Jump to content
The Education Forum
Bill Miller

On the two men Bowers saw ....

Recommended Posts

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.

Miles, did you read Hudson's testimony ... because you sound like you are getting information that has strayed from its original source, but then again maybe it is YOU who is the cause of the story getting twisted, which is what I suspect.

If you ever actually do read Hudson's testimony, pay close attention to his first talking about his standing on the steps.

Mr. LIEBELER - Would you tell us to the best of your recollection what you saw and tell us just what happened when the motorcade came along?

Mr. HUDSON - Well, I was standing on those steps that came straight down to Elm there, just above that triple underpass, I was about halfway between the triple underpass and Houston, where the steps are - somewhere near about halfway.

That comment above came when asked where he was when the motorcade passed his location. You have twisted it to mean that Hudson was talking about standing there when the man next to him approached him and that simply is a misrepresentation of the record IMO. Hudson talked like he was already sitting down when the man came up to him as stated below from his testimony ....

Mr. HUDSON - Well there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age about in his late twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to park and he walked up there and he said he finally just taken a place over there in one of them parking lots, and he come on down there and said he worked over there on Industrial and me and him both just sat there first on those steps. When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and stood up, me and him both.

Hudson does not say that they were "standing" there talking to each other, just that the man came up and sat down with Hudson as they both were talking while waiting for the motorcade to arrive.

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.

I am pretty certain that I asked this and you avoided giving a direct response, so I will ask it once again ... Where can it be found that Bowers said that the man in the plaid jacket was wearing a 'RED PLAID" designed shirt or jacket? In fact, when Bowers later spoke about the Plaid coated man still being present when the officer wen up the knoll, Bowers said the darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees while the "WHITE SHIRTED" man was still there. That description by Bowers tells me that the man in the plaid jacket wore a white shirt under it. The man in the Nix film IS NOT wearing a white shirt ... at least one that can be seen.

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

Once again you do not have the facts correct IMO. The man who sat on the steps with Hudson was the same man he said had stood up with him as the limo came down Elm Street. It is also worth noting that Hudson got this man confused with the red shirted man. Hudson was mistaken when he thought the man who had been standing with him had said to get down because someone was shooting. The man who stood next to Hudson had turned and ran up the steps before JFK had passed the base of the steps.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see that shot hit anything - the third shot?

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir. I'll tell you - this young fellow that was sitting there with me - standing there with me at the present time, he says, "lay down, Mister, somebody is shooting the President." He says, "Lay down, lay down." and he kept repeating, "Lay down." so he was already laying down one way on the sidewalk, so I just laid down over on the ground and resting my arm on the ground and when that third shot rung out and when I was close to the ground - you could tell the shot was coming from above and kind of behind.

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.

At no time did Bowers ever mention seeing Hudson.

So, Hudson confirms Bowers.

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

It is the gross error stated above hat makes me suspicious as to the purpose of misstating the facts. Hudson said that the man who was standing next to him during the shooting is the man who sat with him before Kennedy's arrival and is the same man who stood up with him. Hudson never mentioned the red shirted man until he confused him with the man who originally stood next to him when talking about a guy telling him (Hudson) to get down because someone was shooting.

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

I can only recommend that one gets the Muchmore or Nix film and see that the man in the red shirt was down below Hudson's position - not standing next to him.

In speaking with Gary Mack today ... attention was drawn to the image of the red shirted man standing on the steps. The Museum has high resolution scans of this man taken from the original Towner slides and no plaid design can be seen. The book "Four Days" also shows this man in both good prints of the Nix and Muchmore films and they too support the Towner slides which shows this man not to have a plaid designed red shirt on.

And before any further misstating of the evidence is offered, I ask that Miles address another point that has been made several times now - How can anyone justify that the man standing on the steps in the dark pants next to Hudson could be referenced as "heavy set" ??? One can bend and twist the evidence all day long, but they cannot dismiss the fact that both the man in dark pants and the red shirted man were not heavy set individuals. There can be only one reason for someone to ignore this point and the reason was given when this was posted ... "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

I honestly do have trouble reading large blocks of bold text. Anyway,

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."

A couple points.

"The mouth of the underpass". What did Bowers really mean by that?

Did he mean the actual entrance to the underpass like all the old school researchers believed all this time?

Because like they all pointed out, that puts the two men around three quarters of the way along the fence, a long long way from the east corner.

Or did Bowers mean the run up to the entrance of the underpass, like where he could see the actual street as seen in the Thompson photo?

That too could of been considered "the mouth" by Bowers. We don't know do we?

Didn't Lane pin him down on this?

Bill, keep in mind what you said next;

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.

Now read what Gary said again.

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."

Gary knows full well that Bowers could not see the true south side of the fence.

So doesn't it make sense to you that Bowers made a slip there & was talking about the RR side of the fence?

Why would Bowers be dismissing people on the south side that he couldn't see?

I'm just trying to reason nothing else.

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.

Here again we have a conflict of reason.

The last two sentences......

There were two men behind the fence near the east corner. That was one of the main reasons Bowers appeared in the film.

