On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Bill Miller]

Holland is irrelevant to Bowers' testimony.

That's part of the reason that you make such bumbling mistakes in the JFK assassination case. Any witness who described seeing the smoke on the embankment is relevant. Bowers didn't make it clear where on the embankment that he saw the smoke, but other witnesses did, so unless you have proof of more than one plume of smoke drifting out over the embankment, then as usual you are in error as to what is and is not relevant, IMO.

The best you have offered is that 45 seconds after Bowers last saw the two men near the west end of the fence - he lost track of one of them.

Straw dog nonsense.

No explanation for the missing 45 seconds being nonsense ........ this seems to be typical of your responses, but as one moderator wrote to me, "Like I have said before, I am quite sure, Miles' goal here is not to engage in true JFK assassination debate"

Ad hominem attack & straw man set up.

Ad Hominem attack: It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

The only 'ad homimem attack' that you suffer from is the misstatements of facts that you constantly make that come back to bite you in the rump. This thread is riddled with post you have made that were far from accurate when it came to the facts. Bowers mentions two men - you say its three men on the steps. Bowers says 'plaid shirt or jacket' - you said Bowers saw a 'red plaid shirt or jacket', which you later were forced to admit that Bowers didn't say 'red plaid' at all. Bowers says he saw the two men 10 to 15 feet apart as the caravan came into the plaza, you say Bowers meant the two men on the steps who were shoulder to shoulder, but when it is proven there is no view of the steps for Bowers because of the colonnade, you then try to change it to Bowers must have been talking about seeing them at other times. You say that you and Myers are the only two who got it right where the two men were that Bowers saw - its found that Myers didn't agree with you at all. About every time you are called on your constant misstatements of fact, then you whine that the person is being 'off-topic' or 'ad hominem attacking' you. You have been your worse enemy IMO.

The rest of your response deserves no response.

I am however going to throw in another misstatement of fact that you (Miles) posted. You had said that, "Hudson says that he & the young red shirted man sat down on the stairs". Hudson had said that the man who he sat with had also stood up with him and was on his left side on the steps. Red shirted man is down on a lower step, thus once again you got it wrong.

Here is another one of your blunders ... you posted this quote from Hudson, "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 then you followed-up by saying, "Since RSM man was on the left of Hudson, he was visible to Bowers. Hudson confirms Bowers." Your follow-up statement suggest that Bowers could see Hudson and the red shirted man when the caravan turned off of Houston Street and and onto Elm Street, which has also been proven to be false. And if that's not bad enough, you make yet another misstatement of fact by pretending that you never pinpointed Bowers seeing the red shirted man at any given point in time. Let me quote your forked tongue, "I've many times stated that Bowers may easily have seen Hudson & friend at the stairs vicinity at sometime & not necessarily at any specific time."

You first misrepresent Hudson by saying that it was the red shirted man who Hudson said was standing next to him and on his left when the caravan came onto Elm Street - then you claim Bowers had them two in their LOS at that point in time which was another fallacy - and then you come back later in the thread and claim you never gave a specific time for Bowers to have seen Hudson and the red shirted man. This is what happens when you xxxxx more than you research, so its little wonder why you don't like having this stuff brought up, but you only have yourself to blame.

Here is yet another instance where you don't say that Bowers saw the two men near the stairs, but rather in them (even though I believe you made a typo and meant to say 'on the stairs"). You said and and I quote, "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 again the comment you made is false because Bowers could not see anyone on the stairs because of the colonnade being in the way.

You said to me, "You are reading Myers wrong, repeatedly." Yet when I read Myers cite, he was saying the same thing as I did about where the two men were at the time the caravan entered the plaza and it was you who misread what Myers had said. I am going to share Myers words with you again and as many times as you need to see them to know that you totally blew it. Dale Myers writes and I quote, "As I noted in my report on the “Badge Man” image, Bowers places the two men in an area that was "directly in line" with his view of the "mouth of the underpass," which, of course, would have been the area on the west end of the stockade fence". This is complete contradiction to what you had been saying throughout this thread.

And about the two men Bowers saw standing back from the fence on the east end ... Myers writes, "Bowers also described one or two uniformed custodians (one whom he knew) standing in the parking lot a slight distance back from the fence area." Dale goes on to say, "The area Bowers is now describing is at the east end of the stockade fence, the area opposite the place where he described two men". This is also in complete contradiction to what you have said throughout this thread.

