Jump to content
The Education Forum

On the two men Bowers saw ....


Bill Miller

Recommended Posts

Miles,

You certainly have put forth some well thought out conclusions!!!!

But I'm still not clear here.

I think Bill said that the man on the bottom steps in a red shirt has no plaid design on it anywhere.

I am trying hard to see the red plaid--did Bowers actually use the words "red plaid" together?

This is kind of confusing, as you can well understand.

Kathy

Good point, Kathy. :pop

Yes, Bowers says "plaid shirt."

Bowers does not say "red plaid shirt."

The reasoning is that if you ask yourself the question: "Why did Bowers not say red plaid, if that is what he meant?"

and then ask yourself: "What other colour might Bowers have had in mind when he said "plaid?"

and then answer yourself:

Well, maybe Bowers was saying that he saw one of these:

PlaidBlue.jpgplaidTAN2.jpgplaidTAN.jpgGrandfatherPlaid.jpg

It's logically possible.

But is it probable?

At 100 yards Bowers says that, as he looked toward the stairs, he saw a young man in his mid-twenties wearing a shirt that he calls plaid.

The photographic evidence shows a young man (whom Hudson said was in his late twenties) wearing a red shirt on the stairs.

The supposition is made that most Americans at the time, including Bowers, thought of a plaid shirt as being a red plaid shirt for the reason that most plaid shirts sold & worn & SEEN in the 1960s were red in colouration to one degree or another. Other colourations for plaid shirts were not as commonplace as red.

The contention is that Bowers was one person of many who associated plaid shirts with red plaid shirts.

Bowers saw, as what he thought & remembered as a red coloured shirt, something like this: roycamred.jpg

The point is this:

Bowers says that he saw a man is a white shirt & a man in a Plaid shirt, not in a Blue or Green or Black or a Poka Dot or a Yellow shirt.

Bowers says Plaid.

The preponderance of the evidence is that Bowers saw a young man in a red shirt that Bowers called a plaid shirt.

Of course, it is quite true that Bowers may not have seen, strictly speaking, a plaid shirt.

But, then there was a young man in a red shirt in the exact area where Bowers was looking & he, Bowers, may have mistook this red shirt as a plaid shirt, as a red plaid shirt.

Therefore, to argue that Bowers' use of the word "plaid" strikes down or invalidates Bowers' testimony does not make sense.

Thanks for your enquiry, Kathy. And for your kind words, too. :ice

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 902
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Therefore, to argue that Bowers' use of the word "plaid" strikes down or invalidates Bowers' testimony does not make sense.

Thanks for your enquiry, Kathy. And for your kind words, too. :)

Addendum:

Kathy,

Alan's crop here makes it easy to see why Bowers says he saw a plaid shirt.

Doesn't the red shirt looks plaid? Ho ho. Maybe it is! Let's look again. :lol:

5499.jpgNixStairs2.gifNixStairs.gif

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore, to argue that Bowers' use of the word "plaid" strikes down or invalidates Bowers' testimony does not make sense.

Thanks for your enquiry, Kathy. And for your kind words, too. :)

Addendum:

Kathy,

Alan's crop here makes it easy to see why Bowers says he saw a plaid shirt.

Doesn't the red shirt looks plaid? Ho ho. Maybe it is! Let's look again. :lol:

5499.jpgNixStairs2.gifNixStairs.gif

Kathy,

Could it be? Holy mackerel !!

What do you think ?

TownerCrop-1-1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, Kathy. :lol:

Yes, Bowers says "plaid shirt."

Bowers does not say "red plaid shirt."

The reasoning is that if you ask yourself the question: "Why did Bowers not say red plaid, if that is what he meant?"

and then ask yourself: "What other colour might Bowers have had in mind when he said "plaid?"

Miles, How stupid do you think these forum members are? You are playing such a silly wording game that I imagine that most people find it annoying, if not down right dishonest, as well. Let me explain why I say this because it sure isn't getting past me .....

