Ken Rheberg

P.S. F. Lee Mudd was Francis Lee Mudd, and another researcher has found evidence there was a Francis Lee Mudd, Jr. One website I looked at had a 71 year old Francis Mudd still living in Shreveport. As a result I think Jr. is alive, and that he now goes by simply "Francis Mudd."

Pat,

I've made the contact. Assassination witness F. Lee Mudd is deceased. Period. He died back in 1974. To say the source for this is reliable is an understatement. It doesn't get any better.

Running Man was Hudson's "young fellow" in his late twenties.

Redshirt Man was F. Lee Mudd. 60 years old.

Ken

He said he later made another trip to Dallas, accompanied by his wife, and he showed her the place where the assassination occurred, and he observed the Texas School Book Depository building and he is confident this is the same building he was standing near at the time of the assassination.

Redshirtman is NOT standing near the TSBD.

"Near" according to F. Lee Mudd was 75 to 100 feet west of the TSBD.

Ken

Forum members:

I've just confirmed through an extremely reliable source close to F. Lee Mudd that Mr. Mudd was indeed a witness to the assassination and that he did die back in 1974. That means he was 60 on 11/22/63. Redshirt Man was an old man.

I'll make sure this is posted on both Mudd threads.

Ken

Forum members:

I've just confirmed through an extremely reliable source close to F. Lee Mudd that Mr. Mudd was indeed a witness to the assassination and that he did die back in 1974. That means he was 60 on 11/22/63. Redshirt Man was an old man.

I'll make sure this is posted on both Mudd threads.

Ken

I do not care if the redshirtman is Mudd or if Mudd is the redshirtman. But seems to me

that Speer is trying to force the shoe onto a foot that is too large. It is an interesting theory

but I think unprovable.

There's reason to believe Mudd is still alive. If so, it's possible this whole question of whether he was on the steps and the man in red or the other guy can still be cleared up.

I've transferred the following over from the Mudd companion thread due to it's relevance here.

Ken

Tink, in Six Seconds in Dallas, you make what I consider to be an embarrassing mistake. You take the FBI report on F. Lee Mudd, which reads as follows:

"He looked around him, and he recalled that in looking toward the building nearby, he noticed several broken windows on about the fourth floor, and the thought occurred to him that possibly the shots had been fired through these broken windows. However, he did not observe any smoke, nor did he see anyone at the windows, nor did he notice any motion within the building. He said the building appeared to be abandoned. Subsequent to the shooting, he did not notice anyone enter or leave the building. Mr. Mudd stated that when the shots were fired, they sounded as if they came from the direction of the building."

And report it on page 132 as follows: (changes highlighted):

"He looked around him, and he recalled that in looking toward the building nearby, he noted several broken windows on the fourth floor of the Dal-Tex Building, and the thought occurred to him that possibly the shots had been fired through these broken windows. However, he did not observe any smoke, nor did he see anyone at the windows, nor did he notice any motion within the building... (He) stated that when the shots were fired, they sounded as if they came from the direction of the Dal-Tex Building."

For some reason you entered your conjecture Mudd was talking about the Dal-Tex building into the report, even though a full reading of the FBI report indicates he was talking about the TSBD.. This is something I'd expect a Posner to do, but not you.

In any event, I have now proposed that Mudd was also not where you thought he was, but was where his statement said he was--in front of the President when the fatal shots were fired. This has led to the suspicion of a number of researchers that Mudd is in fact the man in red standing by Hudson in the Muchmore film. Hudson said this man was a young man.

And, sure enough, there is apparently a Francis Mudd still living in Shreveport, in his early 70's. The thought occurs that with your gumshoe background you are the perfect person to contact Mudd and finally get his story, unfiltered by the FBI. Are you game?

Pat,

There's only one Francis Mudd from Shreveport. That's the one I was referring to in your other thread. And he died in Shreveport, the location of F. Lee Mudd's business, in 1974 at the age of 71. He would have been 60 at the time of the assassination.

I've done some additional investigation on this since your threads began last week, and the deceased Francis Mudd's middle name appears to indeed be Lee. So Francis Mudd of Shreveport was Francis Lee Mudd. And Francis Lee Mudd would then be assassination witness F. Lee Mudd who was sixty years old back in November of 1963.

