Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Bill Miller

On the two men Bowers saw ....

Recommended Posts

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

...there can be no argument IMO as to what Bowers said whether you agree with him or not.

If this is the only argument put forward, that Bowers said "south" so he MAY have really meant "south," then there it is.

This is clutching at illusory straws now raised to new heights of sophistry & is tantamount to a confession of having nothing LOGICAL left to say.

Or, to be fair, is this an attempt at researcher's humour? If so, then jolly good: LOL.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this is the only argument put forward, that Bowers said "south" so he MAY have really meant "south," then there it is.

This is clutching at illusory straws now raised to new heights of sophistry & is tantamount to a confession of having nothing LOGICAL left to say.

Or, to be fair, is this an attempt at researcher's humour? If so, then jolly good: LOL.gif

Miles,

Of all the evidence put forth to show that you are in error - the remarks above seems to have been the only reply that you felt that the forum deserved from you. Your game didn't last a day on Lancer, so maybe you find the members of this forum less educated on the geography of the plaza ... so xxxxx on, but I believe that you are only playing to a very limited audience consisting of yourself.

Bill Miller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this is the only argument put forward, that Bowers said "south" so he MAY have really meant "south," then there it is.

This is clutching at illusory straws now raised to new heights of sophistry & is tantamount to a confession of having nothing LOGICAL left to say.

Or, to be fair, is this an attempt at researcher's humour? If so, then jolly good: LOL.gif

Miles,

Of all the evidence put forth to show that you are in error - the remarks above seems to have been the only reply that you felt that the forum deserved from you. Your game didn't last a day on Lancer, so maybe you find the members of this forum less educated on the geography of the plaza ... so xxxxx on, but I believe that you are only playing to a very limited audience consisting of yourself.

Bill Miller

And now the knock out. :D

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

...there can be no argument IMO as to what Bowers said whether you agree with him or not.

If this is the only argument put forward, that Bowers said "south" so he MAY have really meant "south," then there it is.

This is clutching at illusory straws now raised to new heights of sophistry & is tantamount to a confession of having nothing LOGICAL left to say.

Or, to be fair, is this an attempt at researcher's humour? If so, then jolly good: LOL.gif

LEE BOWERS: "Now I could see back or the South side [bOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence] 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."

LEE BOWERS: "Now I could see back or the South side [bOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence]

Of course, Bowers is speaking of what he can see.

If Bowers means what he sees between the north side of the fence & his position in the tower, then he saying that he saw no one there in that area at the moment that the shots were fired.

If, for purpose of argument, we allow that Bowers is saying that what he sees is instead the area beyond the fence from him, i.e., from the fence to points south of the fence, then Bowers is saying that he saw no one in that area at the moment that the shots were fired.

Well, what is the problem?

Either way, Bowers saw no one.

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."

The point is that if Bowers saw no one south of the fence at the critical time of the firing of the shots, then he also saw no one on the north side of the fence as well.

Why?

Because the field of view to the remote south of the fence is in direct line with & incorporates & includes the view of the area to the north of the fence.

That's the logic.

If you view the south you also view the north.

No one is in either area, so says Bowers.

Thus, if you care to take Bowers literally, then fine, proceed with blessings.

The import remains the same.

At the time of the shooting there was no one behind the fence along its NORTH side, that Bowers saw !

Now, Alan, there might have been a truck parked about 33 feet down the long arm of the fence from its corner which might have concealed a sniper. See:

54-chevy.jpg57-chevy.jpg

This is because the truck cab would have blocked Bowers' view, except through the cab's rear to front windows.

But no such blocking was available or in place along the short leg of the fence, unless you place Badgeman back from the fence so that he was trying to hide from Bowers behind the truck's cab.

Sound likely? He would need huge elevator shoes to shoot over the fence & pergola retaining wall. :huh:

Edited by Miles Scull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is because the truck cab would have blocked Bowers' view, except through the cab's rear to front windows.

But no such blocking was available or in place along the short leg of the fence, unless you place Badgeman back from the fence so that he was trying to hide from Bowers behind the truck's cab.

Sound likely? He would need huge elevator shoes to shoot over the fence & pergola retaining wall. :huh:

Addendum:

Also, note that there were no pickup trucks parked at the muddy area north of the fence where the cigarette butts were found.

This eliminates Midget man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And now the knock out.