You had been asked numerous times where Bowers ever mentioned a 'red plaid' shirt or jacket without actually giving a direct response. FINALLY you admit that Bowers never even used the word "red plaid" ... it was YOU who incorporated the color "red" into the mix. Then as if you somehow think you can change Bowers statement by alluding to the idea that he could have meant "red plaid" when he just said "plaid" - YOU say, "Why did Bowers not say "red plaid", if that is what he meant?" There is nothing in the record that says that Bowers meant to say red or any other color. This is where you just tried to once again put into evidence something that never existed. If Bowers wanted to say "red plaid", then he sure could have, but he didn't. Only YOU bring in the color red - not Bowers.

Then as if you think you may have gotten away with something, it was YOU who then attempted to make a case for the guy down on the steps being one of the men Bowers had been referring to. Once it was pointed out to you that when viewing the 6th Floor Museum's high resolution scans of the original Towner slides ... the man isn't even wearing a plaid design at all - it was YOU who then tried to tweak Bowers testimony by saying that when Bowers said the word "plaid" ... that he must have meant "red plaid".

So let us recap what you have done ... When Bowers said "south" - you say he must have meant "north". When Bowers said "plaid" you say he must have meant "red plaid". Then when it was said that better high resolution images of the red shirted man that are in possession of the 6th Floor Museum do not show a plaid design at all - you then said that when Bowers said "plaid" ... that he just meant 'plain red'. Now you are asking 'why did Bowers not say 'red plaid', if that is what he meant when you have no way of knowing what color Bowers meant. No less than 5 times you have totally manipulated the evidence by either changing the wording or claiming that the witnesses said one thing, while they must have meant another. Sure, anyone can misspeak once - possibly, but you have basically rewritten the entire testimony of Lee Bowers to fit some ridiculous position that you have only recently decided to promote. How is this for a new claim ... Bowers may have said that he lost sight of the man in the white shirt, but in reality he meant to say that the man stood at the fence and fired a rifle at the President. Or maybe someone else can just say that Bowers meant to say that Lee Oswald sat in the tower with him and had lunch during the assassination? Anyone can just say that a witnesses may have said'up' when they meant 'down' ... they may have said 'east' when they meant 'west' ... they may have said 'fast' when they meant 'slow' ... and etc., and etc.. What you have been doing is deceptive to say the least and I am amazed that Simkin and the moderators have allowed it to go on for eventually there surfaces a pattern of purposely deceptive practices going on with you ... not to educate the public about the evidence of the assassination, but instead to make it more difficult for students to understand the this case.

It is said that you shall know thee by the fruit they bare. I cannot tell you how happy I am that you have gone to such extremes to misstate and invent evidence in support of your theories because it shows a pattern of planned deception on your part and will cause future observers to not believe much else of anything you post. And before you fire back with another ignorant response - just let me point out one more thing ... YOU believed Bowers meant "plaid" ... not because of it meaning some code language to Lee Bowers for the color red, but because of the design pattern itself. How do I know this you may ask??? I know it because you then started posting red shirts with lines running through them to show some various designs that could be considered "plaid". It was only AFTER it was said that the shirt is a solid color in those high resolution Towner scans with no plaid design being seen at all that you then altered your position into when Bowers said "plaid" ... he was probably meaning the color "red". Did you really think that some of us would not see this ... GIVE US A BREAK!

Plaid: a cloth having a crisscross design

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kathy,

Could it be? Holy mackerel !!

What do you think ?

I think Kathy is too smart to allow someone to show her a lesser quality image so to wonder if there could be a plaid design on the mans shirt when the higher quality scans of the Towner slides do not show a plaid design. I mean, what an insult to Kathy's intelligence!

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miles,

You certainly have put forth some well thought out conclusions!!!!

But I'm still not clear here.

