On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Alan Healy]

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

I already covered this in another post which you missed. Page2 last post.

Do you by any chance play dodgeball much?

You said Bowers made the same "south side of the fence" reference to several researchers.

Now either you've read interviews were he said it or you haven't, which is it?

"Several researchers" but you can't quote one?

My guess is that you have nothing to back up your claims. ie. "full of it".

If you promise a horse water & then give him nothing, you'll have to deal with the consequences.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Alan Healy]

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.

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.

Miles, are you 100% sure that the plaid pattern on that shirt you chose as an example wouldn't be picked out over time by the human eye, with or without spectacles?

[Alan Healy]

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.

You can nip it in the bud by producing the study & the only garbage I see is coming from you in every paragraph you write.

You know full well the ground dips severly at the fence corner.

To ignore it now only makes you look stupid.

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 disagree totally with everything you said above & I don't need to resort to putting words in Bowers mouth, words he did not say.

He made a slip, he meant the north side, the back of the fence, the only side he could see.

Back & front, remember this.

Also keep in mind that Lane & de Antonio edited out any reference to Bowers talking about "men behind the fence".

That's if he really said it like Gary claims but he has read the transcripts too & he knows there is nothing there.

FYI Jones Harris never heard Bowers say there were men behind the fence.

Harris favoured the "the classic gunman" in Nix as an assassin & he thought Bowers might be backing up this figure with his observations of "the two men".

Not behind the fence but between the fence & the retaining wall.

Go figure.

If you have read his interviews with Bowers then please quote from them, don't guess because it makes you look bad.

My guess is that you are getting credible information from Gary then using that info irresponsibly.

Gary has;

Badgeman,

HHM,

the red shirted man &

the white shirt/dark pants man,

all hovering around near the corner of the fence.

Then you have Hatman, that's five!

Then there were the two that were seen in a "direct line to the underpass" 30' along from the corner, remember them? Have they been ruled out now?

Maybe they were having a barby back there.

That would account for the smoke.

I think I'm going to go study DVP & Belagosi, they may make more sense.

[Bill Miller]

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 my 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?

I hope John Simkin reads the stupid remarks quoted above because it is that kind of ridiculous behavior that makes this forum look like a place for trollers and screw-offs.

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.

Miles, you need to be precise and specific when talking about Myers or what Bowers saw because not until Dale Myers came up with that foolishness on his web page - no one had ever been so inept at understanding Bowers testimony and statements. Furthermore, you have been caught several times now misstating the facts. For instance, I read Bowers testimony and nowhere does he talk about the two men being next to Hudson. In fact, Bowers never mentioned Hudson, which would make it three men - not two.

The stairs were never sealed off by the police immediately after the shooting, which is another point that is being avoided like the plague.

And the biggie that YOU have yet to explain is that the man in the red shirt when seen in the original Towner images DOES NOT even have any plaid design on his clothing. It also seems that Myers didn't bother to cross check this point either if he is supportive of the nonsense being cited as fact by you (Miles). So I will ask this question once again in front of all our peers .... IS IT NOT IMPORTANT IN YOUR VIEW THAT THE MAN YOU SAY TO BE THE MAN THAT BOWERS CLAIMED TO BE WEARING A PLAID JACKET ... DOESN'T HAVE ANY PLAID DESIGNS ON HIS CLOTHING? AND IF IT IS NOT IMPORTANT, THEN TELL THE MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM - WHY??

Bill Miller

Edited September 15, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

You can nip it in the bud by producing the study & the only garbage I see is coming from you in every paragraph you write.

You know full well the ground dips severly at the fence corner.

To ignore it now only makes you look stupid.

Before we get into my allegedly looking stupid - you misspelled the word "severely". No mention either of your having the height of the fence wrong on the south side. You might also wish to get a view of the knoll as seen from the side and in profile so to better determine how high the ground was near the fence. This is important because Bowers mentioned this area so to dispel and ideas that a gun was passed off to an accomplice on the south side of the fence. This endeavor would have called for someone being close enough to the south side of the fence to be handed anything. And I will say what was told to me ... Let Healy get off his lazy butt and do a little research. If someone cites something out of a report or what a witness has said - you call it hearsay. In this case you were given a man's name and the name of the city in which he lives, so call the man and get it straight from the horses mouth. Maybe even ask for a copy of his notes.