F. Lee Mudd could only have been Redshirt Man, which means Redshirt Man was 60 years old that day. This supports the evidence as laid out in the F. Lee Mudd thread. Redshirt Man was old. And Running Man was the one who told Emmett Hudson to lay down while taking cover behind the retaining wall.

Ken

Tink, in Six Seconds in Dallas, you make what I consider to be an embarrassing mistake. You take the FBI report on F. Lee Mudd, which reads as follows:

"He looked around him, and he recalled that in looking toward the building nearby, he noticed several broken windows on about the fourth floor, and the thought occurred to him that possibly the shots had been fired through these broken windows. However, he did not observe any smoke, nor did he see anyone at the windows, nor did he notice any motion within the building. He said the building appeared to be abandoned. Subsequent to the shooting, he did not notice anyone enter or leave the building. Mr. Mudd stated that when the shots were fired, they sounded as if they came from the direction of the building."

And report it on page 132 as follows: (changes highlighted):

"He looked around him, and he recalled that in looking toward the building nearby, he noted several broken windows on the fourth floor of the Dal-Tex Building, and the thought occurred to him that possibly the shots had been fired through these broken windows. However, he did not observe any smoke, nor did he see anyone at the windows, nor did he notice any motion within the building... (He) stated that when the shots were fired, they sounded as if they came from the direction of the Dal-Tex Building."

For some reason you entered your conjecture Mudd was talking about the Dal-Tex building into the report, even though a full reading of the FBI report indicates he was talking about the TSBD.. This is something I'd expect a Posner to do, but not you.

In any event, I have now proposed that Mudd was also not where you thought he was, but was where his statement said he was--in front of the President when the fatal shots were fired. This has led to the suspicion of a number of researchers that Mudd is in fact the man in red standing by Hudson in the Muchmore film. Hudson said this man was a young man.

And, sure enough, there is apparently a Francis Mudd still living in Shreveport, in his early 70's. The thought occurs that with your gumshoe background you are the perfect person to contact Mudd and finally get his story, unfiltered by the FBI. Are you game?

Pat,

There's only one Francis Mudd from Shreveport. That's the one I was referring to in your other thread. And he died in Shreveport, the location of F. Lee Mudd's business, in 1974 at the age of 71. He would have been 60 at the time of the assassination.

I've done some additional investigation on this since your threads began last week, and the deceased Francis Mudd's middle name appears to indeed be Lee. So Francis Mudd of Shreveport was Francis Lee Mudd. And Francis Lee Mudd would then be assassination witness F. Lee Mudd who was sixty years old back in November of 1963.

F. Lee Mudd could only have been Redshirt Man, which means Redshirt Man was 60 years old that day. This supports the evidence as laid out in the F. Lee Mudd thread. Redshirt Man was old. And Running Man was the one who told Emmett Hudson to lay down while taking cover behind the retaining wall.

Ken

Pat,

Regarding the actions of the man in the red shirt, you originally said:

“. . . the little man in red got down on the ground. . .”

This was right in line with what the FBI report said about Mudd:

“. . . some of the spectators along the side of the street dropped to the ground, and he did so himself. . .”

But you later said:

“And the FBI report on Mudd most definitely does say he lay down on the ground after the shots.”

The FBI report most definitely doesn’t use the term “lay down” at all about anyone.

The “lay down” comments come from Emmett Hudson in his Warren Commission testimony. He attributes them to the “young fellow” who had been sitting, then standing to his left and who was telling Hudson, over and over, to lay down and was “already laying down one way on the sidewalk. . .”

Already.

Laying down.

On the sidewalk.

None of this applies to the man in the red shirt. He didn’t lead or direct Hudson from the sidewalk. He was never on or near a sidewalk. He followed Hudson onto the grass.

The man who was telling Hudson repeatedly to lay down was laying down himself already on “the sidewalk.” And the only sidewalk up there was the sidewalk behind the retaining wall where the “young fellow” was heading as seen in the Nix film. Hudson attributes the “lay down” warnings to him.

The “young fellow” from Industrial ran up the stairs and lay down on the sidewalk behind the retaining wall while warning Hudson repeatedly to lay down. Hudson said, “. . . and we did.” The “we” refers to Hudson and the man in the red shirt who was behind and below him on the stairs. Following him. Onto the grass. Hudson refers to this man in his FBI report, claiming there were no statements from him that Hudson could remember.

