Ken Rheberg

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?

Bill

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

Miles said:

"Ken asks if I got my transcript from Myers. The answer is no.

My source for the transcript chooses to remain private."

Thanks, Miles, for clearing that up.

Now I'm asking you to send me a copy of it. Or to send a copy to Debra Conway at Lancer.

You'll recall, I assisted Debra in getting a copy of Ed Hoffman's book "Eyewitness" emailed to you so you could argue your position with everything at your disposal in the Hoffman thread, a position which was not the same as ours.

It's time to return the favor.

Ken

Hi, Miles. That was quick. After I advised that I’d seen the moderator’s message to Bill and that it was real and not made up, it didn't take you long to jump back on board with this silly, ego-driven response:

“No, Ken. You're the one with zero credibility. It is not real. Miller made it up.”

And then you talked about Pepe le Moko.

Now, about that question I previously asked you which you have yet to respond to. It's not about ego. Or Pepe le Moko. It's all about your agenda and how it's being played out on this thread. One more time. Here we go with a little more clarification:

It seems that you have obtained, at least, the complete Lee Bowers segment of the unedited "Rush to Judgment" transcript. Am I correct on this, Miles? And, if so, did you obtain it from Dale Myers?

Thanks.

Ken

Miles,

You said this to Bill Miller:

“As is no surprise, you are trying to duck the issue, which is your making up a fictional forum moderator.

If you are losing an argument, which you are doing most of the time,

you start making things up to support your lost arguments.

Now you have made up a fictional forum moderator to defend your crumbing position.

The reason & proof of your making this up, is the simple glaring fact that you cannot & do not provide the name of this GHOST moderator.

There is no such moderator. You have made him up, obviously.

You have zero credibility.”

No, Miles. You're the one with zero credibility. I’ve seen the moderator’s message to Bill. It’s real.

Ken

I asked for someone to post Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgement" transcript of the entire Lee Bower's interview, or at least identify where it could be found. Bill Miller then followed up and seconded the request. It would be essential for both sides of the Bowers argument to have access to this transcript in order to carry on a meaningful discussion that would no doubt answer many questions.

Miles then responded that Dale Myers made a copy of a transcript in Gary Mack's possession. Miles went on to say:

"I can say that Bowers was not asked by Lane to draw an "X" to show the locus of the two men & did not do so."

It seems that Miles has the transcript. Am I correct, Miles? Did you obtain it from Myers?

Nice to see that one important question has been resolved just by being able to refer to the transcript. And thanks, Miles, for the answer.

So Lane never asked Bowers to indicate where the two men were standing. Not in the finished documentary or anywhere in the interview questions and answers that were not included in the documentary, which is what I've been saying all along. Yet the documentary shows a white "X" at the spot where Simmons indicated (after Lane had asked him) where the smoke had come from. Neither Lane nor his staff had any basis upon which to include that white "X" where they did while Bowers was talking. It appears to have been done to make Lane's case about where the shots came from. It's the spot indicated by both Simmons and Sam Holland. Lane already knew where Bowers' two men were standing. At the west end of the fence, as Bowers said during his WC testimony and which Myers concedes to.

Ken

I don't make anything up

Sure you do. If you are losing an argument, which you are doing most of the time,

you start making things up to support your lost arguments.

(You made up the apocryphal & fictitious "Weitzman Report" that does not exist: that's just one example from many.)

Let me share another message I have gotten which touched on that report ...

"Btw, my health condition makes my memory not how it should be,even at the age of 27, but I just wanted to let you know that I KNOW that I too have read that Weitzman report,which some people claim do not exist. My memory fails to remember details within it,but somewhere here on the forum I remember you mentioned it (it was from observations in the parking lot?,and it is no doubt in my mind that I have read it. You say it is in the volumes. Are you 100% certain it cannot be in the City of Dallas Archives?"

So I am not alone,

Sure you are. Do you see that you have NOT attributed this quote to anyone? You made this up as well! This is your trick.

but may have been mistaken as to where I saw it. And so we are clear - there is a difference between misremembering something and making it up.

Isn't THAT the truth? You make things up, SUCH AS YOUR, ALLEGED FORUM MODERATOR'S QUOTE.

For instance, when you kept saying that Bowers saw the "red plain shirt"

I never said that. You are making this up, also. Big surprise.

... it to Kathy Beckett to finally ask you where did Bowers use the term 'red' and that was when it was confirmed that Bowers had never said 'red plaid' and that it was you who knowingly made it up.

