.jpg

BowersView3---1---1-2BIG.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bowers was talking about Hudson & the guy in the red shirt on the steps & he didn't see anyone behind the fence like the extracts from the RTJ transcripts seem to suggest, it does not mean there was no one behind the fence at all.

BOWERS: "Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket."

"One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt,"

If you leave out the reference to dark pants, that's a great discription of Hudson from that distance.

Shame no one asked Bowers if he knew the groundsman.

"Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket."

You think the red shirt of the guy in front of Huson may of resembled a plaid shirt already very common in those days from that distance?

What if he had said a red plaid shirt?

IMHO the two descriptions of clothing do not stretch the imagination at all.

It seems quite obvious to me that if the clothing descriptions do not match, Bowers was not referring to the Badge Man or hard hatted man when talking about the two men he saw during the assassination.

If BM & HHM were really there(& until real high quality tests are made on the resolving power of Mary's camera set-up are made it's a big "if") then I would agree.

I firmly believe there was someone shooting from behind the fence somewhere & he probably had someone with him to assist.

The proposed fact that Bowers did not refer to him or them makes no difference to me, I know he did not see or describe seeing everything that happened at the time of the murder.

It's also going to be a bit hard to prove that the vehicles & shrubbery hid nothing from him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More information on Bowers comes from Debra Conway. Debra writes, "I interviewed the supervisor for the railroad yard and Bower's boss's superior. He told us that Bowers told him and his direct boss that he did see the two men BEHIND THE FENCE and he thought at least one of them was shooting. He said he didn't go further with it because he was afraid. He didn't want his life threatened or ruined being the main witness against Lee Oswald being the lone shooter.

This information, as Gary Mack stated, has long been known and ignored by those who wish to change Bowers' statements to suit their own theories.

That is a reasonable argument that Bowers was scared & did not reveal everything but it is not a fact & Bowers boss saying so years after does not make it one.

People would at least need a transcript of Debra's interview to make their own minds up on whether they could believe this guy or not.

"I once knew a guy who interviewed Marilyn Sitzman & she said she saw a man with a gun running away from the bench area, the young couple was just an invention she said."

If I heard that I may well believe it but it's not anywhere near proof.

People usually need more than hearsay.

Debra's interview may be well worth consideration & I don't doubt the interview took place or the man said what he did, it's just not the final word like you make it out to be sorry.

It would be interesting to read more of the interview obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt,"

If you leave out the reference to dark pants, that's a great discription of Hudson from that distance.

Shame no one asked Bowers if he knew the groundsman.

Alan, you are not telling Miles anything that he hasn't already been made aware of. The audience he is playing to isn't those who can methodically cypher the evidence, but those who he hopes will not see the problems you and others have pointed out so to at least lead them astray. I believe Debra Conway nailed it when she wrote, "This information, as Gary Mack stated, has long been known and ignored by those who wish to change Bowers' statements to suit their own theories." Miles had not a reply on Lancer to offer, however here is makes another attempt to show a photo that does not depict Bowers view as seen on 11/22/63.

"Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket."

You think the red shirt of the guy in front of Huson may of resembled a plaid shirt already very common in those days from that distance?

What if he had said a red plaid shirt?

IMHO the two descriptions of clothing do not stretch the imagination at all.

Miles will have you believe that Bowers could see plaid designs on the man's shirt who was BTW standing directly below Hudson and the other man throughout the assassination. Miles does not question how such an eagle eye could see plaid designs when Hudson and the man next to him who were shoulder to shoulder would have hidden this red shirted man from view. Nor will you see Miles intelligently address how Bowers saw this man at the same location when the cops stormed the RR knoll, yet the photographic record shows the man sitting out of view from Bowers LOS near the Hudson tree immediately after the shooting. (See Towner 3 and the Bond photos)

Bill Miller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is a reasonable argument that Bowers was scared & did not reveal everything but it is not a fact & Bowers boss saying so years after does not make it one.

People would at least need a transcript of Debra's interview to make their own minds up on whether they could believe this guy or not.

"I once knew a guy who interviewed Marilyn Sitzman & she said she saw a man with a gun running away from the bench area, the young couple was just an invention she said."

If I heard that I may well believe it but it's not anywhere near proof.

People usually need more than hearsay.