Ken

What a great post, Ken. Thanks.

I can't agree with this and think it's pretty silly. We know Hudson sat down next to the man in the red shirt after the shots. But you want us to assume the guy he spoke to was some other guy hiding behind the retaining wall. You must be a fan of Home Improvement.

Pretty silly? No, not silly at all, Pat.

You say we know Hudson sat down next to the man in the red shirt.

What we know is that Redshirt Man followed Hudson up the stairs.

They both sat down in the grass with Redshirt Man further into the grass than Hudson.

But Hudson said the "young fellow" who warned him to "lay down" was laying down himself on "the sidewalk." That's the sidewalk at the top of the stairs behind the retaining wall -- the very same direction Running Man headed right after the head shot as seen in Nix.

Hudson seems to go out of his way to make a distinction between where he and the "young fellow" were located:

The young fellow: ". . . he was already laying down one way on the sidewalk. . ."

Hudson: ". . . so I just laid down over on the ground. . ."

Two different locations. One way on the sidewalk. Over on the ground. Not side by side in the grass.

So Hudson wasn't referring to Redshirt Man here. He was referring to Running Man, the man standing to Hudson's left as seen in Moorman and Muchmore, the man Hudson said was a "young fellow" in his twenties. He ran up the stairs, took cover behind the wall, and called back down to Hudson -- whom he had just been talking to -- to lay down as well because, ". . . somebody is shooting the President."

This isn't silly. It's what the evidence points to.

Meanwhile, you say:

"Although Hudson said the fellow said he worked over there on Industrial, it seems perfectly possible Mudd had told him he was in town on business, and was working over there that day. ."

Perfectly possible? No, it's actually pretty shaky, Pat. But I would never, ever call it silly.

Running Man worked in Dallas.

Redshirt Man worked (and apparently died) in Shreveport.

F. Lee Mudd. Francis Mudd? As I said earlier in this thread, I think it would be worthwhile to track down his family. They may have stories to tell that were never covered in the FBI report.

Ken

Pat,

Regarding the actions of the man in the red shirt, you originally said:

“. . . the little man in red got down on the ground. . .”

This was right in line with what the FBI report said about Mudd:

“. . . some of the spectators along the side of the street dropped to the ground, and he did so himself. . .”

But you later said:

“And the FBI report on Mudd most definitely does say he lay down on the ground after the shots.”

The FBI report most definitely doesn’t use the term “lay down” at all about anyone.

The “lay down” comments come from Emmett Hudson in his Warren Commission testimony. He attributes them to the “young fellow” who had been sitting, then standing to his left and who was telling Hudson, over and over, to lay down and was “already laying down one way on the sidewalk. . .”

Already.

Laying down.

On the sidewalk.

None of this applies to the man in the red shirt. He didn’t lead or direct Hudson from the sidewalk. He was never on or near a sidewalk. He followed Hudson onto the grass.

The man who was telling Hudson repeatedly to lay down was laying down himself already on “the sidewalk.” And the only sidewalk up there was the sidewalk behind the retaining wall where the “young fellow” was heading as seen in the Nix film. Hudson attributes the “lay down” warnings to him.

The “young fellow” from Industrial ran up the stairs and lay down on the sidewalk behind the retaining wall while warning Hudson repeatedly to lay down. Hudson said, “. . . and we did.” The “we” refers to Hudson and the man in the red shirt who was behind and below him on the stairs. Following him. Onto the grass. Hudson refers to this man in his FBI report, claiming there were no statements from him that Hudson could remember.

Ken

What a great post, Ken. Thanks.

Thanks, Todd.

Pat,

Regarding the actions of the man in the red shirt, you originally said:

“. . . the little man in red got down on the ground. . .”

This was right in line with what the FBI report said about Mudd:

“. . . some of the spectators along the side of the street dropped to the ground, and he did so himself. . .”

But you later said:

“And the FBI report on Mudd most definitely does say he lay down on the ground after the shots.”

The FBI report most definitely doesn’t use the term “lay down” at all about anyone.