I never made this up. You are making this up, as usual. Here's why & proof of why, my reply to Kathy, my post # 80 on this thread:

QUOTE(Kathy Beckett @ Sep 17 2007, 04:49 PM)

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.

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:

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:

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.

This post has been edited by Miles Scull: Sep 17 2007, 09:46 PM

As is no surprise, you are trying to duck the issue, which is your making up a fictional forum moderator.

If you are losing an argument, which you are doing most of the time,

you start making things up to support your lost arguments.

Now you have made up a fictional forum moderator to defend your crumbing position.

The reason & proof of your making this up, is the simple glaring fact that you cannot & do not provide the name of this GHOST moderator.

There is no such moderator. You have made him up, obviously.

You have zero credibility.

Miles said:

“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.”

Miles has now somehow gotten into the minds of most Americans back in the 1960’s, telling us what he supposes and contends that their thoughts were about plaid at that time. Plaid meant red plaid to these people, says Miles. He then cites no supporting statistics for red being the color of “most plaid shirts sold & worn & SEEN in the 1960s.”

Sorry, Miles. Plaid is nothing more than that. Plaid.

Webster’s Dictionary definition of plaid: Cloth with a checkered or crossbarred pattern.

Nothing about the color red. Plaid is what it is because of the pattern. Not the color.

You just can't seem to accept the fact that you may indeed be wrong about something. Perish the thought.

Ken

Thanks Ken but it's okay, honestly,

I see the bias don't worry & I've also seen "Beyond Conspiracy" I know who Dale Myers is.

However, how can you know for a fact that Lane didn't ask Bowers to mark something unless you've read the full transcript?

Also,

I personally think what Bowers told Lane is different & I'm not being led by anyone, I'm just going by the snippets of the transcript I have read.

In the transcript he is talking about the east end of the fence in my opinion & this opinion is shared by everyone who's spoke about it thus far(that's only a handful granted) but if you see something different please explain when you get time.

"This happened only one way"....... I agree Dale....... just..... not your way.

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

Alan,

You said:

"However, how can you know for a fact that Lane didn't ask Bowers to mark something unless you've read the full transcript?. . . I'm just going by the snippets of the transcript I have read."

And you're right. How can we know without having the full transcript?

**So I'm asking whoever has access to the complete transcript to post it in its entirety or, at least, to identify where it can be located.**

Miles has attached selected pages from it in this thread, so I would expect feedback of some sort from him fairly soon. I'll check back tonight to see what we've come up with. If nothing, I'll make note of it and proceed from there.

Ken

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

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

Miles now advises:

"I am objectively questioning the consistency & integrity of Hudson's testimony, because it bears on Bowers' testimony, the topic of this tread.

That's all, no more, no less."

That’s right, Miles. You don’t seem to believe in anybody as it relates to shots or a shooter behind the picket fence.

I’m reminded of one of your posts in this thread.

On 10/31/07, you made the following chilling pronouncement:

“I think you may have not noticed something rather important.

Very important.

Vishnu: ‘Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.’

More to follow.

Stay tuned.”

Then the next day on another thread, the “If The Hat Don’t Fit” thread, you bragged:

“Let's see:

Gone now are:

smoke (alleged) in Wiegman

Hoffman

GI Joe

Arnie

BM

Midget Man

Bowers' Two Men behind the fence

What's left?

Oh yeah,

Now, Hudson takes an unexpected reversal. Wouldn't you know?”

And here’s what you said, Miles, the day before on this thread:

“Before proceeding further with an analysis of Hudson's testimony which will prove that it is not credible & that Myers position is consequently newly confirmed & validated. . .”

I smell a rat, Miles. A rat with an agenda. Obsessed with Dale Myers. You seem to be slowly sucking the life out of a grassy knoll shooter scenario. Or trying to. So get it over with. Drop the bomb. Your “Pinky and the Brain” approach to assassination research is getting old.

Ken

Miles knows he's painted himself into a corner.

In my last post, I indicated that since Miles now believed Emmett Hudson's testimony was "cracked" and "false," then there were really no grounds for Miles to rely on it. No point in bringing up Red Shirt Man and what he did on the stairs according to Hudson. No reason to bring up what Hudson said about anything. It's "cracked" and "false."

So, Miles, we can just file away your cracked/false hypothesis, and move on without you on the subject of Hudson and the men on the stairs. Your stand on Hudson has taken you out of the discussion. You've made your point.