Are those words that from Gary's mouth or from de Antonio's?

It seems as though Gary is saying that De told him those words but that's not the way it really reads.

Anyhow whoever said it has to ignore both the film & the transcript because Bowers said no such thing in either & if he truely did it is a complete mystery as to why that sentence avoided both.

Maybe Bowers asked it to be stricken from the record?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gary knows full well that Bowers could not see the true south side of the fence.

So doesn't it make sense to you that Bowers made a slip there & was talking about the RR side of the fence?

Why would Bowers be dismissing people on the south side that he couldn't see?

I'm just trying to reason nothing else.

Alan, sometimes you should consider calling or emailing someone like Gary Mack and attempt to get clarification as to what he meant by something he has said or has been attributed to him. What Gary referred to was Bowers saying that had anyone been up on the high ground on the south side of the fence - he would have seen them in part above the only 5' tall fence. Bowers said that there was no one there on the south side of the fence that could have been an assassin or an accomplice ... and Lee Bowers was correct as supported by the assassination films and photographs. I hope this additional information has helped you.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Alan, et al.:

I forgot to append the 11/22/63 Affidavit of Hudson & the full Hudson WC testimony.

These must be carefully & closely examined.

Check these against my analysis above as a reference cross. This should eliminate amusingly ridiculous & laughably transparent attempts

to distort & spin Hudson's & Bowers' evidence which evidence on analysis clearly & massively shows that Bowers saw the two men in Hudson's location, exactly as Bowers says he did.

NOT BEHIND THE PICKET FENCE ! :D

VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS

Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Emmett Joseph Hudson, Address 107 South Bishop, Dallas, Texas Age 56 , Phone No. WH 2-2008

Deposes and says:

I am presently employed by the City of Dallas, Texas in the Park Department. I have been so employed for the past 6 years. My position is to take care of the property on the West side of Houston Street between Houston Street and the Tripple [sic] Underpass. I also take care of the fountain in front of the Union Terminal. This day a was sitting on the front steps of the sloping area and about half way down the steps. There was another man sitting there with me. He was sitting on my left and we were both facing the street with our backs to the railroad yards and the brick building. At the same time the President's car was directly in front of us, I heard a shot and I saw the President fall over in the seat. I do not know who this other man was that was sitting beside me. In our conversation he talked about having a hard time finding a place to park. He also talked about working somewhere over on Industrial Blvd. This man said Lay down and we did. I definately [sic] heard 3 shots. The shots that I heard definately [sic] came from behind and above me. When I laid down on the ground I laid on my right side and my view was still toward the street where the President's car had passed. I did look around but I did not see any firearms at all. This shot sounded to me like a high powered rifle.

/s/ Emmett J. Hudson

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963

/s/ C. M. Jones

Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TESTIMONY OF EMMET J. HUDSON

The Testimony of Emmet J. Hudson was taken at 10:40 a.m., on July 22, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Eray Streets, Dalla, Tex, by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Mr. LIEBELER - Would you raise your right hand and take the oath? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. HUDSON - I Do.

Mr. LIEBELER - My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am attorney on the staff of the President's Commission investigating the assassination of President Kennedy.

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - I have been authorized to take your testimony by the Commission pursuant to authority granted to it by Executive Order 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and the joint resolution of Congress No. 137.

Pursuant to the rules of the Commission you are entitled to have an attorney present if you wish, and you are entitled to 3 days' notice of the hearing. I don't think you did get 3 days' notice of it, but since you are here I assume you are willing to go ahead?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Do you want to have an attorney present?

Mr. HUDSON - I don't know that it is necessary - no, is it?

Mr. LIEBELER - No; I don't think it is at all necessary. Most of the witnesses don't have one present. We just have a few questions. Will you state your full name, please?

Mr. HUDSON - Emmett J. Hudson.

Mr. LIEBELER - What is your address?

Mr. HUDSON - 107 South Bishop.

Mr. LIEBELER - It is my understanding that you are employed by the Dallas Park Department and you are the grounds keeper of Dealey Plaza; is that correct?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, Sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Were you the grounds keeper of Dealey Plaza on or about November 22, 1963?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I have been there about 6 years.

Mr. LIEBELER - Would you tell us where you were on November 22, 1963, at around noon, around the time the Presidential motorcade came by?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I was over there next to that T. & P. Railroad yard where the little toolshed was.

Mr. LIEBELER - What was the nearest intersection to where you were?

Mr. HUDSON - Elm.

Mr. LIEBELER - Elm and What?

Mr. HUDSON - Houston.

Mr. LIEBELER - Elm and Houston?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - How far away from the corner of Elm and Houston were you at the time the motorcade came by?

Mr. HUDSON - Oh, I suppose that it's about - the best I can estimate is somewhere about 200 yards, I guess, down Elm and Houston when the motorcade came along - that's about where I was.

Mr. LIEBELER - You were right by where the motorcade came by; is that right?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Would you tell us to the best of your recollection what you saw and tell us just what happened when the motorcade came along?

Mr. HUDSON - Well, I was standing on those steps that came straight down to Elm there, just above that triple underpass, I was about halfway between the tripple underpass and Houston, where the steps are - somewhere near about halfway.