The “lay down” comments come from Emmett Hudson in his Warren Commission testimony. He attributes them to the “young fellow” who had been sitting, then standing to his left and who was telling Hudson, over and over, to lay down and was “already laying down one way on the sidewalk. . .”

Already.

Laying down.

On the sidewalk.

None of this applies to the man in the red shirt. He didn’t lead or direct Hudson from the sidewalk. He was never on or near a sidewalk. He followed Hudson onto the grass.

The man who was telling Hudson repeatedly to lay down was laying down himself already on “the sidewalk.” And the only sidewalk up there was the sidewalk behind the retaining wall where the “young fellow” was heading as seen in the Nix film. Hudson attributes the “lay down” warnings to him.

The “young fellow” from Industrial ran up the stairs and lay down on the sidewalk behind the retaining wall while warning Hudson repeatedly to lay down. Hudson said, “. . . and we did.” The “we” refers to Hudson and the man in the red shirt who was behind and below him on the stairs. Following him. Onto the grass. Hudson refers to this man in his FBI report, claiming there were no statements from him that Hudson could remember.

Ken

Pat,

Mudd, Emmett Hudson, Redshirt Man, the "young fellow" from Industrial Blvd., the whole scenario as to who was who and who did what is all very important. It also ties into the Lew Bowers story. Which ties into the Ed Hoffman story. So it's imperative to get it right.

Moving on. . .

A few assumptions you've made. . .

"It was red shirt man who stayed and talked with Hudson on the ground after the shots."

"The other guy at Hudson's left appeared out of nowhere and was gone lickety-split after the shots, and could not have spoken to Hudson during the shooting."

Don't know where you came up with those assumptions. The second one, in particular, is just not true. I know this is the way you honestly see it, but there's apparently more that you haven't considered or even been aware of.

You also said:

"Mudd claimed to have fallen down on the ground after the shots."

Mudd made no such claim. At least, the FBI record makes no such claim of his.

And finally, you said:

". . . we already have a bunch of threads on Moorman in the street etc. I'd like to try and keep this one about Mudd."

I agree. Let's keep it on Mudd. But you also said:

"So I don't see her (Moorman's) lack of an interview with the Sixth Floor as anything suspicious. . . "

I have to respond to that, and I will briefly because of what it seems to suggest. I don't want any misunderstandings. There are no suspicions on my part here. For one, I think Thompson just needs to refocus, get his attention off of Fetzer and White and the line of sight argument, and document what Moorman says. Then let it go. As for Mack, I know he's a busy guy. But an oral history needs to be scheduled for Moorman as soon as possible. She's 77 years old. And one of the questions should be, "Where were you standing when you took your photograph?"

With that, I'll end all comments on this thread about Moorman in the street.

More later on Mudd and the activity on the grassy knoll stairway. . .

Ken

As long as we include the west loading dock (which was a part of the TSBD in 63) in our calculations, then

we having a very nice fit.

best to you

Martin

Thanks, Martin, the map seals the deal for me. Mudd is the man in red.

In reading up on Mudd, I've spotted some huge "mistakes" on the CT side. The first thing I noticed was that one JFK source book said Mudd was interviewed by Josiah Thompson for Six Seconds in Dallas, when in fact Thompson just quoted the FBI report. The second thing I noticed was that several prominent writers claim Mudd said the shots came from the Dal-Tex Building, when the FBI report they cite specifies he suspected they came from the TSBD.

Unfortunately I think Tink is responsible for this. Where the actual report reads:

"He looked around him, and he recalled that in looking toward the building nearby, he noticed several broken windows on about the fourth floor, and the thought occurred to him that possibly the shots had been fired through these broken windows. However, he did not observe any smoke, nor did he see anyone at the windows, nor did he notice any motion within the building. He said the building appeared to be abandoned. Subsequent to the shooting, he did not notice anyone enter or leave the building. Mr. Mudd stated that when the shots were fired, they sounded as if they came from the direction of the building."

Tink cites Mudd's statement as evidence a shot came from the Dal-Tex, and quotes it on page 132 as follows (changes highlighted):

"He looked around him, and he recalled that in looking toward the building nearby, he noted several broken windows on the fourth floor of the Dal-Tex Building, and the thought occurred to him that possibly the shots had been fired through these broken windows. However, he did not observe any smoke, nor did he see anyone at the windows, nor did he notice any motion within the building... (He) stated that when the shots were fired, they sounded as if they came from the direction of the Dal-Tex Building."