I disagree totally with everything you said above & I don't need to resort to putting words in Bowers mouth, words he did not say.

He made a slip, he meant the north side, the back of the fence, the only side he could see.

Back & front, remember this.

Also keep in mind that Lane & de Antonio edited out any reference to Bowers talking about "men behind the fence".

That's if he really said it like Gary claims but he has read the transcripts too & he knows there is nothing there.

When you emailed or called Gary Mack .. what did he say? (Please don't tell me you didn't even bother to contact Mack!) And how does this sound .. you mentioned the "north" side of the fence .... I now want to tell everyone that this was a slip on your part and that you meant to say "south" side of the fence. How much sense would I be making taking such a silly position?? This really is a no-brainer. Anyone looking at the fence from the street - the back side of the fence would be the north side. Anyone looking at the fence from the tower would call the south side of the fence the backside.

FYI Jones Harris never heard Bowers say there were men behind the fence.

Harris favoured the "the classic gunman" in Nix as an assassin & he thought Bowers might be backing up this figure with his observations of "the two men".

Not behind the fence but between the fence & the retaining wall.

Go figure.

Get back with me after you talk to Jones Harris. And while you are at it ... If the man in the red shirt that Miles keeps saying in the plaid jacketed man that Bowers spoke of has no plaid design on his clothing, then doesn't that rule him out as the man Bowers was talking about???

Bill

Edited September 15, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

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.

Miles, You like to cite things written on Dale Myers site, so here is something that might interest you concerning the statement above that you made ............ You have been claiming that Bowers was talking about the two men he saw as being next to Emmett Hudson down on the stairway leading from the walkway to the curb along Elm Street. Here is what Dale Myers said about where the two men Bowers saw was located,

"BOWERS' seemingly places the two men in an area that was "directly in line" with his view of the "mouth of the underpass," which, of course, is the area on the west end of the stockade fence, opposite the east end where MACK and WHITE place Badge Man and Hard Hat Man. 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.

Now unless I read that wrong ... Myers does not believe Bowers was talking about the two men he saw ever being on the steps or even on the east end of the fence. It appears that the site that Miles references so much does not support Miles conclusions.

Further down in the web page, Dale Myers writes, "HAYGOOD's actions are well documented in numerous amateur films and photographs. Once again, BOWERS seems to be indicating that the two men in question were in an area near the west end of the stockade fence.

Even further down the web page, it is said once again by Dale Myers where he believes Bowers said the two men were located,

"BOWERS' seemingly places the two men ........................ which, of course, is the area on the west end of the stockade fence, ...................... 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."

Each time Myers mentions where the two men were located according to Lee Bowers - he places these men towards the west end of the fence and in the RR yard. It is not until Myers mentions the 1966 Lane interview that he starts to butcher and misrepresent the location for these two men, but not down over the slope on the steps as Miles will have us believe, but rather on the high ground. Myers writes,

"LEE BOWERS: "... And to the west of that there were - uh - at the time of the shooting in my vision only two men. Uh - these two men were - uh - standing back from the street somewhat at the top of the incline and were very near - er - two trees which were in the area ..."

So Myers seems to now be talking about the two men seen at the top of the hill, but as Miles must have seen - this would be in reference to Hudson and the man next to him because the red shirted man was further over the hill and hidden by Hudson and the man next to him. So what does Miles do .... he swaps Hudson off for the red shirted man ... and a red shirted man with no 'plaid' design on his clothing by the way. But not to worry because Miles has said that plaid means "red shirt". Maybe we should read Conway's remarks once again - " .............. by those who wish to change Bowers' statements to suit their own theories".

Bill Miller

Edited September 15, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Now unless I read that wrong ...

Bill Miller

That is correct.

You are reading Myers wrong, repeatedly.

Now, I'd like you to tell everybody on this forum why you started this thread. Except for one cameo post by Duncan, you are the only person on the thread misreading Myers.

The only other persons posting to this thread are Alan & myself. That makes a total of three persons.

This makes you look bad, because you are not addressing the real issues. You seem to be trying, unsuccessfully, to deflect discussion into irrelevant backwaters of semantics because that's your only way to oppose Bowers.

Simply, as an example, look here:

Myers says:

Here, we can see that BOWERS spells it right out - there was no one behind the fence at the time the shots were fired. So, contrary to claims made in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, BOWERS never offered anything in either his 1964 testimony or 1966 interview that could be construed as supportive of the claim that two men were standing behind the east end of the stockade fence; the place where Badge Man and Hard Hat Man were allegedly located. In fact, BOWERS specifically says that no one was behind the fence at the time the shots were fired.