Mr. LIEBELER - I show you a photograph which is No. 18 of Commission Exhibit No. 875. It depicts the street and the triple underpass. Can you show us on that picture, if that picture shows it the place where you were standing?

Mr. HUDSON - Let me see - That's the triple underpass down there - I don't believe this picture gets those steps - yes; it does, too - here they are - I recognize it now - here it is right here.

Mr. LIEBELER - Where are the steps?

Mr. HUDSON - Here they are - right there.

Mr. LIEBELER - It is the series of steps that runs right down the street there?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - Can you show me just where you were standing?

Mr. HUDSON - Well, I was right along - you see, the steps come down the steps for a way and then there is a broad place, oh, I'll say a little wider than this table here on the steps and then some steps and I was standing on this - that would be somewhere around along about there.

Mr. LIEBELER - Let me just mark on that picture the place where you were standing so that we can have that.

Mr. HUDSON - Right along about there.

Mr. LIEBELER - It was right here where I have placed this "X", is that correct?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; right along in there.

Mr. LIEBELER - So, you were standing about where I placed the "X" on photograph No. 18 of Commission Exhibit No. 875. Tell me what you saw - tell me what happened to the best of your recollection.

Mr. HUDSON - Well there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age about in his late twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to park and he walked up there and he said he finally just taken a place over there in one of them parking lots, and he come on down there and said he worked over there on Industrial and me and him both just sat there first on those steps. 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 and, of course, I didn't realize it was a shot, what was taking place right at that present time, and when the second one rung out, the motorcade had done got further on down Elm, and you see, I was trying to get a good look at President Kennedy. I happened to be looking right at him when that bullet hit him - the second shot.

Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that correct?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear.

Mr. LIEBELER - On the right-hand side or the left-hand side?

Mr. HUDSON - Right hand.

Mr. LIEBELER - Can you tell me approximately where the President's car was when you heard what you later figured was the first shot?

Mr. HUDSON - Well, the best I could get right off - I remember it was right about this lightpost right here.

Mr. LIEBELER - You are indicating the first lightpost on the right-hand side of Elm Street?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; coming off Houston, you see, there's a lightpost right there close to Houston Street, right there, just above this little crook right here.

Mr. LIEBELER - That lightpost doesn't show in the picture you have here?

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir; it doesn't show in the picture - it was about, I believe, where the first shot was fired.

Mr. LIEBELER - You think he was by the lightpost in this picture when the first shot was fired?

Mr. HUDSON - Right along there is about where President Kennedy's car was when he was hit - at the time I was looking right at him when the shot struck him, when the bullet struck him.

Mr. LIEBELER - How many shots did you here altogether?

Mr. HUDSON - Three.

Mr. LIEBELER - Three shots?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Are you sure about that?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in the head; is that right?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was.

Mr. LIEBELER - You saw him hit in the head, there wasn't any question in your mind about that, was there?

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - And after you saw him hit in the head, did you here another shot?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see that shot hit anything - the third shot?

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir. I'll tell you - this young fellow that was sitting there with me - standing there with me at the present time, he says, "lay down, Mister, somebody is shooting the President." He says, "Lay down, lay down." and he kept repeating, "Lay down." so he was already laying down one way on the sidewalk, so I just laid down over on the ground and resting my arm on the ground and when that third shot rung out and when I was close to the ground - you could tell the shot was coming from above and kind of behind.

Mr. LIEBELER - How could you tell that?

Mr. HUDSON - Well, just the sound of it.

Mr. LIEBELER - You heard it come from sort of behind the motorcade and then above?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I don't know if you have ever laid down close to the ground, you know, when you heard the reports coming, but it's a whole lot plainer than it is when you are standing up in the air.

Mr. LIEBELER - You were standing down here where we put the "X"?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - You say when the President was hit in the head he was up here by the first lamppost on the right-hand side of the post that shows in the picture?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; right along in here.

Mr. LIEBELER - That's when he got hit in the head?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I think so.

Mr. LIEBELER - Are you sure about that?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir; I am.

Mr. LIEBELER - So you had to look up Elm Street?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I was looking up this way, you see. You see [indicating on photograph], that's the motorcade car right there isn't it?

Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; the picture that we are looking at here is a picture of a renactment of the scene.

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; so right along about even with these steps, pretty close to even with this here, the last shot was fired - somewhere right along in there.

Mr. LIEBELER - You think the last shot was fired and the car was about where it actually is in that picture when the third shot was fired?

Mr. HUDSON - Pretty close to it; yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - But you think the President had already been hit in the head by the time the third shot was fired?

Mr. HUDSON - He had been hit twice, so Parkland Hospital said. He was hit in the neck one time and in the head one time.

Mr. LIEBELER - When the first shot was fired, were you looking at the presidential car then; could you see it then?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it was coming around - it had just got around the corner,you see, from off of Houston Street, making that corner there, come off of Houston onto Elm.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did it look to you like the President was hit by the first shot?

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir; I don't think so - I sure don't.

Mr. LIEBELER - You don't think he got hit by the first shot?