Well, heck, Tink, what the heck were you thinking? What with your adding words to Mudd's statement to prop up the Dal-Tex as a source for the shots, and then your placing Mudd on the map of Dealey Plaza in a location much closer to the Dal-Tex, one might reasonably conclude you were deliberately deceiving your readers. Now I don't believe it for a second, but if an LN pulled this kind of thing, I'd certainly suspect as much. Do you remember how you came to make such a mistake?

Pat,

Congratulations on the F. Lee Mudd ID. As I was reading the FBI report in your initial post, it hit me, too. Redshirt Man. If we are are to believe Mudd's story, and I have no reason to doubt it, then there's no other spectator in Dealey Plaza that F. Lee Mudd could have been but Redshirt Man. Absolutely no one.

However, your ID of Mudd as Hudson's "young fellow" is incorrect. Redshirt Man was an older man. The "young fellow" was the man standing to Hudson's left in Moorman and Muchmore.

I think it would be worthwhile to track down Mudd's family. They may have stories to tell that were never covered in the FBI report. Mudd's western clothing business in Shreveport has long since closed down. In fact, over the years many changes have taken place in that somewhat rundown business district, and the addresses 9066 and 9068 Mansfield Road no longer appear to exist at all, as far as I can determine. There are businesses at 9064 and 9070.

A Francis Mudd died in Shreveport in December of 1974. This person was born in 1903 and would have been 60 years old on the day of the assassination. Reshirt Man (F. Mudd of Shreveport) looks to be that old, in my opinion.

I'm also with you, Pat, on your question for Josiah Thompson with regards to his puzzling Mudd ID: "Do you remember how you came to make such a mistake?"

I hope he responds, because I also have a question or two for him.

Josiah, you continue to argue against Moorman in the street from a technical perspective that has fallen on deaf ears. Why don't you just contact Mary Moorman, set up an interview, and ask her where she was standing? In fact, why hasn't Gary Mack scheduled her for an Oral History interview? Why hasn't he ever just asked her, point blank, where she was standing? That's really all you need to establish, isn't it? But neither one of you, it seems, have ever attempted to undertake such a simple task as that. I know how to get ahold of her and so should both of you. So why don't you? Settle this issue once and for all. Please.

Ken

Fair enough, Jack - you're right. You didn't comment on his abilities. I withdraw my warning.

Evan,

Apparently you missed Jack's disgusting slam on Kathy Beckett just two days ago on this very thread when he said:

"Poor, deluded Ms. Beckett has an EMPTY MIND. Information passes through her head without meaning. She is afraid to form opinions or reach conclusions about information. Yet she presumes to lecture me about what I should believe and that I am unfair to others with empty minds. In Texas we call such people armadillos. Armadillos stay in THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD, without definite beliefs. They generally end up as ROADKILL." (Caps are all Jack's.)

It would seem this was a clear violation of forum rule (iv):

"Members should not make personal attacks on other members."

Ken

Lee,

Jack wrote:

"I have fought the internet wars against the lonenutters for more than 15 years. . ."

This is all about "lonenutters."

Within this context, he goes on to say:

". . . some of these are PAID by sinister forces. . ."

and:

". . . others are just persons with psychological problems. . ."

These two connections made by Jack -- those being paid by sinister forces and those with psychological problems -- should be referring back to "lonenutters." So based on Jack's grammatical construction here, and because you're not a "lonenutter," he couldn't possibly have been talking about you.

As for Justin's original points as well as most of what you had to say, I couldn't agree more.

Ken

Of course Bill Paxton is one of the driving forces behind the Tom Hanks HBO production of Vince Belalagosi's "Reframing Oswald" TV series.

Someone on another forum has said this is now in production.

I don't think it is, but if someone has any information about this show now being in production, or whatever its status, I'd like to know what it is.

Thanks,

BK

I spoke with HBO Films today, and someone close to the project told me there was no guarantee that the proposed TV mini-series would be going into production. It might. But, on the other hand, it might not. Nothing about it was certain at this time. The current status is merely that it's "in development".