I think Bill said that the man on the bottom steps in a red shirt has no plaid design on it anywhere.

I am trying hard to see the red plaid--did Bowers actually use the words "red plaid" together?

This is kind of confusing, as you can well understand.

Kathy

Kathy!

You seem to have dropped off the radar screen.

Did you see my question to you in my post # 82 ?

What do you think?

These images seem very suggestive, even very indicative that the man in the red shirt was actually wearing a PLAID shirt.

The more I examine these images the clearer this becomes.

Let's put the question another way.

Can it be said with absolute certainty that the red shirt man is not wearing a PLAID shirt from a scrutiny of these images?

I believe that it must be a matter of opinion. My opinion is that the images DO show plaid.

What do you think?

By the way, beware of anyone who says that something is so, but who then does not produce the proof that this something is so.

Milller says:

Kathy,

Could it be? Holy mackerel !!

What do you think ?

I think Kathy is too smart to allow someone to show her a lesser quality image so to wonder if there could be a plaid design on the mans shirt when the higher quality scans of the Towner slides do not show a plaid design. I mean, what an insult to Kathy's intelligence!

Bill Miller

These so called higher quality scans may or may not exist. They, in fact, may very well show that the red shirt IS in fact PLAID !! :)

Again, it is a matter of opinion, until the evidence is produced.

Dale Myers is on record as NOT believing in Badgeman. Therefore, Dale, while he can be accepted as an honest evaluator, cannot be accepted as an unbiased evaluator.

Likewise, Gary Mack is on record as believing in Badgeman. Therefore, Gary, while he can be accepted as an honest evaluator, cannot be accepted as an unbiased evaluator.

Therefore, while Gary's opinion & Dale's opinion of the 6th Floor images are relevant they are not proof.

The proof is not in hearsay, but in the actual concrete evidence.

Seeing is believing! Please show these alleged higher quality scans of Towner or show ANY other photos. Let's SEE.

Until the proof is produced, then it is logically correct to say that the photos do NOT show that the red shirt is NOT PLAID. Bowers was & is correct.

By the way, Kathy, I am NOT insulting your intelligence by suggesting to you that one should rely on hard evidence & not on hearsay.

To say I am is silly, risible nonsense.

QED

(PS: -- I know that many researchers have complained that the 6th Floor Museum has not allowed photos to be published to the public & the research community. From my own experience I know that the full RTJ Bowers/Lane interview transcript which is held by the 6th Floor Museum is not available from the 6th Floor Museum although it is available from other institutions. :ph34r:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kathy!

You seem to have dropped off the radar screen.

Did you see my question to you in my post # 82 ?

What do you think?

These images seem very suggestive, even very indicative that the man in the red shirt was actually wearing a PLAID shirt.

Miles, I think that you didn't count on Kathy's intelligence. The first time I ever spoke to her explaining how absurd it was to try and make claims out of poor quality images when the better prints do not show the same - she got it!

The more I examine these images the clearer this becomes.

Let's put the question another way.

Can it be said with absolute certainty that the red shirt man is not wearing a PLAID shirt from a scrutiny of these images?

What you are suggesting is like having a door on each wall of an outhouse ... no matter which one you choose - something still stinks when you enter one of them. Let me give you an example ... how about I post an assassination image that is so poor that I can ask you that if you view just the poor image I have provided ... could you not agree with some observation I made. I mean, what kind of nonsense is that!!!

By the way, beware of anyone who says that something is so, but who then does not produce the proof that this something is so.

Are you referring to all the times you said Holland ran immediately off the underpass - or the comment that Bowers must have meant 'north' when he said 'south' - or the multiple references to Bowers talking about a 'red plaid' shirt which you eventually admitted that those words were ever spoken by Bowers?