Mike Brown claimed to have spoken to Bowers brother and what he told Mike supports what Debra posted. And so you know ... I posted Brown's remarks a long time ago and was just made aware of the information Debra posted until only recently.

BTW, it would be interesting to know the name of the man who made the remarks about what Sitzman said. Did you happen to follow-up on it so to be certain it was valid???

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Bowers was talking about Hudson & the guy in the red shirt on the steps & he didn't see anyone behind the fence like the extracts from the RTJ transcripts seem to suggest, it does not mean there was no one behind the fence at all.
BOWERS: "Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket."

"One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt,"

If you leave out the reference to dark pants, that's a great discription of Hudson from that distance.

Shame no one asked Bowers if he knew the groundsman.

"Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket."

You think the red shirt of the guy in front of Huson may of resembled a plaid shirt already very common in those days from that distance?

What if he had said a red plaid shirt?

IMHO the two descriptions of clothing do not stretch the imagination at all.

It seems quite obvious to me that if the clothing descriptions do not match, Bowers was not referring to the Badge Man or hard hatted man when talking about the two men he saw during the assassination.

If BM & HHM were really there(& until real high quality tests are made on the resolving power of Mary's camera set-up are made it's a big "if") then I would agree.

I firmly believe there was someone shooting from behind the fence somewhere & he probably had someone with him to assist.

The proposed fact that Bowers did not refer to him or them makes no difference to me, I know he did not see or describe seeing everything that happened at the time of the murder.

It's also going to be a bit hard to prove that the vehicles & shrubbery hid nothing from him.

Alan,

As for clothing matches see:....NixStairs2.gif

and

NixStairs.gif

Note fairly dark pants & red plaid shirt.

It's also going to be a bit hard to prove that the vehicles & shrubbery hid nothing from him.

Alan,

The reasons that there is a panic on to alter Bowers' testimony are:

1.) For decades very few knew about the Bowers/Lane full & complete interview transcript made for Rush to Judgement, until Myers obtained a copy, discovered that not all of Bowers' descriptions & comments appeared in the RTJ film which everybody DID see & published his findings. Consequently, lesser researchers were hoodwinked into a false idea that Bowers was saying that he had seen possible assassins BEHIND the fence. Researchers gave public lectures based on erroneous data. Very embarrassing.

2.) Bowers' newly revealed true testimony now overthrows Ed Hoffman's story because Ed has his alleged sniper moving all about the parking lot prior to, and after the shooting. Bowers would have seen this movement & would have reported it.

3.) Bowers' newly revealed true testimony now overthrows Badgeman because Bowers could have & would have seen BM in his alleged spot as there was no masking foliage at that spot & would have seen BM move. Bowers was looking, remember, directly into this area at the time in question!

Now, Bowers was NOT focusing on Duncan Man's spot. Thus, DM could have crouched behind a car & after waiting, then mingled with the crowd.

So, I also believe there was a sniper BEHIND the fence. Tyrol Hatman is eliminated because he was shooting directly at the fence & into the fence palings from a distance of a few inches.. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill made a reasonably valid point that the Red Shirt Man would be hidden from Bowers but no one is suggesting that RSM was near the bottom of the steps the whole time.

He & Hudson may of been hanging around nearer the top of the steps in plain sight & only ran down to get a closer look at the parade as it hit Elm Street, we just don't know.

Hudson said one guy was sitting next to him chatting before the parade, the same guy who told him to hit the dirt afterwards he said. That's RSM.

No one knows how long the third man was there either, he may of entered the scene as fast as he left it(I think Miles commented that this man was mentioned by Bowers in the RTJ transcripts running away, if that is true, I would hope Miles could quote the exact phrase Bowers used if he comes across a copy of the transcript again).

Bower's words just like any other witness cannot & should not be taken as a true record of what occured, witnesses statements are very unreliable when it comes to small details, we all know this.

The bottom line is that he could of been talking about Hudson & RSM, it works for me despite the fact that he has Hudson in dark pants or a plaid shirt that wasn't plaid at all(maybe the red color of the shirt reminded him of a plaid shirt he owned?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Note fairly dark pants & red plaid shirt.

Miles,

Bowers has the heavy, older guy in the dark pants(which is inaccurate for Hudson), not the young guy but it's not a big deal to me, it still falls within what we may call a reasonable description under the circumstances.

Also, for accuracy's sake, I don't know any picture or film that shows the red shirt as plaid, the detail is just not there.