So what does Miles do? He responds to me in this manner:

"Hudson says that he laid himself down on the ground & while in this position he heard the third shot ring out.

But Hudson is standing 3 to 4 seconds before the limo enters the underpass. It will take at least 1 second for Hudson to lie down.

So, by letting Hudson speak for himself, it can be seen that Hudson is saying that the third shot occurred at 7 seconds post Z-313."

Miles is still quoting Hudson. He then attaches a Zapruder frame showing an object Bill Miller believes is Hudson's head.

Miles, you've already made your point. Hudson's testimony is "cracked" and "false." But here you are, bringing up what Hudson said all over again, in another subtle attack on Bill. It doesn't work anymore, Miles. Hudson is unreliable according to you. Why is your own position so hard for you to understand?

Ken

Miles now says this regarding Emmett Hudson:

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

That’s actually good for this Forum because Miles can no longer rely on Hudson for support of his outrageous theories about the men on the stairs. Hudson had been quoted by Miles even down to the smallest of details such as Hudson's use of the word “so.” Now with only cracked and false testimony for support, all of Miles’ arguments about the men on the stairs can be disregarded. If Miles tries telling any of you that Red Shirt Man was Hudson’s “young fellow,” don’t listen to him. He has no basis for telling you that anymore. And while Miles has taken the easy way out -- if you're losing the argument, claim the witness is cracked -- I believe Hudson. There's a real freedom in that. As I said before, just let Hudson speak for himself.

Ken

Miles asks: "Why is Hudson closer to the sidewalk stairs than RSM after 30 sec. from Z-313, if RSM was already lying on the sidewalk when Hudson lay himself down?"

The explanation is easy, Miles. Someone else was on the sidewalk warning Hudson to “lay down.” By sidewalk, I mean just that. Not the steps. Not the landing which Hudson called “a broad place.” But “the sidewalk” which is exactly what Hudson said. And the only relevant sidewalk in that area is the one at the top of the stairs where that “someone else” had already headed -- the only person it could have been. Not RSM who was in the grass, but the other man in the Moorman photo. The “young fellow.” The one from Industrial Boulevard. The man to Hudson’s left. Let Hudson speak for himself, and the mystery is over.

Ken

1. While examining the Moorman photo in the Dallas Times Herald with the FBI on 11/25/63, Hudson mentioned BOTH of the other two men .......

You must have read another, more detailed version of that interview Ken because in the easily obtainable official FBI statement Hudson mentions only the one man.

Maybe I misssed it so please point to where he spoke of "both men".

Alan,

In the last paragraph of his FBI report, Hudson mentioned both men. The only thing that distinguished the two, within the context of identity or address as far as Hudson could remember, was that one said nothing while the other said only that he worked "somewhere on Industrial Boulevard in Dallas, Texas."

Industrial Boulevard Man was later identified in Hudson's WC testimony as the "young fellow" standing to his left on the stairway as the motorcade proceeded down Elm.

Ken

Who told Emmett Hudson to “lay down” after the shots?

Let Hudson’s statements to the FBI and WC plus the photographic record speak for themselves.

1. While examining the Moorman photo in the Dallas Times Herald with the FBI on 11/25/63, Hudson mentioned BOTH of the other two men who were standing with him on the grassy knoll stairway. He told the FBI that one of them worked “somewhere on INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD in Dallas, Texas.” This puts a stamp on one of the two men and eliminates everyone else in Dealey Plaza. The man who worked on Industrial Boulevard was, without question, one of the other two men seen with him in the Moorman photo. Hudson just didn’t identify which of the two men it was at that time to the FBI.

2. In his WC testimony on 7/22/64, Hudson would identify which of the two men Industrial Boulevard Man was. Hudson told the WC that “a young fellow. . . about in his late twenties” who “worked over there on INDUSTRIAL” sat next to him on the steps. Both then stood up when the motorcade turned from Houston onto Elm. Hudson said that this man was to Hudson’s left. So the “young fellow,” “Industrial Boulevard Man,” was the man seen to the left of Hudson in the Moorman photo.