Mr. HUDSON - No.

Mr. LIEBELER - You say it was the second shot that hit him in the head?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - What happened after the President got hit in the head, did you see what he did, what happened in the car?

Mr. HUDSON - He slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy, she climbs over in the seat with him and pulls him over.

Mr. LIEBELER - Pulled him down in the seat?

Mr. HUDSON - Pulled him over in her lap like.

Mr. LIEBELER - If you don't think the Presidentgot hit by the first shot and yoy say he got hit in the head with the second shot -

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - And if we assume that he was shot twice, you would have to say that he was hit by the third shot; isn't that right?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - He was hit again after he got hit in the head?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Do you think that could have been possible when Mrs. Kennedy pulled him over, do you think he could have got hit in the neck after he had been hit in the head?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes sir; I do

Mr. LIEBELER - He was still sitting far enough up in the car he could have been hit?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you watch the President after he got hit in the head like that?

Mr. HUDSON - Well as soon as everybody realized what had happened, you know, everybody went to going up the hill so we did too.

Mr. LIEBELER - So you only saw the President hit once; is that right, sir?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir; I just saw him hit once.

Mr. LIEBELER - That was in the head?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - And you aren't able to say from your own observation when he was hit in the neck?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - If he was hit in the neck.

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Could the car have actually been down here where it is in the photograph No. 18, could it have been that far down Elm Street - this is Elm Street that runs down here - right here - could the car have been that far down Elm Street when the President got hit in the head?

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir; no, sir, it wasn't that far down.

Mr. LIEBELER - Do you see this little pedestal back up here?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - Just above the "X" where you were standing?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see anybody standing up there that you can remember, durring the time the president went by?

Mr. HUDSON - Oh, there was a bunch of people in there, you know, a whole bunch of them - a lot of people in there - a lot of people in here.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you se anybody standing up there taking motion pictures with a movie camera?

Mr. HUDSON - Oh, yes; I seen people up there trying to get - taking pictures.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see a man with a movie picture camera?

Mr. HUDSON - Not in particular, I didn't. It was such an exciting time - now - I did notice a man back over here on this triangle.

Mr. LIEBELER - Standing across Elm Street?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - With a motion picture camera?

Mr. HUDSON - Well he had a camera - I don't know whether it was a motion picture camera or not, but he had a camera.

Mr. LIEBELER - I show you another picture which we will mark as Hudson Exhibit No. 1. I have put my initials on the back of the picture. Would you do that too so we can identify the picture before we start to talk about it, so we don't get confused?

Mr. HUDSON - You mean - put my name?

Mr. LIEBELER - Just your initials.

Mr. HUDSON - [Marked picture as requested.] Is that all right?

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, let's take a look at that picture, Mr. Hudson, and let me ask you if you can see in that picture, where you were standing?

Mr. HUDSON -(no response.)

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, this picture, Hudson Exhibit No. 1, has a sign in it that says "Stemmons Freeway, keep right." doesn't it?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - Can you find that sign on the photograph No. 18 of the Commission Exhibit No. 875? The one that we were talking about before.

Mr. HUDSON - That's right here, I believe - right here.

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, that sign says, "R. L. Thornton Freeway, keep right." Where is the Stemmons Freeway sign in this picture? Can you see it in that picture at all - I can't.

Mr. HUDSON - I can't either - that isn't it - it's farther up this way.

Mr. LIEBELER - That's further back up and it's out of the picture?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - There are two signs in picture No. 18, one says, "R.L. Thornton Freeway, keep right." and the other one says, "Fort worth Turnpike, keep right."

Mr. HUDSON - There were two of them that wasn't too far apart right throught here - them signs was - one was right along in here and the other one was either further up, I guess. It's not in that picture - I don't believe. Now, they have moved some of those signs. They have moved the R.L. Thornton Freeway sign and put up a Stemmons sign.

Mr. LIEBELER - They have? They have moved it?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - That might explain it, because this picture here, No. 18, was taken after the assassination and this one was taken at the time - No. 1.

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it had to be right along in there - those steps have got to come down right along in here, if I see the picture right. Npw, this is Elm right here coming around like this - it comes over here and the steps begin right along up in there somewhere and come on down right here to the sidewalk, right along in there somewhere to where those steps is.

Mr. LIEBELER - So, that you think you were standing somewhere in the back left-hand part

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; this was taken at the present time - it happened - this picture was?

Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; this is an actual picture of the motorcade itself; yes sir. Let me suggest that the pictures are taken from different angles, referring to photograph No. 18 of Commission Exhibit No. 875 - there is a little concrete stand here in the very right-hand side of the picture.

Mr. HUDSON - That's just right along in here.

Mr. LIEBELER - That's right, and that appers in Hudson Exhibit No. 1 immediately to the left of the sign that says, "Stemmons Freeway, keep right." does it not?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; those steps are right along there between that concrete - the end of that concrete wall right there and that elm tree come between them - no, not an elm but that's a live oak tree - that's a live oak tree right there.

Mr. LIEBELER - And that's right off of the end of this concrete embankment there, there's a live oak tree there.