These so called higher quality scans may or may not exist. They, in fact, may very well show that the red shirt IS in fact PLAID !! :ph34r:

I have a feeling that Gary Mack guards his credibility a little better than what I have seen some do in this thread. And I doubt you'll catch him saying the type of things that you opened yourself up to. For instance - Gary will actually check with interviewers and/or witnesses to know what they said or meant. Have you called Jones Harris yet ... of course not!

Seeing is believing! Please show these alleged higher quality scans of Towner or show ANY other photos. Let's SEE.

Until the proof is produced, then it is logically correct to say that the photos do NOT show that the red shirt is NOT PLAID. Bowers was & is correct.

Well, hear we go again ... you just admitted to Kathy and this forum that Bowers never said anything about the color "RED", and now you word your sentence to infer that he did. In my view that is dishonest.

(PS: -- I know that many researchers have complained that the 6th Floor Museum has not allowed photos to be published to the public & the research community. From my own experience I know that the full RTJ Bowers/Lane interview transcript which is held by the 6th Floor Museum is not available from the 6th Floor Museum although it is available from other institutions.

The Museum has guidelines for following copyright laws. Many, if not all of the images you are talking about fall under that guideline. However, those who visit the plaza can make an appointment and go in and view high resolution scans of these images. This has been posted many times in the past. The problem is that so many researchers who complain about not seeing them on the net won't take a few minutes out of their stay in Dallas to actually go look at the images. I am one of those people who have gone and viewed some of the countless images the Museum has to offer. I guess it all depends on how serious one really is about wanting to see these images.

Bill Miller

PS: Posted by Jack White in another thread ...

I tried enhancing the Towner man in the red shirt every way

I could think of. The shirt does not appear to be plaid.

Jack

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kathy!

You seem to have dropped off the radar screen.

Did you see my question to you in my post # 82 ?

What do you think?

These images seem very suggestive, even very indicative that the man in the red shirt was actually wearing a PLAID shirt.

Miles, I think that you didn't count on Kathy's intelligence. The first time I ever spoke to her explaining how absurd it was to try and make claims out of poor quality images when the better prints do not show the same - she got it!

Let's let Kathy speak for herself, shall we? You are insulting Kathy by implying that she cannot speak for herself. :ph34r:

The more I examine these images the clearer this becomes.

Let's put the question another way.

Can it be said with absolute certainty that the red shirt man is not wearing a PLAID shirt from a scrutiny of these images?

Bill Miller

PS: Posted by Jack White in another thread ...

I tried enhancing the Towner man in the red shirt every wayI could think of.

The shirt does not appear to be plaid.

Jack

That's only Jack's opinion. I would be interested in seeing his enhancements, however.

Until the proof is produced, then it is logically correct to say that the photos do NOT show that the red shirt is NOT PLAID. Bowers was & is correct.

The point is this:

Bowers says that he saw a man is a white shirt & a man in a Plaid shirt, not in a Blue or Green or Black or a Poka Dot or a Yellow shirt.

Bowers says Plaid.

The preponderance of the evidence is that Bowers saw a young man in a red shirt that Bowers called a plaid shirt.

Of course, it is quite true that Bowers may not have seen, strictly speaking, a plaid shirt.

But, then there was a young man in a red shirt in the exact area where Bowers was looking & he, Bowers, may have mistook this red shirt as a plaid shirt, as a red plaid shirt.

Therefore, to argue that Bowers' use of the word "plaid" strikes down or invalidates Bowers' testimony does not make sense.

However, on the other hand, Bowers may very well have seen a plaid shirt as he said he did.

And that plaid shirt would have been the red plaid shirt, as seen in the photos.

Either way, the two men seen by Bowers were seen by him in the stairs locus & NOT behind the fence!

That's obvious & is demonstrated here:

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

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have trouble reading large blocks of bold text if they are more than about 10 lines deep with no break.

It would be easier for me to motivate myself to read, analysize & comment on his thoughts if he broke these thick paragraphs up a little more.

But thanks for the input on it anyway, I think.