1.) For decades very few knew about the Bowers/Lane full & complete interview transcript made for Rush to Judgement, until Myers obtained a copy, discovered that not all of Bowers' descriptions & comments appeared in the RTJ film which everybody DID see & published his findings. Consequently, lesser researchers were hoodwinked into a false idea that Bowers was saying that he had seen possible assassins BEHIND the fence. Researchers gave public lectures based on erroneous data. Very embarrassing.

It still amazes me that someone like Mark Lane would include Bowers in his film at all if what is said in the transcripts is accurate.

If you can't trust Lane to report the full truth who can you trust?

Very saddening I would say.

2.) Bowers' newly revealed true testimony now overthrows Ed Hoffman's story because Ed has his alleged sniper moving all about the parking lot prior to, and after the shooting. Bowers would have seen this movement & would have reported it.

3.) Bowers' newly revealed true testimony now overthrows Badgeman because Bowers could have & would have seen BM in his alleged spot as there was no masking foliage at that spot & would have seen BM move. Bowers was looking, remember, directly into this area at the time in question!

Do know for a fact that the rumours that Bowers was frightened to reveal everything he saw are untrue?

Isn't his death still a little suspicious to you Miles?

Now, Bowers was NOT focusing on Duncan Man's spot. Thus, DM could have crouched behind a car & after waiting, then mingled with the crowd.

So, I also believe there was a sniper BEHIND the fence. Tyrol Hatman is eliminated because he was shooting directly at the fence & into the fence palings from a distance of a few inches..

Surely we have to reason that we still don't know the full truth & there are still many possibilties?

I'm not trying to pick nats out of your post Miles but you refer to Hatman like he was there but not a shooter?

Why didn't Bowers mention him?

My real point is that Bowers testimony cannot be used to rule out anything, IMO he may well of been hinting at something(that part was picked up by Lane & Co) but was reluctant to reveal everything he saw. It happens, people get scared & rightly so, this case was "officially" solved within hours & we really don't know how much of an effort was made by certain people on the scene to quash rumours of anything untoward happening on the GK.

The '66 Thompson photo is not ideal either.

How do we know there wasn't a big white truck blocking Bowers view to the fence corner?

Because he never mentioned it?

Because it's not seen in any photos?

POTP p495 top photo.

Was that there at the time of the murder?

It would certainly block Bowers view if it was but to what?

These arguments are never ending because we lack the full story, we need more reasoning on these topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is a reasonable argument that Bowers was scared & did not reveal everything but it is not a fact & Bowers boss saying so years after does not make it one.

People would at least need a transcript of Debra's interview to make their own minds up on whether they could believe this guy or not.

"I once knew a guy who interviewed Marilyn Sitzman & she said she saw a man with a gun running away from the bench area, the young couple was just an invention she said."

If I heard that I may well believe it but it's not anywhere near proof.

People usually need more than hearsay.

Mike Brown claimed to have spoken to Bowers brother and what he told Mike supports what Debra posted. And so you know ... I posted Brown's remarks a long time ago and was just made aware of the information Debra posted until only recently.

BTW, it would be interesting to know the name of the man who made the remarks about what Sitzman said. Did you happen to follow-up on it so to be certain it was valid???

Bill

I believe what Debra stated & I know full well that neither you or Gary would tell us she said something she didn't.

My problem is that it doesn't come from Bowers directly so it has limited use as evidence.

If Debra recorded the interview in any form it would be nice to see.

Then everyone can at least say "Bower's boss said this", then they can also opinionate as to whether he was telling the truth.

As an example, I've seen Arnold nearly twenty times on TMWKK but I still don't believe him.

If you read what I wrote again about Sitzman BTW, I said "IF".

If I heard that I may well believe it but it's not anywhere near proof.

People usually need more than hearsay.

As for Mike Brown he claims a lot of things doesn't he?

None of which seem to pan out(re. Sitzman & Moorman).

Pardon me for being frank but isn't he just a pan-handler in DP that got some steady employment from Groden?

What true research has he done that can be really scrutinized?

If I'm wrong then I'm wrong but I can't see why you would mention him at all.

Debra's words need confirmation from Debra alone & any records she may of kept from the interview, that should be good enough for anyone since she respected in all corners, not from Mike Brown who makes a living harrasing people in DP(if that is what he does, I don't know for sure).