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - Can you see yourself in that picture anywhere, can you mak yourself out?

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir; I can't , unless it is one of these two men right here - I can't tell - if I had that picture that was taken in the Times Herald paper - I can show you myself in it.

Mr. LIEBELER - Which one is that?

Mr. HUDSON - Well, it was in the Times Herald paper the next morning after, I believe, after the assassination, maybe the evening after the assassination.

Mr. LIEBELER - Look at this picture.

Mr. HUDSON - [Examining picture referred to.] I don't know - if that's one of them men myself or not up there.

Mr. LIEBELER - I have shown you Commission Exhibit No. 203 and you are not able to point to yourself in that picture at any place. Actually, Commission Exhibit No, 203 shows a different area.

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir

Mr. LIEBELER - That's a picture from the front of the Texas School Book Depository Building and you wouldn't be in that picture, according to where you placed yourself by looking at Hudson Exhibit No. 1.

Mr. HUDSON - No; I wouldn't be in that at all - I know. If they had that picture that was taken - a fellow was shooting from across Elm up toward those steps here, that showed my picture in it, I believe. Now, I could be one of those men standing right there - I'm not for sure - I wouldn't say for sure that I was one of them or not, but I can't see it well enough to tell.

Mr. LIEBELER - In this picture here you see the car is going down Elm Street, isn't that right, referring to Hudson Exhibit No. 1?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - And it is just about to pass a sign that says, "Stemmons Freeway, keep right." Do you think that the President could have been hit when he was that far back up Elm Street?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - You do think that?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - And you heard another shot after that time?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - Do you think, looking at Hudson Exhibit No. 1, do you think that is about the place where the president got hit in the head, or was it further back up on Elm or was it further down - if so - about where was it?

Mr. HUDSON - That's somewher pretty close.

Mr. LIEBELER - That's pretty close right there?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it's somewhere pretty close.

Mr. LIEBELER - After you heard these three shots and saw the president get hit in the head, you turned around and you ran up on the little knoll there and you got away.

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - While you were standing there, did you ever look toward the railroad tracks there where they went across the triple underpass?

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir; while I was laying there I didn't - I was looking down towards Elm Street.

Mr. LIEBELER - So, you never looked up towards the railroad tracks that went across the underpass?

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - But you are quite sure in your own mind that the shots came from the rear of the President's car and above it; is that correct?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any idea that they might have come from the Texas School Book Depository Building?

Mr. HUDSON - Well, it sounded like it was high, you know, from above and kind of behind like - in other words, to the left.

Mr. LIEBELER - And that would have fit in with the Texas School Book Depository, wouldn't it?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you look up there and see if you could see anybody?

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir; I didn't. I never thought about looking up that way, to tell you the truth about it.

Mr. LIEBELER - You were thinking about getting out of the way after things started?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it was just such an exciting time, you know, a fellow thinks about a million things in one second there at that time.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see anybody standing around there any place with a rifle - on the grassy spot up there near where you were standing or on the overpass or anyplace else?

Mr. HUDSON - I never seen anyone with a gun up there except the patrols.

Mr. LIEBELER - The policemen?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, did you see anything else down there when this all happened that you think we ought to know about that I haven't asked you about?

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir; I don't know of anything.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see Govenor Connally - did you think Governor Connally had been hit?

Mr. HUDSON - Well, sir; I never noticed Governor Connally in the car. The first shot must have struck him and he had done fell over in the car when that happened.

Mr. LIEBELER - So that you didn't even see Governor Connally in the car at all?

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - You didn't see him get hit by any of the shots?

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - You are assuming that maybe he got hit by the first shot and fell down in the car.

Mr. HUDSON - That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER - And you saw the President get hit by what you heard as the second shot?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - How far apart were the shots spaced; do you have any recollection about that, how long did it take for all the shots to be fired and how far apart was one shot from the other?

Mr. HUDSON - Well they was pretty fast and not fast either. It seemed like he had plenty of time to operate his gun plenty well - when the shots were all fired.

Mr. LIEBELER - How much time do you think passed from the time the first shot was fired untill the second shot was fired, can you make any estimate about that?

Mr. HUDSON - Oh, probably 2 minutes.

Mr. LIEBELER - As much as 2 minutes?

Mr. HUDSON - It might not have been that long.

Mr. LIEBELER - But you thought he had plenty of time to get all of the shots off anyway?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you ever do any shooting?

Mr. HUDSON - Well, not no big rifle - I haven't ever done no shooting with no big rifle. I have shot shotguns - .22's and things like that.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did the shots seem evenly spaced or were some of them closer together?

Mr. HUDSON - They seemed pretty well evenly spaced.

Mr. LIEBELER - Evenly spaced; is that it?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did anybody talk toy uou at all about security arrangements prior to the time the motorcade came by, or was that all handled by the police?

Mr. HUDSON - That was all handled by the police.

Mr. LIEBELER - You didn't have anything to do with anything like that?

Mr. HUDSON - That's right - the fact of the business is, I didn't know they had been routed that way.

Mr. LIEBELER - You didn't even know it was going to go buy until they came?