Ken

Here's the substance of a conversation I had 11/13/09 with the Wisconsin Historical Society Reference Archivist regarding use of their archived materials by researchers:

The Society provides archived documents to individuals for their own personal study and research. The Society also informs these individuals of their responsibilities as they pertain to copyright.

Posting documents on the internet is a form of publishing. Posting small portions of said documents is generally acceptable under what is known as "fair use". Posting entire documents, or major portions of them, could lead to a violation of the copyright. This is normally resolved by obtaining an authorization to publish from the holder of the copyright.

In this case, the copyright for the interview of the late Lee Bowers could be held by his heirs, however I'm not sure if he was ever married or had any children. If he did, the rights could have been signed over to Emile de Antonio. These rights would then be held by de Antonio's estate as he has passed away as well. It's hard to say where the copyright lies at this point.

The Society recommends against posting the entire document or major portions of it without the proper authorization. If this isn't obtained, an objection and then legal action could arise from the holder of the copyright. The Society's recommendation is my position as well.

I was also told that the Society has now been contacted by other researchers asking for copies of the Bowers transcripts. This is good news.

So the plan is as follows. Sometime this coming week, while waiting for your transcripts to be received, I'll post my analysis of Bowers' Warren Commission testimony. That will be followed by my analysis of the complete Bowers' transcripts the following week, including whether or not I feel they conform to his testimony. I'll be as objective as I can possibly be, giving credit where credit is due, or the lack thereof, and hopefully come up with an acceptable theory about what Lee Bowers saw that day.

Ken

(Posted on both the Lancer and Education forums.)

Ken, publishing the transcript for re-sale or profit is one thing--but I am 99.99% certain you can re-type and re-use what is on the transcript for education purposes under the principle of fair use. People can own a work of fiction, but people can't own a public quote. In Part 3 of my video series, we re-enact an interview of Dr. Humes performed by Dan Rather, where Humes lies through his teeth. We wanted to use the actual interview, to show people Hey! This is real! This good doctor was given a script by the Justice Department and went on national TV and LIED to one of the largest TV audiences of that era. But CBS wanted to charge us a thousand dollars to put a 30 second segment on Youtube, or some such thing. So we just re-shot it, using a comedian friend of the director. CBS owns the footage of what was said, but they do not own what was said, once it's been broadcast. So..the question is has this footage ever been shown publicly?

Thanks for your input, Pat. I'll be going over the transcripts page by page, re-typing when necessary along the way for educational purposes under the priciple of fair use. This kind of usage was appropriate according to the Wisconsin Historical Society. Scanning and posting of the entire transcripts was not. To answer your question about the footage, the entire interview of Lee Bowers has never, to my knowledge, been shown publicly. Just select portions of the interview as seen in the film "Rush to Judgment".

Ken

Here's the substance of a conversation I had 11/13/09 with the Wisconsin Historical Society Reference Archivist regarding use of their archived materials by researchers:

The Society provides archived documents to individuals for their own personal study and research. The Society also informs these individuals of their responsibilities as they pertain to copyright.

Posting documents on the internet is a form of publishing. Posting small portions of said documents is generally acceptable under what is known as "fair use". Posting entire documents, or major portions of them, could lead to a violation of the copyright. This is normally resolved by obtaining an authorization to publish from the holder of the copyright.

In this case, the copyright for the interview of the late Lee Bowers could be held by his heirs, however I'm not sure if he was ever married or had any children. If he did, the rights could have been signed over to Emile de Antonio. These rights would then be held by de Antonio's estate as he has passed away as well. It's hard to say where the copyright lies at this point.

The Society recommends against posting the entire document or major portions of it without the proper authorization. If this isn't obtained, an objection and then legal action could arise from the holder of the copyright. The Society's recommendation is my position as well.

I was also told that the Society has now been contacted by other researchers asking for copies of the Bowers transcripts. This is good news.

So the plan is as follows. Sometime this coming week, while waiting for your transcripts to be received, I'll post my analysis of Bowers' Warren Commission testimony. That will be followed by my analysis of the complete Bowers' transcripts the following week, including whether or not I feel they conform to his testimony. I'll be as objective as I can possibly be, giving credit where credit is due, or the lack thereof, and hopefully come up with an acceptable theory about what Lee Bowers saw that day.