3. Hudson went on to tell the WC that this “young fellow” who had sat and stood next to him, i.e. Industrial Boulevard Man to Hudson’s left, then yelled out for Hudson to lay down because “somebody is shooting the President.” However, Industrial Boulevard Man was no longer standing next to him when he yelled this out to Hudson. He was “ALREADY laying down.” And where was he laying down? Not on the steps. Not on the “BROAD PLACE” which was how Hudson described the landing above where they had sat and stood. No, Industrial Boulevard Man was laying down “on the SIDEWALK.” And which sidewalk was that? Only one. The sidewalk where he can be seen running up to in the Nix film. The one at the top of the stairs between the wall and the picket fence. He took cover there before yelling back to Hudson to “lay down.”

Ken

So Hudson was in the grass. The young man was up at the top of the stairs lying on the sidewalk behind the wall when he called out to Hudson to lie down. The redshirted man was not the young man.

Ken

I supposed that could be one theory, but I don't see much in the way of evidence to support it.

Bill Miller

The evidence is Emmett Hudson's Warren Commission testimony and the photographic record. According to Hudson, the man was lying down on the SIDEWALK when he told Hudson to lie down. The word "SIDEWALK" is the key. This eliminates redshirt man who joined Hudson BELOW the sidewalk on the GROUND (i.e. in the grass). There's only one other person from the stairway, then, who could have given Hudson the warning. That's the young man who stood next to him on the steps as seen in Muchmore and Moorman. And that young man headed for the SIDEWALK after the shots as seen in NIX.

Ken

RE: "Is the guy next to Hudson on the steps the young man he spoke of in his WC testimony".

IMO Miles?

No he's not.

The young man who repeated told Hudson to "lie down" has to be the red shirted man.

The older man has left the scene(okay, we think he has) & it is the red shirt we see next to Hudson on the ground in those aftermath photos, Willis & Bond to name but two.

Unless the older guy dove for cover behind the wall & repeatedly shouted at Hudson from that spot?

Anything is possible in this thread I guess but, as Hudson spoke of only one man in his entire testimony I choose the RSM to be that person.

The third man ran away because he was involved with the hit some how IMHO.

Alan (and Miles),

What Emmett Hudson said seems very clear. The man to his left, whom he sat next to and stood next to before and during the shots, was the young man who worked on Industrial Boulevard. At the time of the headshot, this young man turned and ran up the stairs as seen in the Muchmore and Nix films. He wasn't involved with the hit. He wasn't running after a shooter. He was running for cover behind the wall. Hudson then said this man was laying down "on the sidewalk." This could only mean the sidewalk behind the wall. It wasn't the steps or the ground. He took cover behind the wall and yelled back to Hudson, "Lay down, Mister, somebody is shooting the President. Lay down. Lay down." So Hudson laid down "over on the ground," meaning the grass, not the steps or the sidewalk, as seen in the Hughes film. The redshirted man, who was not with Hudson, ran up the steps and joined him on the grass. So Hudson was in the grass. The young man was up at the top of the stairs lying on the sidewalk behind the wall when he called out to Hudson to lie down. The redshirted man was not the young man.

Ken

Miles,

You agree with Dale Myers on the location of Bowers' two men. They were on the stairway.

Myers also concluded that Bowers saw no one behind the picket fence.

Do you agree with Myers that Bowers saw no one behind the picket fence?

Ken

Alan,

I'm going along first with what Bowers told the Warren Commission, and then I'm looking to the Lane interview as a clarification of his Warren testimony. Wherever that leads, so be it.

The starting place for identifying the location of the two men Bowers saw is Clyde Haygood. Bowers told Ball that a motorcycle policeman (Haygood) "came up into this area where there are some trees, and where I had described the two men were in the general vicinity of this." So the trees were in the vicinity of these two men. Bowers later made a point to narrow it down with Lane to "two trees." Dale Myers then assumes that it was the two trees by the stairway and places Bowers' two men on the stairs.

But Bowers had told Ball that the two men were on the "high ground" which is the level area above descending Elm and upon which the Triple Underpass, tower, and Elm/Houston corner sit. The stairway would place them below the "high ground." This is a fundamental weaknes in Myers' argument. And now we know that they couldn't have been seen anyway from Bowers' tower.

The two trees are the ones over by the Triple Underpass. Haygood ran right past them on his way up the incline to the area where the west end of the picket fence meets the north extension of the Triple Underpass on the "high ground" and where Haygood would have reappeared to Bowers.

Another fundamental weakness of Myers is that he seems to ignore this question by Ball:

"Was his motorcycle directed toward any particular people?"