Mr. HUDSON - That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER - Have you been interviewed by the FBI?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Do you remember who talked to you?

Mr. HUDSON - Not by name, I don't; no, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - And did you tell them approximately the same thing you have told me?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; approximately the same thing.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did the Secret Service talk to you, or the Dallas Police Department or the FBI?

Mr. HUDSON - The FBI and I made a deposition over at the courthouse - the same day that the assassination was.

Mr. LIEBELER - That was the Dallas Police Department or the sheriff's office?

Mr. HUDSON - The sheriff's office

Mr. LIEBELER - Okay Mr. Hudson, I want to thank you very much for coming in. I don't have any more questions.

Mr. HUDSON - Well, if it has been any help, I am glad it did.

Mr. LIEBELER - Pardon?

Mr. HUDSON - If it has been any help, I am glad to have come down.

Mr. LIEBELER - I think you have been and we are glad to have you cooperate with us in the way you have. I want to thank you very much on behalf of the Commission.

Mr. HUDSON - All right, good day.

Edited by Miles Scull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Royal Robbin Camden Plaid Shirt

It's almost a perfect match Miles.

As for the Bowers/Hudson clothing match I've been refering to, I forgot one major thing obviously.

When I thought of Hudson I saw him in light coloured clothing.

5499.jpg

In actual fact he was wearing a dark(red?) heavy coat, it looks like a jacket in most images but it wasn't.

hudsoncentraljf7.jpg

That looks like him slightly hunched over in the white pants(searching the ground for clues?) I'm sure.

His white cap shaded from the sun?

So even with the "older, heavy set" reference, the white shirt & dark pants don't match.

It's a little harder for me to believe he was refering to Hudson now but it's not impossible.

Witnesses get mixed up right?

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

RAM is not heavy set but slim & not that much older than RSM judging by how fast he moved.

It's far from a perfect match Miles.

None of it is, we'll just have to make our own minds up on the clothing disparaties & leave at that I guess?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gary knows full well that Bowers could not see the true south side of the fence.

So doesn't it make sense to you that Bowers made a slip there & was talking about the RR side of the fence?

Why would Bowers be dismissing people on the south side that he couldn't see?

I'm just trying to reason nothing else.

Alan, sometimes you should consider calling or emailing someone like Gary Mack and attempt to get clarification as to what he meant by something he has said or has been attributed to him. What Gary referred to was Bowers saying that had anyone been up on the high ground on the south side of the fence - he would have seen them in part above the only 5' tall fence. Bowers said that there was no one there on the south side of the fence that could have been an assassin or an accomplice ... and Lee Bowers was correct as supported by the assassination films and photographs. I hope this additional information has helped you.

Bill

I asked you what you thought, not what Gary meant. I can read too.

Is it possible that Bowers made a slip here since it is not possible for him to see the south side of the fence or anyone standing there?

Talking about assassins or accomplices on the south side of the fence is pretty ridiculous.

You are also forgetting to include the shrubbery which would partcially hide any of these lunatic assassins standing on the south side of the fence from Bowers, but not from everyone else in the plaza.

Bowers knew which way was south but we are all prown to slips of the tounge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I asked you what you thought, not what Gary meant. I can read too.

Is it possible that Bowers made a slip here since it is not possible for him to see the south side of the fence or anyone standing there?

Talking about assassins or accomplices on the south side of the fence is pretty ridiculous.

You are also forgetting to include the shrubbery which would partcially hide any of these lunatic assassins standing on the south side of the fence from Bowers, but not from everyone else in the plaza.

Bowers knew which way was south but we are all prown to slips of the tounge.

Alan, Bowers was interviewed by several people over time and said the same thing over and over, thus I think the slip of the tongue idea doesn't fly. And has been pointed out numerous times ... the shrubs/small trees were only a problem seeing through when seen from a side angle that causes them to bunch up in ones field of view. Bowers had a view of those trees and their spacing much the same as Nix had, but from the RR yard side of the fence.

I hope I have finally made that clear.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Royal Robbin Camden Plaid Shirt

It's almost a perfect match Miles.

As for the Bowers/Hudson clothing match I've been refering to, I forgot one major thing obviously.

When I thought of Hudson I saw him in light coloured clothing.

5499.jpg

In actual fact he was wearing a dark(red?) heavy coat, it looks like a jacket in most images but it wasn't.

hudsoncentraljf7.jpg

That looks like him slightly hunched over in the white pants(searching the ground for clues?) I'm sure.

His white cap shaded from the sun?

So even with the "older, heavy set" reference, the white shirt & dark pants don't match.

It's a little harder for me to believe he was refering to Hudson now but it's not impossible.

Witnesses get mixed up right?

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

RAM is not heavy set but slim & not that much older than RSM judging by how fast he moved.

It's far from a perfect match Miles.

None of it is, we'll just have to make our own minds up on the clothing disparaties & leave at that I guess?

Alan,

Keep this analysis of Bowers' testimony at hand: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm

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,"

"fairly heavy set"

HudsonOnFeet-3-1.jpg

NixStairs2.gif

The photographic evidence is that there is correspondence with Bowers' description.