Ken

(Posted on both the Lancer and Education forums.)

That sounds great

Could you give us a quick rundown of what is in the transcipts Ken?

I heard it had a better desciption of the two men standing behind the fence

Thanks for the info

Thanks, Dean. I'm going to hold off a bit until others have a chance to get their copies. It shouldn't be too long.

Ken

Wouldn't it be instructive to have a .pdf of these transcripts uploaded to the internet?

To Chris and others who may be thinking along the same line:

Please see the site below posted by Kathy Beckett on the Lancer Forum.

http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/copyright.asp

Ken

In his 1964 testimony before the Warren Commission, Union Terminal railroad tower employee and key JFK assassination witness Lee Bowers implied that he had seen someone on the high ground above Elm Street between his tower and the triple underpass at the time the shots were fired. A picket fence was never mentioned by Bowers or attorney Joseph Ball.

Bowers was later interviewed in 1966 for the Mark Lane/Emile de Antonio documentary film "Rush to Judgment". In clips selected from this interview and used for the film, nothing was said by Bowers that contradicted what he had told the Warren Commission.

Then a few years ago, after reviewing the complete transcripts of Bowers' "Rush to Judgment" interview, computer animator Dale Myers concluded on his "Secrets of a Homicide" web site that Bowers said there was no one behind the fence at the time of the shots. Myers also made unique claims about other aspects of Bowers' story.

Unfortunately, while Myers had access to a copy of the transcripts, those inclined to disagree with him did not. And no direction was given by Myers as to where they could be located apart from page numbers and film rolls. Nor was any direction given by a Myers version supporter who also had access to the transcripts as he argued Myers' conclusions elsewhere online. In fact the supporter ultimately declined outright to reveal his source for the transcripts when asked. All this put those who disagreed with Myers at an unfair disadvantage.

However, that disadvantage has come to an end. The transcripts have actually been available to anyone who wants them. All thirteen pages can be found in and obtained from the archives of the Wisconsin Historical Society. I now have my copy. And I believe this discussion needs to be reopened.

**If you wish to obtain your own copy, please contact Harry Miller, Reference Archivist, at askarchives@wisconsinhistory.org. Refer to the Lee Bowers transcripts in Box 55, Folder 2 of the Emile de Antonio papers.**

Ken

(Note: This is being posted on both the Lancer and Education forums.)

I have just discovered that J. Edgar Hoover used Dorothy Kilgallen via Richard Berlin, to spread the rumour that JFK was involved in the Profumo case. On 23rd June, 1963, Dorothy Kilgallen published an article in the New York Journal-American: "One of the biggest names in American politics - a man who holds a very high elective office - has been injected into Britain's vice-security scandal." This was a reference to the John Profumo and Christine Keeler affair. Kilgallen went on to describe one of the girls as "a beautiful Chinese-American girl now in London." She added that the "highest authorities" had "identified her as Suzy Chang."

John,

1. You said, "J. Edgar Hoover used Dorothy Kilgallen via Richard Berlin. . ." Are you implying that she was knowingly or unknowingly used by Hoover. That is, did Berlin tell her that Hoover was behind the story?

2. You quote Kilgallen's article which says, "One of the biggest names in American politics. . ." and connect that to JFK. How did you make that connection? "One of the biggest names" could be any number of highly elected officials.

3. You also refer to the JFK involvement as a rumor. How did you come to this conclusion?

Thanks.

Ken

If you recall the first time you saw movie film of the assassination of

President Kennedy on television, please click here.

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DarkCorners/

B........

The site says: first time seeing the Z film. B's question asks first time saw it on tv.

I saw the film for the first time in 1972 at the Democratic Convention. It was a VERY bad bootlegged copy. Scary, nonetheless.

I next saw it in 73 via my association with the Assassination Information Bureau.

First tv viewing was in 75- when Geraldo showed it- back when he was still a good guy.

I never get "used " to it. Have seen it thousands of times.

Dawn

No, the site says specifically "on television." It also says nothing about the Zapruder film.

Paul said:

"Chaney did get ahead of the presidential limousine, and said so himself: "I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet." So who is being selective here? It isn't Fetzer, it's you. The films don't show Chaney's true progress because the films are co-ordinated fakes."