If there was no one behind the fence, then where were the two men that Bowers saw?

(Maybe they were on the sidewalk trying to figure out why a there was minuscule GI Joe figure hovering in the air behind the retaining wall? Duncan knows more about this possibility.)

Everybody who has read Myers' paper ( http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm ) knows that Bowers says he saw these two men here:

I think its time to close up shop, Alan. Thanks for your insights.

Edited September 15, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

That is correct.

You are reading Myers wrong, repeatedly.

Now, I'd like you to tell everybody on this forum why you started this thread. Except for one cameo post by Duncan, you are the only person on the thread misreading Myers.

The only other persons posting to this thread are Alan & myself. That makes a total of three persons.

This makes you look bad, because you are not addressing the real issues. You seem to be trying, unsuccessfully, to deflect discussion into irrelevant backwaters of semantics because that's your only way to oppose Bowers.

I am reminded for some odd reason about a "Honeymooners" episode where this old maid made a crack to a ridiculous comment Jackie Gleason had made where she said "Yeah right, the simp and the blimp". It's silly enough to look at the assassination films of the red shirted man and see that his body was blocked from Bowers view by Hudson and the man next to him, thus saying that he is the man Bowers was talking about becomes absurd. All throughout this topic you (Miles) kept mentioning his red plaid shirt despite the film evidence you were using was of such poor quality that there was no plaid design that could be made out, but regardless you held firm that it was there. Only when I posted that the "ORIGINAL" Towner photos in the museum, which are avialable on high resolution scans, had showed that there was absolutely no plaid design on the man's clothing - you then started saying that the description "plaid" means red plaid shirt. When the heavy-set description was brought up and how it didn't apply to the man in the dark pants ... you (Miles) took the position that Bowers must have been saying the man was heavy-set only as a comparison to the red shirted man. The fact that Hudson would have also been visible to Bowers if your position was correct and he was the older heavy set man seems to not mattered to you. The fact that Bowers said these men were standing 10 to 15 feet apart went over your head as well. Bowers said these men had been standing and watching the parade as it approached, but Hudson had said that he and the man with him had been sitting down on the stairs talking for a while before they both stood up together - this was also another of many errors in your position. And now you call my raising these points as 'deflecting discussion to irrelevant backwaters'. So if you and Alan were the only ones posting in opposition and that somehow makes you think you must be right, then I will rest my case on that foolishness.

Here, we can see that BOWERS spells it right out - there was no one behind the fence at the time the shots were fired. So, contrary to claims made in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, BOWERS never offered anything in either his 1964 testimony or 1966 interview that could be construed as supportive of the claim that two men were standing behind the east end of the stockade fence; the place where Badge Man and Hard Hat Man were allegedly located. In fact, BOWERS specifically says that no one was behind the fence at the time the shots were fired.

To pretend not to know which side of the fence Bowers was talking about does not cut it. Lee even went as far as to call it the "south" side of the fence, but instead you have Dale Myers saying that Lee must have meant the north side. Let me repeat what Gary Mack had said, "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." What Mack told me is that de Antonio had interviewed Bowers before Lane did and that Bowers was quite clear as to what he meant by the south side of the fence. Jones Harris was another one, but neither you, Alan, or Myers seems to have the time to contact this man to see what his notes of that interview had said. So yes, I don't mind that only you and Alan responded to the points I made on this topic.

Everybody who has read Myers' paper ( http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm ) knows that Bowers says he saw these two men here:

Once again you misstate the facts. Many people have read Myers web page and do not agree with his conclusion. And just as many people don't believe that when a man says he saw a plaid jacket that it doesn't mean the guy was just wearing a "red" jacket.

Below is a profile view of the knoll leading up to the fence. Alan seemed to believe that there was a severe drop-off on the south side of the fence, but I have been on the knoll and knew better. Anyone within several feet of the fence would be within inches of the save elevation as someone on RR yard side of it. Alan was simply wrong.

Bill Miller

Edited September 15, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

So if you and Alan were the only ones posting in opposition and that somehow makes you think you must be right, then I will rest my case on that foolishness.

So yes, I don't mind that only you and Alan responded to the points I made on this topic.