Verification & confirmation.

''Fairly heavy-set" can mean heavier set COMPARED to the other individual who was of, quoting Bowers, "a slighter build."

This is critical.

Bowers' language is clearly designed to construct a comparison between two individuals.

One is heavy-set; the other slighter.

White shirt man is not described by Bowers as corpulent. NO!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There was little cloaking or masking foliage along the north side of the LONG arm of the fence.

NewmansMAX-2-1Numbers1.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bowers could not see the south side of the picket fence.

He misspoke or his word was not correctly transcribed.

To contend that Bowers could see the south side of the fence?

:dis

Edited by Miles Scull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hudsoncentraljf7.jpg

That looks like him slightly hunched over in the white pants(searching the ground for clues?) I'm sure.

His white cap shaded from the sun?

So even with the "older, heavy set" reference, the white shirt & dark pants don't match.

It's a little harder for me to believe he was refering to Hudson now but it's not impossible.

Witnesses get mixed up right?

The old guy seen in the photograph alleged to possibly be Hudson isn't even close upon a thorough examination. For one thing - the hat is not in shadow, nor is the man himself. The shaded parts of him is the side away from the sun. Even the light pants in shade is still light in color.

Hudson also had long bushy gray hair (see Towner #3 in Groden's book TKOAP ... the man in the photo thought to possibly be Hudson does not have long bushy hair.

The sweater/jacket the man in the RR yard photo is longer than Hudson's, as well.

So the point is - the old guy in the RR yard image is not Emmett Hudson because of the said reasons.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hudsoncentraljf7.jpg

That looks like him slightly hunched over in the white pants(searching the ground for clues?) I'm sure.

His white cap shaded from the sun?

So even with the "older, heavy set" reference, the white shirt & dark pants don't match.

It's a little harder for me to believe he was refering to Hudson now but it's not impossible.

Witnesses get mixed up right?

The old guy seen in the photograph alleged to possibly be Hudson isn't even close upon a thorough examination. For one thing - the hat is not in shadow, nor is the man himself. The shaded parts of him is the side away from the sun. Even the light pants in shade is still light in color.

Hudson also had long bushy gray hair (see Towner #3 in Groden's book TKOAP ... the man in the photo thought to possibly be Hudson does not have long bushy hair.

The sweater/jacket the man in the RR yard photo is longer than Hudson's, as well.

So the point is - the old guy in the RR yard image is not Emmett Hudson because of the said reasons.

Bill

Yeah, it wasn't a slip of the tongue. Yeah, Bowers really meant it.

Bowers really COULD see on the south side.

Yeah, only a midget could hide from Bowers ON THE SOUTH SIDE!

Yeah, Hatman was a midget. Maybe he was really on the south side.

Wait a minute, getting a little confused here. Now what was I saying?

Oh yeah! Bowers had X-ray vision! :dis Yeah, that's it. That's it. Yeah..., Right...maybe not?....................desperation-2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan, Bowers was interviewed by several people over time and said the same thing over and over, thus I think the slip of the tongue idea doesn't fly.

We are specifically talking about Bowers saying there was no one suspicious on the south side of the fence.

You are saying Bowers said this to several researchers.

Gary mentioned Jones Harris but his brief mention in POTP does not cover his Bowers interview & I can find no mention of him elsewhere.

Who else are you refering to?

And has been pointed out numerous times ... the shrubs/small trees were only a problem seeing through when seen from a side angle that causes them to bunch up in ones field of view. Bowers had a view of those trees and their spacing much the same as Nix had, but from the RR yard side of the fence.

Are you joking?

Nix was nowhere near the same height as Hudson in his tower.

Bronson was closer but even his camera would only be, at most, the same height as the top of those carriages in the RR yard.

Imagine this scene from Hughes around 18' higher then you might have some idea of the gap between the fence & the foilage from Bowers POV.

hughesviewis7.png

Non-existant.

The fence is well over 5' on the south facing side btw.

Try 6' plus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Shirt Man can be the man running up the stairs. He appears to have, quoting Bowers, "fairly dark pants."

I guess at this point that there is nothing that should surprise me when it comes to a particular individual who continues to misstate the evidence in what could be seen as an attempt to confuse and/or mislead other researchers. No truer words were ever said when Debra Conway posted 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". Let us see if we cannot find some examples of at least one person on this forum doing just that!

To start with ...

Mr. BALL - Now, were there any people standing on the high side---high ground between your tower and where Elm Street goes down under the underpass toward the mouth of the underpass?

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.

Bowers starts by pinpointing the men's location in relation to his tower and the mouth of the underpass. Bowers doesn't say these men are between he and stairway leading down to Elm Street, which then in turn leads down to the underpass several hundred feet away. Instead, Bowers simply stated that these men were in line with the mouth of the underpass and his tower. For anyone to then manipulate Bowers description by placing these men on the steps has to be one of the most ridiculous misrepresentations concerning the location for the men Bowers spoke of that I have ever seen. The mouth of the underpass and the stairway where Hudson stood are worlds apart to anyone who can read and has even the slightest understanding of the geography of the plaza. In all my years on the JFK assassination forums .... Miles is the first person who I have ever seen get that point so wrong.