Alan, I have seen you respond to plain text before and it didn't seem that it helped you understand what was written any better. I know for a fact that Gary Mack has emailed you in the past with plain text and you still didn't understand the information that he provided you either. The WC Volumes also used plain text in Bowers testimony about which side of the fence he was talking about and that seemed to confuse you, so if it is all the same .... I'll keep using the bold text.

Bill

Aside from the xxxxx like response, you made another big cock-up.

Bowers does not mention the word "fence" once in his entire WC testimony, let alone "the south side" of it.

Try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't Jimmy Files claim he was wearing a red plaid shirt? (reversible, as I recall)

Jack

Good point, Jack.

Files did not indicate a colour for his plaid, poplin reversible.

Files' idea was that in plaid he could walk about the RR yard & appear to be just another RR yardman because the yardmen frequently wore plaid work shirts.

So, Bowers would have been used to seeing plaid shirts.

Plaid shirts tend to be highly coloured, whatever their colour. Other types of shirts tend to be less highly coloured.

Hence, if Bowers saw a highly coloured red shirt he may have assumed it was a red plaid shirt, whether it was in actuality plaid or not.

Then, again, Bowers actually may have seen a plaid shirt which was red.

The probabilities mount up.

They mount up into a looming, towing tsunami before which Bill is paddling a tiny inner tube in a blur of aquatic flight activity.

:ph34r:

Let's hope for the best!

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bowers DID NOT say that he could see the south side of the fence .....

bowersrtj2lp7.gif

"Now, I could see back or the south side of the wooden fence in the area.....".

This has been my point the whole time.

Bowers could not see the south side of the fence so it's reasonable to conclude he made a slip.

Question:

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

Answer:

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.

Now you are saying he didn't say those words at all?

So I take it he didn't say the same thing to several other people then either?

My what a merry dance.

Edited by Alan Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the meaning of what Bowers said is quite clear. From his window

he could SEE OVER THE TOP OF THE WOODEN FENCE and he could NOT

SEE ANYONE ABOVE THE TOP OF THE FENCE on its south side. The fence

is five feet tall, so he could not see anyone shorter than that or sitting, but

could see anyone STANDING NEAR THE FENCE. If they were downslope from the

fence he could not see them, of course.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan's crop here makes it easy to see why Bowers says he saw a plaid shirt.

Doesn't the red shirt looks plaid?

5499.jpgp><p>personally I can

.

Also, although it may of been impossible for Bowers to make out such a light pattern from that distance he may of put the two together in his own mind...... the colour reminded him of a red plaided shirt.

I guess I'm just repeating what's been said already but we must remain open-minded.

From that Muchmore frame alone, I would say if anyone was wearing plaid it was the man on our right.

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/6530/blupladlx6.jpg' alt='blupladlx6.jpg'>

In all the other photos & films however he appears to be wearing a plain white shirt.

I understand your points very well & appreciate the effort but the plaid is just not seen on the red shirt.

There is still another possible explaination.

One of the two men Bowers described to Lane as being west of the curved decorative wall & east of the fence is not seen in any photo we have.

Maybe that's too hard for you to imagine but that's okay.

I still think there's a strong possiblity he's refering to Hudson & the younger man but I am not convinced yet.

I'm certainly convinced Hudson & Co are in the right place for the RTJ description, that he said two men & not three is an insignificant triviality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the meaning of what Bowers said is quite clear. From his window

he could SEE OVER THE TOP OF THE WOODEN FENCE and he could NOT

SEE ANYONE ABOVE THE TOP OF THE FENCE on its south side. The fence

is five feet tall, so he could not see anyone shorter than that or sitting, but

could see anyone STANDING NEAR THE FENCE. If they were downslope from the

fence he could not see them, of course.

Jack

Your entitled to your opinion but like I pointed out what he actually said is impossible.

He could not see the south side of the fence.

I think he meant to say "north".

Isn't that just as reasonable, if not more so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...