Myers then writes about Haygood leaving his bike in the street and running up near the area where the two men were that Bowers testified about seeing prior to the caravan coming into the plaza. Myers writes, "So here, we have confirmation that the two men Bowers described earlier were standing at the west end of the stockade fence". So once again the guy who you stated was the other person who had got it right is saying something totally contradictory to what you have been saying throughout this thread.

Myers. like you do, made a mistake IMO about drawing a narrow-minded stance on the follow statement by Bowers to Ball when Lee said, "Mr. BOWERS - To my knowledge I can remember nothing else."

Myers went on to write, "I can remember nothing else. Nothing else? Either Bowers is telling the truth (i.e., he really didn’t have anything else of relevance to offer) or he is a xxxx. What do the conspiracy theorists believe? Is Bowers telling the truth or is he a xxxx?" What Myers failed to see is that people often times do walk away from a discussion where they all of a sudden recall something else that they forgot to mention. Who honestly hasn't done this ??? But Myers doesn't consider this at all. Instead he takes the approach that Bowers saw nothing else or Bowers lied. So I guess the next time we visit our doctor and leave the office wishing we had remembered to tell him or her something else that we forgot to mention - to Dale Myers we must all be liars.

Bill Miller

Edited November 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

We are talking about Hudson.

Don't try to deflect the focus.

Hudson was as cracked as the Liberty Bell & sounded as false.

Miles, you seem to be double talking here. Let me cite something you had said about Hudson previously, "Nothing in Hudson's WC testimony disallows Bowers account.

Hudson's testimony verifies & corroborates Bowers."

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

We are talking about Hudson.

Don't try to deflect the focus.

Hudson was as cracked as the Liberty Bell & sounded as false.

Miles, you seem to be double talking here. Let me cite something you had said about Hudson previously, "Nothing in Hudson's WC testimony disallows Bowers account.

Hudson's testimony verifies & corroborates Bowers."

Bill Miller

You seem to have completely overlooked or deliberately ignored the fundamentals of forum conduct.

Your problem is with Bowers' testimony, not with me.

I am only a reporter of what BOWERS said & is recorded as having said.

You can attack me to find a target to revenge your painful disappointment & acute embarrassment, but I am not the cause of your problems.

Bowers is.

So, abandon attacking the messenger.

When you can logically debate WHAT Bowers said, based on the factual record of his testimony, then I'll gladly engage.

Until then, go for more ridiculous ad hominem attacks, straw man nonsense & general silliness.

You're chasing your tail.

[Bill Miller]

You seem to have completely overlooked or deliberately ignored the fundamentals of forum conduct.

I'll leave that to the moderators to decide.

Your problem is with Bowers' testimony, not with me.

I am only a reporter of what BOWERS said & is recorded as having said.

I have no problem with Bowers testimony. His testimony makes perfect sense to me as it has to about everyone who has ever read it. It appears that it even makes sense to Dale Myers. And only in your mind would you be considered a 'reporter'. As much as you have misstated the facts - a 'tabloid writer' would be the closest thing to you being a reporter, IMO.

You can attack me to find a target to revenge your painful disappointment & acute embarrassment, but I am not the cause of your problems.

I attack the things that you say ... any attack on your personally would come from within because of the errors in the things you write. Except for one thing ... the mistakes, double talk, and misstatements of fact that I mentioned in my previous post came within the first 4 pages of this thread. If I took the time to have covered them all throughout the entire thread, then it would be equivalent to writing a book.

When you can logically debate WHAT Bowers said, based on the factual record of his testimony, then I'll gladly engage.

Yeah, yeah ... we have heard that one so many times that you are sounding like the boy who cried wolf! I went back and used your own words against you and rather than to be man enough to admit your mistakes - you resort to the same old modus-operandi that you always do. I say let the record speak for itself.

Bill Miller

Edited November 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Your problem is with Bowers' testimony, not with me.

I am only a reporter of what BOWERS said & is recorded as having said.

I have no problem with Bowers testimony. His testimony makes perfect sense to me as it has to about everyone who has ever read it. It appears that it even makes sense to Dale Myers.

Bill Miller

Now, that you've stopped chasing your tail, let's get down to business.