But Miles doesn't stop there ..........

Miles goes on to say, "''Fairly heavy-set" can mean heavier set COMPARED to the other individual who was of, quoting Bowers, "a slighter build."

This is critical. Bowers' language is clearly designed to construct a comparison between two individuals."

Bowers never said anything in his remarks to Mr. Ball that could be construed as comparing one man to the other. Instead, Bowers attributes one man's size as being fairly heavy set and the statement reads as though Bowers isn't comparing the man to anyone, but rather just giving a direct description of the man's size - PERIOD! Bowers never said that the one man was heavy set compared to the other man ... that is all Miles doing. To repeat what Conway had posted, "......... those who wish to change Bowers' statements to suit their own theories".

When one goes to the Lane interview of Lee Bowers, Lee mentioned a flash of light or some unusual occurrence happening at the location where the men were. Lee said that this area was immediately sealed off by police. The steps going down the knoll to Elm Street is not what was sealed off by police, but rather the RR yard was sealed off. This is just another point that has escaped Miles.

There was little cloaking or masking foliage along the north side if the LONG arm of the fence.

Once again Miles has used a head on view looking slightly uphill at the fence and the small trees and foliage above it. Looking at the same cluster of trees from where Bowers was stationed in the tower would show something altogether different. This has been pointed out to Miles numerous times now and yet he still tries to show a different LOS when discussing what Bowers would have seen. Again I am reminded as to what Conway posted when she said, "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".

Bowers could not see the south side of the picket fence.

He misspoke or his word was not correctly transcribed.

Bowers never said that he could see to the ground on the south side of the fence. What Bowers did say was that had anyone been standing on the high ground near the fence and on the south side of it - he would have seen them. To say that Bowers could not have seen them is like saying in the Holland interview looking north from across the street that one could not have seen Lane and Sam Holland. That notion is simply wrong and the Holland interview shows that anyone standing at the fence could be seen by someone on the other side of the fence and looking back the other way. Bowers 14' elevated view would even have allowed him an advantage that the camera man didn't have when he saw Lane and Holland over the fence when filming from the south side of Elm Street looking north. How could Miles not understand this??? Maybe the answer lies in what Conway posted when she said, "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".

One more ludicrous thing Miles has said by way of an illustration showing the men on the steps and that is where he tries to say that Bowers could have been mistaken about the man's heavy set size because he (to use Miles words) was 100 yards away. To try and convince the reader that Bowers was talking about the men on the steps (but not Hudson for some odd reason) is to make an excuse for Bowers getting the man's heavy set size wrong because of the vast distance Lee was from these men, but yet Miles wants to say that Bowers could see the furthest man away well enough to see a plaid design ... now that is ludicrous to say the least! And I will say it once again, Gary Mack when looking at the high resolution scans of the ORIGINAL Towner images, has said that there is no visible plaid design to be seen on that man's shirt. So it seems that this doesn't matter to Miles. Instead he will refer to a lesser quality image that still doesn't show a plaid design and tell the forum members that this is the "plaid jacketed" man Bowers spoke about when talking about the two men he saw in direct line with the mouth of the underpass and the tower. One must ask themselves why Miles would still try to push such a claim when so much of his conclusion is based on incorrect or false data? Maybe the answer is somewhere in Conway's statement that read, ""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
Bowers' language is clearly designed to construct a comparison between two individuals.

One is heavy-set; the other slighter.

I agree with you Miles that the guy in a "white shirt" may have been a reference to RAM.

Just as it may of been a reference to someone else entirely.

It's far from straightforward.

I'm happy he was talking about this same area between the wall & fence.

If we could figure out why Bowers never mentioned RAM running away from the scene & into his yard we may be closer to seeing the bigger picture but that is hardly likely now.

There was little cloaking or masking foliage along the north side of the LONG arm of the fence.

NewmansMAX-2-1Numbers1.jpg

Miles.

Okay, you are talking about the north side.

I see your point, the shrubs are leaning southwards & are quite short, hardly likely to hang down the north side.

But go look at the Thompson photo again & notice the pick-up truck.

Turn that around so the cab is near the fence & it's an ideal place to stand, shoot & hide from Bowers.

If you were somehow refering to the BM/HHM/Arnold position then please ignore my response.

You will also notice too how little light is coming through the gap between foilage & fence top.

Bill has questioned whether this was actually lower than Bowers true LOS on the day.

How many people would Thompson see standing on the south side of the fence?

Reason just went out the window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You will also notice too how little light is coming through the gap between foilage & fence top.

Bill has questioned whether this was actually lower than Bowers true LOS on the day.

How many people would Thompson see standing on the south side of the fence?

Reason just went out the window.

Josiah's photo is of such poor quality as seen on the forum that I can't tell much of anything from it. What is important however, is that in real life - Bowers obviously felt that he could have seen if someone was up near the fence when standing on the south side of it. To argue if that is possible is one thing, but there can be no argument IMO as to what Bowers said whether you agree with him or not.

Bill

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

×