Off-topic alert!

Does anyone know any true black JFK researcher past or present?

Just curious because I can't think of one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill made a reasonably valid point that the Red Shirt Man would be hidden from Bowers but no one is suggesting that RSM was near the bottom of the steps the whole time.

He & Hudson may of been hanging around nearer the top of the steps in plain sight & only ran down to get a closer look at the parade as it hit Elm Street, we just don't know.

Hudson said one guy was sitting next to him chatting before the parade, the same guy who told him to hit the dirt afterwards he said. That's RSM.

No one knows how long the third man was there either, he may of entered the scene as fast as he left it(I think Miles commented that this man was mentioned by Bowers in the RTJ transcripts running away, if that is true, I would hope Miles could quote the exact phrase Bowers used if he comes across a copy of the transcript again).

Bower's words just like any other witness cannot & should not be taken as a true record of what occured, witnesses statements are very unreliable when it comes to small details, we all know this.

The bottom line is that he could of been talking about Hudson & RSM, it works for me despite the fact that he has Hudson in dark pants or a plaid shirt that wasn't plaid at all(maybe the red color of the shirt reminded him of a plaid shirt he owned?).

_plaid_shirt.jpgPlaid.jpgroycamred.jpg

Royal Robbin Camden Plaid Shirt

Alan,

Bowers observed the two men for a period of time before the shooting. Red Shirt Man was moving.

White Shirt Man can be the man running up the stairs. He appears to have, quoting Bowers, "fairly dark pants."

Nothing in Hudson's WC testimony disallows Bowers account.

Hudson's testimony verifies & corroborates Bowers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for clothing matches see:....NixStairs2.gif[/color]

Miles, other than seeing a red shirt, which I don't recall Bowers ever giving the color of the mans shirt - what film do you have that allows you to see a plaid design? I hope you are not just spreading more horse manure.

Note fairly dark pants & red plaid shirt.

I think you have switched back and forth here ... where did Bowers say that the man in the plaid jacket had on dark pants??

Mr. BOWERS - Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket.

Mr. BALL - Were they standing together or standing separately?

Mr. BOWERS - They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew.

Mr. BALL - In what direction were they facing?

Mr. BOWERS - They were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston, and following the caravan as it came down.

The dark pants on the plaid coated man is something you appear to have invented - not anything Bowers said. Don't you ever feel bad when being caught posting disinformation to the members of this forum??? Why do you do this Miles??? Is it some sort of an attempt to seek attention.????

The reasons that there is a panic on to alter Bowers' testimony are:

1.) For decades very few knew about the Bowers/Lane full & complete interview transcript made for Rush to Judgement, until Myers obtained a copy, discovered that not all of Bowers' descriptions & comments appeared in the RTJ film which everybody DID see & published his findings. Consequently, lesser researchers were hoodwinked into a false idea that Bowers was saying that he had seen possible assassins BEHIND the fence. Researchers gave public lectures based on erroneous data. Very embarrassing.

2.) Bowers' newly revealed true testimony now overthrows Ed Hoffman's story because Ed has his alleged sniper moving all about the parking lot prior to, and after the shooting. Bowers would have seen this movement & would have reported it.

3.) Bowers' newly revealed true testimony now overthrows Badgeman because Bowers could have & would have seen BM in his alleged spot as there was no masking foliage at that spot & would have seen BM move. Bowers was looking, remember, directly into this area at the time in question! [/color]

You just listed three say-nothing responses. Try and be specific by addressing the points posted in the opening post.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing in Hudson's WC testimony disallows Bowers account.

Hudson's testimony verifies & corroborates Bowers.

Really???? Where did Bowers ever say that one of the men was sitting down on the steps with yet a third man named Emmett Hudson??? And please tell us how heavy set that man is who was standing next to Hudson ... you seem to have forgotten to address this point the other times that it was pointed out to you.

Alan writes, " Miles, Bowers has the heavy, older guy in the dark pants (which is inaccurate for Hudson), not the young guy ...

Also, for accuracy's sake, I don't know any picture or film that shows the red shirt as plaid, the detail is just not there."

The only explanation that seems to fit the erroneous things you are posting came from the following statement .... "This information, as Gary Mack stated, has long been known and ignored by those who wish to change Bowers' statements to suit their own theories."