Myers states this:

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. -- Dale Myers: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm

Is Myers wrong, based on Bowers' testimony?

If Bowers sees individuals he knows behind the fence, but NOT individuals that he does not know, then it must be correct to conclude that the two men, whom Bowers says he does not know, must be by the stairs.

Forget your tail. That's irrelevant.

What can you say to this ON TOPIC argument?

Remember what I said about your tail & ad hominem attacks, straw man set ups, etc.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Now, that you've stopped chasing your tail, let's get down to business.

Myers states this:

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. -- Dale Myers: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm

Is Myers wrong, based on Bowers' testimony?

Personally Miles, I don't think you have ever been interested in getting down to business for if you were, then a separate section of the forum would not have been installed so to not allow your responses to continue to pollute the threads they were in. Even then you called that action a badge of honor when to anyone else it would have been a badge of shame.

Now we have gone over the 'behind the fence' nonsense. My position is that when Bowers made that remark, that it was in relation to whether there were any accomplices in the area where the two men were and Lee said that he saw no one behind the fence (south side). You may recall that period for that was when you were trying to say that when Bowers says 'south' that he must mean 'north'.

If Bowers sees individuals he knows behind the fence, but NOT individuals that he does not know, then it must be correct to conclude that the two men, whom Bowers says he does not know, must be by the stairs.

If you read carefully where Ball was going with the questions ... Bowers spoke of the two men that he saw between his tower and the mouth of the underpass and his answer was a direct response to Ball asking about the "HIGH GROUND". Then Lee spoke of them two guys being the only two men that he didn't know because the others in that area were the RR employees nearby on the Underpass. Then Ball moves from what was in line with the tower to the mouth of the underpass on the HIGH GROUND to the triple underpass which Bowers had earlier classified as also being on the HIGH GROUND.

Mr. BALL - Did you see anyone standing on the triple underpass?

Mr. BOWERS - On the triple underpass, there were two policemen. One facing each direction, both east and west. There was one railroad employee, a signal man there with the Union Terminal Co., and two welders that worked for the Fort Worth Welding firm, and there was also a laborer's assistant furnished by the railroad to these welders.

Remember what I said about your tail & ad hominem attacks, straw man set ups, etc

It seems that I remember the things you say quite well ... even better than you do or I wouldn't be able to show where you 'double talked' so much.

Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

There seems to be some confusion on your part Bill & you've made the same mistake before.

Once again, slowly.

Everyone, including Myers, thought that the two men Bowers was referring to in his WC testimony were at the west end of the fence &, he still is if you use that testimony on it's own.

That changed when we saw the Lane transcript(or part of it).

What he said to Lane puts at least one of these men moving out of sight when he goes behind part of the fence.

Dale still thinks this is the most significant part of the interview.

That puts one man on the east end of the fence, not behind but in front of it*(see note below).

Now I'm no spokesman for Dale(perish the thought) but picking a few carefully chosen nuggets from what Myers said to use it as part of attempt to ridicule Miles is in itself ridiculous because if you kept reading Dale clears it up for you.

Whether the men BOWERS described in his testimony are the same men seen in films and photographs of the area is a matter of conjecture.

Right there for example.

He's talking about the men on the steps just like Miles is doing & nothing anyone have said here has changed that.

So once more, the WC testimony & the Lane interview put the men in different places.

Myers obviously puts more weight on the Lane interview( if you read the whole essay he does) & he knows it's the same two guys he spoke of with Ball because Bowers has them dressed exactly the same.

Lane got more detail.

Another part you forgot to read/quote;

The only way the two men could have disappeared from Bowers’ point-of-view is if they were standing on the south side of the stockade fence, between the fence and Elm Street, not crouching on the north side of the fence getting ready to shoot the president. In other words, the fence was between Bowers and the two men, thus blocking his view of them as they walked back and forth.

Bowers later reiterated that other than the two men he described "standing back from the street somewhat, at the top of the incline," which we now know to be in front of the east end of the stockade fence, there were no strangers in the area:

*Okay, Miles noticed something in Groden's tower photo.

At the east end of the fence, the "dog-leg"(the short length of fence that runs north & south), someone could walk up to that & go out of sight from Bowers because it runs(at least at the time of Groden's photo it does) at a slight angle.