Alan was simply wrong.

Bill Miller

By excising the nonsense dross of your post # 56, one can make a discovery.

You conclude every one of your nonsense streams on a personal note.

It becomes clear that instead of debating issues objectively, you are bent on reducing & converting the debate to a personal antagonism.

In other words, your participation is a hidden effort on your part to self service your ego needs by means of the concealment provided to you by a forum debate.

Well, this is not profitable, but rather a silly waste of time & an embarrassment.

So, I'm closing down shop.

Edited September 15, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Alan Healy]

You can nip it in the bud by producing the study & the only garbage I see is coming from you in every paragraph you write.

You know full well the ground dips severly at the fence corner.

To ignore it now only makes you look stupid.

Before we get into my allegedly looking stupid - you misspelled the word "severely". No mention either of your having the height of the fence wrong on the south side. You might also wish to get a view of the knoll as seen from the side and in profile so to better determine how high the ground was near the fence. This is important because Bowers mentioned this area so to dispel and ideas that a gun was passed off to an accomplice on the south side of the fence. This endeavor would have called for someone being close enough to the south side of the fence to be handed anything. And I will say what was told to me ... Let Healy get off his lazy butt and do a little research. If someone cites something out of a report or what a witness has said - you call it hearsay. In this case you were given a man's name and the name of the city in which he lives, so call the man and get it straight from the horses mouth. Maybe even ask for a copy of his notes.

The young man in the pathway footage is around 5.6'.

He can barely see over the fence.

Put him around the south side where it is a few inches lower, even a foot away from the fence & he is totally out of sight from this position.

Now head up to the tower & try looking through the foilage, IF you could see someone, you'd have to have near perfect vision.

Know go back & ponder what Bowers could see through his "bottle neck" spectacles as you called them.

I disagree totally with everything you said above & I don't need to resort to putting words in Bowers mouth, words he did not say.

He made a slip, he meant the north side, the back of the fence, the only side he could see.

Back & front, remember this.

Also keep in mind that Lane & de Antonio edited out any reference to Bowers talking about "men behind the fence".

That's if he really said it like Gary claims but he has read the transcripts too & he knows there is nothing there.

When you emailed or called Gary Mack .. what did he say? (Please don't tell me you didn't even bother to contact Mack!) And how does this sound .. you mentioned the "north" side of the fence .... I now want to tell everyone that this was a slip on your part and that you meant to say "south" side of the fence. How much sense would I be making taking such a silly position?? This really is a no-brainer. Anyone looking at the fence from the street - the back side of the fence would be the north side. Anyone looking at the fence from the tower would call the south side of the fence the backside.

Any mistake was at your end.

I've already told you, the back of the fence(the north side), is the back of the fence no matter were you stand.

Back & front.

Miles tried to help you with a great analogy that even a child could follow butt it went over your stubborn head as usual.

FYI Jones Harris never heard Bowers say there were men behind the fence.

Harris favoured the "the classic gunman" in Nix as an assassin & he thought Bowers might be backing up this figure with his observations of "the two men".

Not behind the fence but between the fence & the retaining wall.

Go figure.

Get back with me after you talk to Jones Harris. And while you are at it ... If the man in the red shirt that Miles keeps saying in the plaid jacketed man that Bowers spoke of has no plaid design on his clothing, then doesn't that rule him out as the man Bowers was talking about???

So I take it it's okay for you to refer to interviews you have never seen?

You can't quote me one other instance that Bowers refered to seeing the south side of the fence?

I thought so.

Why do you think this is exceptable?

He told several researchers the same thing

Back up what you said or apologise for misleading us.

Then I'll share all that I know about Jones early research.

[Alan Healy]

To pretend not to know which side of the fence Bowers was talking about does not cut it. Lee even went as far as to call it the "south" side of the fence, but instead you have Dale Myers saying that Lee must have meant the north side. Let me repeat what Gary Mack had said, "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." What Mack told me is that de Antonio had interviewed Bowers before Lane did and that Bowers was quite clear as to what he meant by the south side of the fence. Jones Harris was another one, but neither you, Alan, or Myers seems to have the time to contact this man to see what his notes of that interview had said. So yes, I don't mind that only you and Alan responded to the points I made on this topic.

We are not pretending at anything.

We are trying to figure out if he made a mistake.

Why we are talking to you is a mystery since you have nothing of importance to add only rumours.