The only thing that might knock something out is the stench from the idea that the red shirted man below Hudson was one of the two men Bowers described to the Commission. Early on in Bowers testimony it was established as to what Bowers meant when he spoke of the "high ground". Then the questioning focused on what Bowers was able to see from his tower, thus Lee started talking about some cars that came into the RR yard and how they had probed the parking lot. Bowers was asked by Mr. Ball about the men he claimed to have seen in the RR yard. This would be the location that Bowers said was in a 'direct line between the tower and the mouth of the underpass'. This would also be the location where Bowers said that the unusual occurrence/smoke/flash of light that caught his attention had come from.

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.

Then Mr. Ball asked Lee if any other people came up onto this "high ground" ...

Mr. BALL - Afterwards did a good many people come up there on this high ground at the tower?

So from the Commission - to Lane - to Weisberg - to Garrison - and to every other researcher leading up to Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", it seems that no one has ever had trouble understanding what Bowers had said, with the exception of Miles, of course. But keep in mind that Miles likes to tell people that he knows more about what the witness meant than the witnesses themselves had known. One example:

LEE BOWERS: "Now I could see back or the South side [bOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence]. The "[bOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence]" is the addition that Miles placed in Bowers statement. One would normally understand that from the tower and looking south - the back side of the fence would be the south side and that anyone standing on the "high ground" would have been spotted over the 5' tall wooden fence by Lee Bowers (at least in Lee's mind), so why all the unnecessary confusion??? Maybe it is necessary because Miles wants people to believe that the plaid jacketed man was the guy standing down the steps from Hudson. The fact that when the best images of this man as seen in the Towner originals shows the man DID NOT have a plaid shirt or jacket on ... confusion is all Miles has to fall back on. And why is that? Maybe it was best said when Conway 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
And now the knock out. :D

The only thing that might knock something out is the stench from the idea that the red shirted man below Hudson was one of the two men Bowers described to the Commission. Early on in Bowers testimony it was established as to what Bowers meant when he spoke of the "high ground". Then the questioning focused on what Bowers was able to see from his tower, thus Lee started talking about some cars that came into the RR yard and how they had probed the parking lot. Bowers was asked by Mr. Ball about the men he claimed to have seen in the RR yard. This would be the location that Bowers said was in a 'direct line between the tower and the mouth of the underpass'. This would also be the location where Bowers said that the unusual occurrence/smoke/flash of light that caught his attention had come from.

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.

Then Mr. Ball asked Lee if any other people came up onto this "high ground" ...

Mr. BALL - Afterwards did a good many people come up there on this high ground at the tower?

So from the Commission - to Lane - to Weisberg - to Garrison - and to every other researcher leading up to Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", it seems that no one has ever had trouble understanding what Bowers had said, with the exception of Miles, of course. But keep in mind that Miles likes to tell people that he knows more about what the witness meant than the witnesses themselves had known. One example:

LEE BOWERS: "Now I could see back or the South side [bOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence]. The "[bOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence]" is the addition that Miles placed in Bowers statement. One would normally understand that from the tower and looking south - the back side of the fence would be the south side and that anyone standing on the "high ground" would have been spotted over the 5' tall wooden fence by Lee Bowers (at least in Lee's mind), so why all the unnecessary confusion??? Maybe it is necessary because Miles wants people to believe that the plaid jacketed man was the guy standing down the steps from Hudson. The fact that when the best images of this man as seen in the Towner originals shows the man DID NOT have a plaid shirt or jacket on ... confusion is all Miles has to fall back on. And why is that? Maybe it was best said when Conway 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

Bowers was asked by Mr. Ball about the men he claimed to have seen in the RR yard. This would be the location that Bowers said was in a 'direct line between the tower and the mouth of the underpass'. This would also be the location where Bowers said that the unusual occurrence/smoke/flash of light that caught his attention had come from.

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.

This has already been explained about 20 times.

Taken in context Bowers is saying that he was looking from his position in the tower in a direct line down to Elm St. which goes down TOWARDS the mouth of the underpass.

True this CAN BE confusing. Bowers language, TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, really does not make clear, easily understood sense. For example, SEE:

Bowers-to-SwitchBox-3BIG2.jpg

Now if a direct line to the mouth of the underpass is meant, then Bowers sees the two men over by the steam pipe. Nonsense.

Did Bowers see the smoke & flash at the area of the steam pipe, or from the west end of the picket fence? No witness ever said he saw such there.

(Curry, not knowing what had happened, ordered officers to go the the triple underpass & the steam pipe area as that seemed to him a place to check.)

And, of course, neither did Bowers say he saw such.