In other words, you don't have to be on the south side of the fence to go out of the sight of someone in the tower.

Last time Bill, Myers thinks the two men who Bowers told Lane about where at the east end of the fence. Not behind it but in front of it & he does not rule out Hudson & Co.

[Alan Healy]

Miles,

Ken brought up a great point so I have to ask you.

Did Lane ever ask Bowers to mark a map or photo for where the two men he was talking about were?

Is it in the transcript Miles?

[Alan Healy]

Maybe not everyone has read what Bill quoted from above(I certainly was not aware of it & found it more than interesting).

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/news/news_09140701.htm

[Alan Healy]

Okay,

it was just a little too convenient I guess.

Alan, I went over this is Hudson's son and that was how I learned about his dad's hair being so thick. The bush doesn't move, but the head between the opening does and it goes from left to right with each advancement of the limo. The Zapruder film picks up just as Nix film stops showing Hudson ... if you look at this clip and feel that the head moving with the limo is Hudson not watching the president, but is rather looking the other way, then that's just one more mistake you have made IMO. For Emmet to be looking to his left and to have his head move to the west in perfect harmony to the limo is without logical reasoning to me.

You obviously meant something else above because, the Zfilm does not pick up Hudson just as Nix stops showing him.

There was time for him to spin around or w/e like you correctly said below.

I compared Jackie's position in both films.

She's almost fully back in her seat after reaching for something on the back of the limo as we see Hudson's cap moving in the Zfilm.

The Nix film stops before we see her moving back.

Anyway.

How you can not see the cap moving anti-clockwise is still a mystery to me.

I can only suggest you don't give up till it comes to you.

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...dsonZHudson.gif

The reason the head is moving left to right is because Hudson is going down.

Going down & turning left.

Regardless,

if the only importance of this is that you don't want to admit a mistake, then I'll waste no more time on it.

Promise.

[Bill Miller]

Everyone, including Myers, thought that the two men Bowers was referring to in his WC testimony were at the west end of the fence &, he still is if you use that testimony on it's own.

That changed when we saw the Lane transcript(or part of it).

What he said to Lane puts at least one of these men moving out of sight when he goes behind part of the fence.

Dale still thinks this is the most significant part of the interview.

That puts one man on the east end of the fence, not behind but in front of it*(see note below).

Alan, could not one of the men have walked over to the area west of the fence between the steam pipe and the actual underpass and gone out of view to Bowers?

He's talking about the men on the steps just like Miles is doing & nothing anyone have said here has changed that.

I have never read it to mean what you are saying, Alan. And I am even more certain of this seeing how Bowers could not have ever seen anyone on the steps from where he sat. If Bowers could not see the steps from inside the tower, then one cannot be correct about Lee concerning the two men that he saw standing 10-15 feet apart when the caravan entered the plaza. This is exactly why I said that anyone confused about this should have called Lane because we are only seeing one page of a transcript and there have been two ways people could read what was written. Possibly other pages in that transcript could clear things up for some of you, but no one seemed interested in taking that simple step.

Bowers later reiterated that other than the two men he described "standing back from the street somewhat, at the top of the incline," which we now know to be in front of the east end of the stockade fence, there were no strangers in the area

Lane and Holland were standing back from the street at the top of the incline when they stood at the top of the incline. It's all in how one wishes to read it. It seems that Bowers was jumping around a bit when talking about the things he saw. Myers believes the men Lee spoke of were the guys dressed like custodians and they were at the east end of the lot and back away from the street. I think one of them may be seen in Towner #3 on the steps of the shelter as he is looking out into the RR yard.

Last time Bill, Myers thinks the two men who Bowers told Lane about where at the east end of the fence. Not behind it but in front of it & he does not rule out Hudson & Co.

I'm sorry, but I have to smile at a simple mistake you guys keep making. Bowers said that he could see these men when the caravan entered the plaza. Bowers could tell they were standing up - Bowers could see which way they were facing - and Bowers could judge the distance between them to be between 10 to 15 feet apart. Hudson and the man who stood east of him were sitting on the steps and then stood up when the caravan came not into the plaza, but onto Elm Street and at no time while on the steps Bowers could have seen them. So one has to understand that Lee is talking about someone else ... there is no way around this.

Bill Miller

Edited November 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

The reason the head is moving left to right is because Hudson is going down.