If you could quote directly from interviews it would be something but it's clear you have nothing.

Below is a profile view of the knoll leading up to the fence. Alan seemed to believe that there was a severe drop-off on the south side of the fence, but I have been on the knoll and knew better. Anyone within several feet of the fence would be within inches of the save elevation as someone on RR yard side of it. Alan was simply wrong.

The severe drop off ran towards the corner of the fence, the one you keep refering to in other posts about the ground seen in Moorman5.

It turns the five foot high fence west of the bench into a near six foot high fence on the south side.

The modern day photo you included is misleading. Perfect for you but no one else.

Edited September 15, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Alan Healy]

Each time Myers mentions where the two men were located according to Lee Bowers - he places these men towards the west end of the fence and in the RR yard. It is not until Myers mentions the 1966 Lane interview that he starts to butcher and misrepresent the location for these two men, but not down over the slope on the steps as Miles will have us believe, but rather on the high ground. Myers writes,[/b]

"LEE BOWERS: "... And to the west of that there were - uh - at the time of the shooting in my vision only two men. Uh - these two men were - uh - standing back from the street somewhat at the top of the incline and were very near - er - two trees which were in the area ..."

Everyone, not just Myers placed Bowers men in direct line to the underpass, ie. 30' or more west of the east corner of the fence(nowhere near Hatman btw).

It wasn't Myers who butchered what Bowers said it was Bowers himself but that's what happens when you ask witnesses for more details. Sometimes you get answers that screw your pet theories up.

[Bill Miller]

The severe drop off ran towards the corner of the fence, the one you keep refering to in other posts about the ground seen in Moorman5.

It turns the five foot high fence west of the bench into a near six foot high fence on the south side.

The modern day photo you included is misleading. Perfect for you but no one else.

Alan,

I believe that I posted that United International actually did a study on the top of the fence height to ground measurements and that they do not support what you're saying. I am sorry that you don't like their findings, but it sounds more like a personal problem that you will have to over come.

Also, I did a search on the net for a photo showing the high ground on the south side of the fence. If you can find a better one in profile with the fence, then by all means post it!

Bill

[Bill Miller]

The young man in the pathway footage is around 5.6'.

He can barely see over the fence.

Interesting statement, Alan. Please tell me the name of this person so we can look up any information concerning his height? I am betting that you do not know the man's name and are just making it up about his height being around 5'6".

Put him around the south side where it is a few inches lower, even a foot away from the fence & he is totally out of sight from this position.

Now head up to the tower & try looking through the foilage, IF you could see someone, you'd have to have near perfect vision.

Know go back & ponder what Bowers could see through his "bottle neck" spectacles as you called them.

I appreciate what the view looked like from the tower using the very blurred photo in Josiah's photo ... do you have any sharper images that might replicate how it looked in real life???

Any mistake was at your end.

I've already told you, the back of the fence(the north side), is the back of the fence no matter were you stand.

Back & front.

Miles tried to help you with a great analogy that even a child could follow butt it went over your stubborn head as usual.

Alan, this child saw where you used the wrong words when writing "know" for now and 'butt" for but. As far as the rest of it goes ... it matters little what term you'd use for the south side of the fence ... it only matters what Bowers meant. His meaning was clarified when he used the word "SOUTH" for the side of the fence he was referencing. You can say that Bowers meant to say east if you like, but several people have interviewed him and no one has ever taken the nutty position that you have.

So I take it it's okay for you to refer to interviews you have never seen?

You can't quote me one other instance that Bowers refered to seeing the south side of the fence?

I thought so.

Why do you think this is exceptable?

You misspelled two words in the above quote. Also, the other day you asked for a name ... now you want me to quote him, which in the past you called that 'hearsay'. Just call Harris and see what he says or do you find it better to just keep dodging him?

He told several researchers the same thing

Back up what you said or apologise for misleading us.

Then I'll share all that I know about Jones early research.

What ... now you want to make a game out of all this? Just post what you know on Harris and we'll take it from there. BTW, "apologize is spelled with a 'Z' - not an 'S'.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

It wasn't Myers who butchered what Bowers said it was Bowers himself but that's what happens when you ask witnesses for more details.

Well keep in mind, Alan - that according to Miles - Bowers spoke in code language. 'South' means 'North' and 'plaid' means 'red'.

Bill

Edited September 15, 2007 by Bill Miller