So, where were these two men if they WERE behind the fence & IF they WERE seen there by Bowers? Duncan Man's sniper spot? Holland's sniper's stop? Files' spot? Badgeman's spot? Midget Man's spot?

Well, for decades debate has raged about this. People, who shall remain nameless, have made public lectures & received awards.

Then, in 2004 Dale Myers finds something which had not been carefully examined until his paper was published:

BADGE MAN

A PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ANALYSIS OF

MOORMAN PHOTOGRAPH No.5

OF THE JFK ASSASSINATION

By Dale K. Myers

SEE: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm <<------

Now the confusion has been clear up.

The answer is: Bowers, as his words clearly state, saw the two men in the stairs/Hudson area, and NOT anywhere behind the fence.

So from the Commission - to Lane - to Weisberg - to Garrison - and to every other researcher leading up to Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", it seems that no one has ever had trouble understanding what Bowers had said, with the exception of Miles, of course.

Me? Little ol' me? Aren't you forgetting the main man? D A L E... THE MAN ...M Y E R S ??

But keep in mind that Miles likes to tell people that he knows more about what the witness meant than the witnesses themselves had known. One example:

LEE BOWERS: "Now I could see back or the South side [bOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence]. The "[bOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence]" is the addition that Miles placed in Bowers statement.

If you will read the evidence, which you have not, you will know that Myers, not I, inserted this parenthesis. :huh:

The fact that when the best images of this man as seen in the Towner originals shows the man DID NOT have a plaid shirt or jacket on ... confusion is all Miles has to fall back on.

Sure he did:

roycamred.jpg

And why is that? Maybe it was best said when Conway 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".

Yes, indeed, that is correct!

The reasons that there is a panic on by certain theorists 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!

Bill Miller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...there can be no argument IMO as to what Bowers said whether you agree with him or not.

If this is the only argument put forward, that Bowers said "south" so he MAY have really meant "south," then there it is.

This is clutching at illusory straws now raised to new heights of sophistry & is tantamount to a confession of having nothing LOGICAL left to say.

Or, to be fair, is this an attempt at researcher's humour? If so, then jolly good: LOL.gif

I couldn't agree with you more Miles but you express it far better than I.

When I asked Bill to reason that Bowers made an error & he told me that it's unlikely because Bowers said the same thing to several researchers.

I'm still waiting for the references, his opinions I can ignore until I see proof of what he said.

QUOTE(Bill Miller @ Sep 13 2007, 07:07 PM)

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.

If he can produce even one other reference where Bowers said "there was no one on the south side of the fence" I'll be satisfied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is because the truck cab would have blocked Bowers' view, except through the cab's rear to front windows.

But no such blocking was available or in place along the short leg of the fence, unless you place Badgeman back from the fence so that he was trying to hide from Bowers behind the truck's cab.

Sound likely? He would need huge elevator shoes to shoot over the fence & pergola retaining wall. :huh:

Addendum:

Also, note that there were no pickup trucks parked at the muddy area north of the fence where the cigarette butts were found.

This eliminates Midget man.

I had a feeling you were refering to the short leg of the fence Miles.

Since I have lost all confidence in the figure of Badgeman in Moorman now, I no longer see any real reason to try & defend it.

However,

you can only claim to know the amount of vehicles & their lay-out at the time of the shooting if you have a photo of the area taken at that time.

The only photo I know that includes the area we are talking about was shot around three hours after the murder from a helicopter.

I think it quite likely that many things had changed by that time.

Unless your refering to some other evidence?

~~

Maybe if we had Super Bowers we could study the pictures taken by Wilma Bond & pick out every vehicle in the car-lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One would normally understand that from the tower and looking south - the back side of the fence would be the south side and that anyone standing on the "high ground" would have been spotted over the 5' tall wooden fence by Lee Bowers (at least in Lee's mind), so why all the unnecessary confusion???

The back of a picket fence is like the back of a car.

Both have front & back & they don't change.

You dont say the back of the car if your talking about the front no matter which way it's facing.

If the back was furthest from you you would say "the far side" to avoid confusion but it's still "the back of the fence" whether it's facing you or not.

Next time you see a picket type fence stop & ponder.

The fence was 5' tall on the RR side & on most of east side near the pathway.

But not on 95% of the south facing side.

Try 6'+.

He would see the top of their heads IF they were over 6' & IF the foilage allowed it but those are big ifs obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is because the truck cab would have blocked Bowers' view, except through the cab's rear to front windows.