Bowers' response was the quote I indicated above: "He (Haygood) came up into this area where there are some trees, and where I had described the two men were in the general vicinity of this." But Haygood passed by the two men on the stairs, parked his motorcycle, then continued running not toward the two men on the stairs but up the incline on his way to the "high ground" at the west end of the picket fence. It's clear to me that he wasn't heading for the men on the stairs.

One problem in all of this was attorney Mark Lane himself. He was trying to prove his case which was that there was someone also shooting from behind the picket fence. So he set up his witnesses one by one. James Simmons indicated that smoke came from behind the picket fence near its southeast corner and even drew an "X" with a ballpoint pen at Lane's request on Commission Exhibit #2215, a drawing of that area. Sam Holland indicated in person where this was behind the fence. Charles Brehm mentioned the direction of President Kennedy's skull flying left and to the back. J. C. Price saw someone running behind the fence. But Bowers was the only one who saw two people in that general area before the shots.

Yet Lane never asked Bowers to mark where he saw the two men. He could easily have done this. It would have made his case more convincing and more dramatic. Unfortunately he didn't. Instead we later see a photograph of Dealey Plaza with a large white "X" marked by someone else and supposedly indicating where the two men were while Bowers continued talking. The reason Lane never asked Bowers to mark where he saw the two men? I can't believe he forgot or that he felt it wasn't important. Of course it was important. That's not where the two men were. And because of that, the issue is still being debated. But placing the two men at the west end of the picket fence, to me, clears up all the confusion.

I'd be glad to go over any and all of this with you, if we could just do that one question at a time. Thanks.

Ken

It’s been proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the two men Lee Bowers saw on the “high ground” were not Emmett Hudson and the unidentified spectator next to him on the stairway. Thank you Bill Miller, Gary Mack and Robert Groden. Now we can finally move on and determine which two men Bowers was really referring to. Please, everyone, set aside all your presuppositions. And let the chips fall where they may. Here we go with how I see it.

First, attorney Joseph Ball’s WC questioning of Bowers with regard to the shots was never about anything other than the TSBD and the Triple Underpass. This was dictated by Bowers, himself, who indicated early on that the sound of the shots came from one of two places:

1. “from up against the School Depository Building.”

2. “near the mouth of the triple underpass.”

So we can forget the stairway right from the start.

Next, Ball is the one who came up with the term “high ground.” It’s the level of ground that Bowers’ tower was on – the same level as the corner of Elm & Houston as well as the Triple Underpass. This was confirmed by Bowers. Anything lower than this level was not on the “high ground.”

Ball went on to ask Bowers if there were “any people on the high side – high ground between your tower and where Elm Street goes down under the underpass toward the mouth of the underpass.” Asking Bowers if he remembered spectators on the “high ground” eliminates spectators lower than the “high ground” which is where the men on the stairway were. And Ball then lays out the area for Bowers to comment on: it begins with the tower and ends with the Triple Underpass. Did he see anyone on the “high ground” between those two points?

Bowers’ responded that he saw two men. Since they were on the “high ground,” they could not have been lower, i.e. not on the steps. He then placed these two men in line with the mouth of the Triple Underpass which also rules out the stairway. The two men were distinguishable from people on the Triple Underpass whom Bowers described as two policemen, two Union Terminal employees, and two welders from Fort Worth Welding. Bowers also described the two men on the “high ground”:

One was middle-aged or slightly older, fairly heavy set in a white shirt and fairly dark trousers.

The other was younger, mid-twenties, dressed in either a plaid coat, jacket or shirt.

These two men were in a line from the tower to the mouth of the Triple Underpass. But where were they along that line?

A motorcycle officer Bowers referred to was, without question, Clyde Haygood. Bowers told Ball that Haygood came up “into this area where there are some trees, and where I had described the two men were in the general vicinity of this.” Bowers wasn’t sure if the “man in plaid” was still there at this time. So Haygood came up to where, at least, the “man in white” was.

The “man in white” can be seen in the Mark Bell film. He’s behind the concrete railing at the end of the Triple Underpass that connects to the west leg of the picket fence overlooking the grassy incline coming up from the north Elm sidewalk. The “man in white” can also be seen in “Fort Worth Star-Telegram” photographer Harry Cabluck’s last photo taken in Dealey Plaza. It’s found in Trask’s POTP on p. 334. Haygood is shown standing up by the west leg of the picket fence, looking to his left in the direction of the “man in white.” It’s now probably 1 ½ to 2 minutes after the assassination, and other spectators have moved over from the part of the Triple Underpass that was above Elm.