Going down & turning left.

Regardless,

if the only importance of this is that you don't want to admit a mistake, then I'll waste no more time on it.

Alan,

What you are saying is interesting and I will be happy to create a more stabilized version of the frames in question. In fact, I would like to go back a few more when I know Hudson is on the Nix film and see if I cannot pick up on him so to see his head and the direction it is pointing when he is looking over his shoulder at the limo. I also think that if he is starting to go down, then that is a telling find that supports his statement. And so you know ... my finding that it was Hudson seen through the pyracantha bush was the importance of what I did because until then it was Groden who had claimed this person to possibly be one of the assassins. The direction his head was facing was irrelevant to me, but it was the left to right movement of his head moving in correlation with the limo is why I had maintained that he was facing the car. I look forward to making a longer stabilized clip and posting it. That I can promise.

Bill

[Ken Rheberg]

At the time there had been some debate about Hudson being on the steps.

Bill Miller

I smell a rat, Miles.

Ken

You smell yourself, then, because I am not in the same room you are in.

I suspect Duncan MacRae's sniper is the real deal, as I've said a hundred times.

Miles,

You actually said:

"You smell yourself, then, because I am not in the same room you are in."

In the almost 44 years that I've been following the JFK assassination, this has to be the single most juvenile response I have ever seen.

Then you go on to tell us:

"I suspect Duncan MacRae's sniper is the real deal, as I've said a hundred times."

I can't believe that, Miles. You've attached yourself to Dale Myers like a pilot fish to a shark. And Myers says this:

"BOWERS spells it right out - there was no one behind the fence at the time the shots were fired. . . BOWERS specifically says that no one was behind the fence at the time the shots were fired."

We're still waiting for your big announcement. Assassination Armageddon. Remember? You said:

"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. More to follow. Stay tuned."

Meanwhile, the search for the truth in this matter will continue on inspite of you.

Ken

[Ken Rheberg]

Miles,

Ken brought up a great point so I have to ask you.

Did Lane ever ask Bowers to mark a map or photo for where the two men he was talking about were?

Is it in the transcript Miles?

Alan,

Lane never did ask Bowers to mark anything. If it could have helped Lane's case, you can bet he would have had Bowers mark where the two men were standing. Like he had James Simmons mark where he saw the smoke appear by the picket fence. Instead, while Bowers is talking, a photo of the picket fence area fills the screen with a large white "X" marking the spot where I'm sure Lane wanted us to believe the two men were standing. It coincides with Simmons' mark.

Dale Myers was right on this. Lane was leading us along by the nose. Bowers never said or indicated any such thing.

Myers was correct in his conclusions about Bowers' WC testimony with regards to the location of the two men. But with the exception of the above assessment of Lane, when Myers gets to the Lane interview, he lets his bias get in the way.

Obvious bias usually is evident when analysis of an opposing argument is coupled with a scornful, derisive, almost loathing reference to not just one person on the other side but the entire group no matter how large. It's always a red flag for me when I see this kind of treatment. Posner and Bugliosi come quickly to mind. Myers does the same thing once he gets to the Lane interview.

Inspite of what Myers tries to prove, the Lane interview AGREES with Bowers' WC testimony. Myers is so eager to prove that no one was behind the picket fence that his objectivity goes out the window.

When I get a chance, I'll revisit my prior post on this subject. And, if I have the time, I'll break down Myers' initially honest but ultimately biased analysis.

Ken

[Bill Miller]

Inspite of what Myers tries to prove, the Lane interview AGREES with Bowers' WC testimony. Myers is so eager to prove that no one was behind the picket fence that his objectivity goes out the window.

I agree about Myers bias, but even Myers said Bowers placed two men at the west end of the fence prior to the caravan entering the plaza. Where Myers is saying that no one was "Behind the fence" is at the Badge Man location ... that was what Dale was trying to disprove even if it meant leaving a crucial tree out of his model of the RR yard. When Bowers is then asked about where the two men were at the time her saw the smoke over the embankment, Bowers indicates that one of them was still visible while the other one was lost against the background of the foliage. I personally think Lee knew right where the guy was and that it was where he saw the flash of light and/or smoke, but I don't think Lee was quite ready to be a hero. Within 3 or 4 months of the Lane interview - Bowers was dead.

Bill