But no such blocking was available or in place along the short leg of the fence, unless you place Badgeman back from the fence so that he was trying to hide from Bowers behind the truck's cab.

Sound likely? He would need huge elevator shoes to shoot over the fence & pergola retaining wall. :huh:

Addendum:

Also, note that there were no pickup trucks parked at the muddy area north of the fence where the cigarette butts were found.

This eliminates Midget man.

I had a feeling you were refering to the short leg of the fence Miles.

Since I have lost all confidence in the figure of Badgeman in Moorman now, I no longer see any real reason to try & defend it.

However,

you can only claim to know the amount of vehicles & their lay-out at the time of the shooting if you have a photo of the area taken at that time.

The only photo I know that includes the area we are talking about was shot around three hours after the murder from a helicopter.

I think it quite likely that many things had changed by that time.

Unless your refering to some other evidence?

~~

Maybe if we had Super Bowers we could study the pictures taken by Wilma Bond & pick out every vehicle in the car-lot.

Alan,

Thanks for mentioning this. I forgot to include this important reference.

Holland identified the cars at this location.

No high cab pickups at the critical locus!

QED

Super Bowers. :lol:

SamDrawing.jpg

Edited by Miles Scull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The back of a picket fence is like the back of a car.

Both have front & back & they don't change.

You don't say the back of the car if your talking about the front no matter which way it's facing.

If the back was furthest from you you would say "the far side" to avoid confusion but it's still "the back of the fence" whether it's facing you or not.

Next time you see a picket type fence stop & ponder.

The fence was 5' tall on the RR side & on most of east side near the pathway.

But not on 95% of the south facing side.

Try 6'+.

He would see the top of their heads IF they were over 6' & IF the foilage allowed it but those are big ifs obviously.

I am starting to think that if the garbage being said by you guys ever got to the 'Tonight Show' writers ... Jay Leno would be making cracks about it in his monologue. Let's put to rest one of the misstatements of fact that you all are spreading. The fence is not 6'+ on one side as Alan states. United Press International did a study of the fence in 1965 or 1966. The fence was measured to be 5' tall on the Elm Street side and 4' 10" or 11" on the parking lot side. So let us at least nip that error in the bud before it goes much further.

When Bowers spoke about not seeing anyone on the south side of the fence, he was saying that from his elevated view he could not see anyone on the other side of the fence in the vicinity from where the flash of light/or smoke had come from. The impression that I got, as well as other researchers I have spoken with on this subject was that Bowers was trying to convey that if these two men were part of the conspiracy, then Lee didn't notice any accomplices on the other side of the fence. How much intelligence should it take for anyone to understand that someone facing the fence from the south side would then call the north side of the fence the back side. If someone is on the north side of the fence and looking back to the south, then the backside of the fence would be the Elm Street side or the south side. Like Mack said ... Bowers worked in the RR yard and knew his directions well enough to know which way was north and which was was south.

I couldn't agree with you more Miles but you express it far better than I.

When I asked Bill to reason that Bowers made an error & he told me that it's unlikely because Bowers said the same thing to several researchers.

I'm still waiting for the references, his opinions I can ignore until I see proof of what he said.

If he can produce even one other reference where Bowers said "there was no one on the south side of the fence" I'll be satisfied.

I guess this is a good example of not being able to not see the forest for the trees - hey Alan??? I not only posted the following information, but you also pasted it in some of your responses. It read as follows, "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." Three names are mentioned in that paragraph. Jones Harris lives in New York and spoke to Bowers in 1964/65. Look him up and ask him what Bowers said about the men he saw and what he meant by the south side of the fence. Of course, a horse can be led to water, but getting him to drink is another matter altogether.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just one major question for Miles and one follow-up question depending on the first answer. You (Miles) have wasted forum space with countless responses talking about the red shirted guy below Hudson being one of the men that Bowers was talking about seeing when questioned by Mr. Ball. In checking with Gary Mack and the high resolution scans of the Towner images that the Museum has - it was discovered that the red shirted man you speak of had no plaid design on his clothing ... is this not important when claiming that he must be the man in the plaid shirt or jacket that Bowers spoke about? And my next question is ... If this man has no plaid design on his shirt, then is it your position to continue making the same stupid irresponsible claim that he is the man Bowers was talking about??

Bill Miller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The back of a picket fence is like the back of a car.

Both have front & back & they don't change.

You don't say the back of the car if your talking about the front no matter which way it's facing.

If the back was furthest from you you would say "the far side" to avoid confusion but it's still "the back of the fence" whether it's facing you or not.