But this statement can be easily explained without resorting to film fakery as the reason. Chaney has placed himself at "the right rear fender" of the limo. After what he believed was the first shot, Chaney looked to his left away from the President. We see this in the Altgens photo. At the time of what he believed was the second shot, Cheney had by then looked BACK just in time to see the President struck in the face. Looking BACK in this instance simply means Chaney had returned his attention to the President. His angle from the right rear led Chaney to believe that the President had been shot in the face.

Ken

I never noticed this man before.

Jack

What Jack White has provided in the cropped McIntire photo within or around the blue circle and red rectangle is Jack Daniel filming the three boys in front of him as they wave at the passing motorcade. There was NO ONE else between them and the triple underpass on their side of the street.

Ken

But the two weren't standing behind what we normally think of as the fence at the time of the shots.

Please elaborate on the basis for this statement. If they were not standing behind the fence, where were they standing?

Below is a frame from the Bell film, courtesy of Miles Scull in another thread. The man in white is seen clearly. The man in plaid is hard to find, although Miles, I believe, claimed to see him. I know Lee Bowers had trouble finding him at about this time. This Bell frame isn't the only reason I believe the two men were standing here. But it's a good start.

Ken

Duncan, ... didn't Bowers say that one of the men after the shooting was still at the same location. And didn't Officer Joe Marshal Smith possibly meet one of them?

I think a closer reading of Bowers' testimony is certainly in order. Bowers said that there were two men standing behind the fence, but that they didn't appear to be together and were standing some 10-15' apart. Neither of them did he describe as wearing a suit, which is one attribute that one might expect of the Secret Service. If memory serves, Smith indicated that the man was reaching inside his jacket, and if so, it rules out either of these men.

That is not, however, to say that Smith didn't meet up with someone claiming to be USSS.

Duke,

You said:

"I think a closer reading of Bowers' testimony is certainly in order. Bowers said that there were two men standing behind the fence. . ."

I take it you've read Bowers' testimony closer. Where does he ever say that there were two men standing behind the fence?

Ken

Actually, Ken, he didn't, anywhere in his testimony. There, he merely says that the two of them are "on the high ground" between his tower and the opening under the Triple Underpass. I never actually said otherwise, but that seems to be the concensus of others' opinions here, so why upset the apple cart?

It is, in any case, a defensible interpretation that they were behind the fence because he could see one of the men's trousers, a difficult exercise through a 5-6' stockade fence, even from Bowers' elevated position.

It may also be what he said in the RTJ film, which I no longer have either a copy of or a transcript from, so I don't know. I'm merely aping the opinions of others.

No "gotcha" here!

Duke,

Gotcha? What are you talking about? This is no game.

You said, "Bowers said that there were two men standing behind the fence. . ."

Well, that was incorrect. He never said any such thing. I point it out, and I'm playing a game of "gotcha."

Of course, according to you, there was no real "gotcha" because you knew the truth all along. Bowers never did say that. You just didn't want to "upset the apple cart" of the incorrect concensus of opinion on this thread.

You then justify this concensus of opinion by labeling it defensible.

That doesn't sound like you, Duke. Backing off on a misquote. Not wanting to upset the apple cart. All because the underlying position is defensible. Since when does someone else's defensible position stand in the way of what is correct?

By the way, I'm not saying there was no one behind the fence. Bowers said there seemed to be "some commotion," "a sort of milling around" on the high ground at the time of the shooting. That says a lot. Part of that commotion and milling around may have included one of the two men he describes, the man in plaid. But the two weren't standing behind what we normally think of as the fence at the time of the shots. And they certainly weren't standing on the grassy knoll stairway (which you don't appear to believe). Not if one takes a close look at everything Bowers said. Or what he said that we have at our disposal at the present time.

Which brings up a question I've posed to Miles that, I believe, he's avoided answering so far.

Miles,

Now Duke advises that he, too, does not have a copy of the complete Bowers RTJ transcript, which you do have.

As I said before in another thread, please send me a copy of the transcript, or send it to Debra Conway at Lancer. And while you're at it, send one to Duke. As he says in this thread, he's "merely aping the opinions of others" without it.

Ken