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill made a reasonably valid point that the Red Shirt Man would be hidden from Bowers but no one is suggesting that RSM was near the bottom of the steps the whole time.

He & Hudson may of been hanging around nearer the top of the steps in plain sight & only ran down to get a closer look at the parade as it hit Elm Street, we just don't know.

Hudson said one guy was sitting next to him chatting before the parade, the same guy who told him to hit the dirt afterwards he said. That's RSM.

No one knows how long the third man was there either, he may of entered the scene as fast as he left it(I think Miles commented that this man was mentioned by Bowers in the RTJ transcripts running away, if that is true, I would hope Miles could quote the exact phrase Bowers used if he comes across a copy of the transcript again).

Bower's words just like any other witness cannot & should not be taken as a true record of what occured, witnesses statements are very unreliable when it comes to small details, we all know this.

The bottom line is that he could of been talking about Hudson & RSM, it works for me despite the fact that he has Hudson in dark pants or a plaid shirt that wasn't plaid at all(maybe the red color of the shirt reminded him of a plaid shirt he owned?).

_plaid_shirt.jpgPlaid.jpgroycamred.jpg

Royal Robbin Camden Plaid Shirt

Alan,

Bowers observed the two men for a period of time before the shooting. Red Shirt Man was moving.

White Shirt Man can be the man running up the stairs. He appears to have, quoting Bowers, "fairly dark pants."

Nothing in Hudson's WC testimony disallows Bowers account.

Hudson's testimony verifies & corroborates Bowers.

Alan,

Did you read the WC Hudson Testimony? Just to make sure:

Hudson says he was standing on the stairs just before the the parade when a man in his late twenties met him.

Bowers says he saw a man in his mid-twenties.

So Hudson confirms Bowers.

The Nix photos show a red shirt for this younger man. See above red PLAID shirts. Bowers took the red shirt as a RED plaid. That's consistent with the photos.

Hudson says that he & the young red shirted man sat down on the stairs.

Bowers says the red shirt man moved in & out of sight. If he sat down as Hudson says, then, he (& HUDSON) moved out of sight, just as Bowers said.

So, Hudson confirms Bowers.

Hudson says that when the motorcade turned onto Elm that he & red shirt man stood up.

Bowers says that the red shirt was in & out of sight. Right. So now RSM is back in sight, just as Bowers said!

Hudson confirms Bowers.

When Hudson stood up, so also did the young RSM. Hudson says that:

When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and stood up, me and him both. He was on the left side and I was on the right and so the first shot rung out ...

Since RSM man was on the left of Hudson, he was visible to Bowers.

Hudson confirms Bowers.

At the time of the shooting Hudson says that he & RSM fell down. Right. So, again, RSM (& Hudson) moved out of Bowers' sight, just as Bowers said.

Hudson confirms Bowers.

Bowers says the man in the white shirt remained in sight practically the whole time.

If Hudson was sitting down talking with RSM before the shooting, as Hudson says he was doing, then he would not necessarily have noticed the white shirt man who could have been standing to Hudson's rear on the steps.

Hudson confirms Bowers.

Alan & Duncan,

The evidence of Bowers seeing the white shirt man & the red shirt man on the stairs is cumulative & overwhelming.

BTW, Bowers does not report seeing a GI, Gordon Arnold.

Why?

He was not there, just as is shown by the photographic record.

Wonder why there is a panic on to alter Bowers' testimony?

1.) For decades very few knew about the Bowers/Lane full & complete interview transcript made for Rush to Judgement, until Myers obtained a copy, discovered that not all of Bowers' descriptions & comments appeared in the RTJ film which everybody DID see & published his findings. Consequently, lesser researchers were hoodwinked into a false idea that Bowers was saying that he had seen possible assassins BEHIND the fence. Researchers gave public lectures based on erroneous data. Very embarrassing.

2.) Bowers' newly revealed true testimony now overthrows Ed Hoffman's story because Ed has his alleged sniper moving all about the parking lot prior to, and after the shooting. Bowers would have seen this movement & would have reported it.

3.) Bowers' newly revealed true testimony now overthrows Badgeman because Bowers could have & would have seen BM in his alleged spot as there was no masking foliage at that spot & would have seen BM move. Bowers was looking, remember, directly into this area at the time in question!

:secret

Edited by Miles Scull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×