Next time you see a picket type fence stop & ponder.

The fence was 5' tall on the RR side & on most of east side near the pathway.

But not on 95% of the south facing side.

Try 6'+.

He would see the top of their heads IF they were over 6' & IF the foilage allowed it but those are big ifs obviously.

I am starting to think that if the garbage being said by you guys ever got to the 'Tonight Show' writers ... Jay Leno would be making cracks about it in his monologue. Let's put to rest one of the misstatements of fact that you all are spreading. The fence is not 6'+ on one side as Alan states. United Press International did a study of the fence in 1965 or 1966. The fence was measured to be 5' tall on the Elm Street side and 4' 10" or 11" on the parking lot side. So let us at least nip that error in the bud before it goes much further.

When Bowers spoke about not seeing anyone on the south side of the fence, he was saying that from his elevated view he could not see anyone on the other side of the fence in the vicinity from where the flash of light/or smoke had come from. The impression that I got, as well as other researchers I have spoken with on this subject was that Bowers was trying to convey that if these two men were part of the conspiracy, then Lee didn't notice any accomplices on the other side of the fence. How much intelligence should it take for anyone to understand that someone facing the fence from the south side would then call the north side of the fence the back side. If someone is on the north side of the fence and looking back to the south, then the backside of the fence would be the Elm Street side or the south side. Like Mack said ... Bowers worked in the RR yard and knew his directions well enough to know which way was north and which was was south.

As expected, more silly nonsense. :)

You live in a house surrounded by a picket fence.

The fence gate is locked.

Suddenly, you realise that a package of expensive & fragile glassware is due any minute, but that gate is locked.

The postman suddenly arrives at the gate to deliver this delicate & fragile package.

You quickly lean out the window & yell out to the post man:

"Mr. Postman, please leave the package back of the fence." -- because you think he will then gently place the package down on the ground right outside the fence.

Unfortunately, the postman leans over the fence & drops the package to the ground inside the fence!

You see it drop to the ground & you hear the sound of shattering glass.

What happened? :ice

I couldn't agree with you more Miles but you express it far better than I.

When I asked Bill to reason that Bowers made an error & he told me that it's unlikely because Bowers said the same thing to several researchers.

I'm still waiting for the references, his opinions I can ignore until I see proof of what he said.

If he can produce even one other reference where Bowers said "there was no one on the south side of the fence" I'll be satisfied.

I guess this is a good example of not being able to not see the forest for the trees - hey Alan??? I not only posted the following information, but you also pasted it in some of your responses. It read as follows, "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." Three names are mentioned in that paragraph. Jones Harris lives in New York and spoke to Bowers in 1964/65. Look him up and ask him what Bowers said about the men he saw and what he meant by the south side of the fence. Of course, a horse can be led to water, but getting him to drink is another matter altogether.

Since Bowers stated that he saw the two men by Hudson in the stairs area, then those of his interview statements had to be cut from RTJ.

They were. Then Lane could put his "X" marks the stop for the two men in a bogus location behind the fence. A deception.

Lucky Myers noticed the ruse.

Bill

Edited by Miles Scull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have just one major question for Miles and one follow-up question depending on the first answer. You (Miles) have wasted forum space with countless responses talking about the red shirted guy below Hudson being one of the men that Bowers was talking about seeing when questioned by Mr. Ball. In checking with Gary Mack and the high resolution scans of the Towner images that the Museum has - it was discovered that the red shirted man you speak of had no plaid design on his clothing ... is this not important when claiming that he must be the man in the plaid shirt or jacket that Bowers spoke about? And my next question is ... If this man has no plaid design on his shirt, then is it your position to continue making the same stupid irresponsible claim that he is the man Bowers was talking about??

Bill Miller

LOL-2.gif

Bowers saw a man in a

RED PLAID SHIRT

from a distance of a hundred yards.

Bowers, just like everybody else does, associates a red shirt as being a plaid of red, not a night watch plaid.

If you only stop for a moment to think, you will understand that at a distance of 100 yards Bowers could not have determined that any shirt he saw was actually plaid or not, whatever its colouration, if it was a fine or closely patterned plaid.

This means, on the logic, that Bowers was simply using "plaid" as a descriptor for red, as in a red plaid shirt.

In Bowers mind it WAS a plaid, a RED PLAID.

Did you want Bowers to say he saw a man dressed in a matador's cape?

Cut out the silly quibbles.

roycamred.jpg

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

×