This all corresponds to what Bowers told Mark Lane. The first focus of interest by Haygood was “directly to the south” and “slightly to the east” of the Triple Underpass. This is where Haygood was heading, on his way to where Bowers told Ball that the two men on the “high ground” were.

A few more notes on the Bowers/Lane interview. First, Bowers began to refer to the incline side of the picket fence as “back,” then quickly changed it to “south.” South is south. And north is north, the true backside of the fence. Bowers did not mistake north for south. And it was on the true south side, where Haygood was running, that Bowers indicated there was “obviously” no one there. He was not referencing this to the north side.

Second, Bowers told Lane that the two men were very near two trees in the area. He went on immediately to say that one of the men disappeared from time to time as he walked back and forth behind a wooden fence which is “slightly to the West of that.” The two trees on the grassy incline very near the “high ground” where the “man in white” stood behind the railing can be seen in many photos as well as the Hughes, Bell and Nix films. The wooden fence, adjacent to that area where the “man in plaid” disappeared from time to time and possibly disappeared for good by the time of the shots or just after, was truly “slightly West of that,” meaning slightly west of the two trees nearest the Triple Underpass.

All of this does not negate the “commotion” and “milling around” on the “high ground” at the time of the shots which was referred to by Bowers.

Ken

duplicate post

Therefore, by conducting a simple, on-site, scientific test it is now proven that the two men Bowers saw were definitely not Emmett Hudson or either of the two other men waiting for President Kennedy more than halfway down those steps.

Gary Mack"

Oops,

No can do.

It is helpful to hear of Gary's experiments.

Unfortunately, Gary does not provide photos.

Thus, his conclusions are not verifiable & cannot be accepted. Saying so is not proof.

Bowers' words stand solid, as do Myers' contentions where photos are provided.

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

Miles,

This response of yours is, well, . . . just plain bizarre. Gary Mack has done us all a favor by taking the time to go down to the grassy knoll stairway, stand where Emmett Hudson was standing, and discover that Dale Myers was wrong (and that means you, too). Lee Bowers didn't see anyone on the stairway. A view of the three men was blocked by the pergola. It had to be someone else. But you go on to say:

"Gary does not provide photos. Thus, his conclusions are not verifiable & cannot be accepted. Saying so is not proof."

In the Ed Hoffman thread, you said Gary Mack should be revered. You're not showing much reverence here, Miles.

Why wouldn't you thank him for clearing this up? And then ask him to just take a few pictures to support his findings? That's all you'd have to do. Instead you outright reject what he's said with this grandiose statement:

"Bowers' words stand solid, as do Myers' contentions where photos are provided."

You're with Myers all the way. Yet, for support, you provide us with a website which has no photos. Only a computer image which is irrelevant.

Are you enjoying all this attention? I have no other explanation for why you do and say what you do.

Ken

Miles,

You said:

"A respected luminary, Gary Mack, has abandoned Ed Hoffman's tale as not being credible. Why?"

I'd love to respond. First please advise where this alleged tale of Gary Mack's can be found. Thanks.

Ken

Sorry, Ken.

Nice try, but no dice.

No deflection from Duke's article.

Deal with that.

You mean you can't?

Oh.

(Later, if there is any need to, then I'll tell you exactly what I know about Gary Mack's opinion of Hoffman's alleged tale. Don't worry.)

Miles,

You said:

"Nice try, but no dice. No deflection from Duke's article."

Excuse me, Miles. But the name of this thread is "Ed Hoffman's Activities and Observations," not "Duke's Article." Duke has now started a separate thread devoted to his article and his conclusions.

So let's have it. Where can we find Gary Mack's abandonment of Ed Hoffman's story?

Thanks.

Ken

Miles,

You said:

"A respected luminary, Gary Mack, has abandoned Ed Hoffman's tale as not being credible. Why?"

I'd love to respond. First please advise where this alleged tale of Gary Mack's can be found. Thanks.

Ken

Don said:

"So what I’m saying is that Emmett Hudson is the red shirt man on the stairs."

Then Miles said to Don:

"The red shirted man on the lower step fits the the bill as you say."

It's hard to believe that Emmett Hudson's identity is still being debated 44 years after the assassination. Let Hudson speak for himself.

On 11/25/63, FBI agents Gaston C. Thompson and Jack B. Peden interviewed Hudson and dictated their report, file #DL 89-43, on 11/26/63. In that interview, Hudson called attention to the 11/24/63 edition of the Dallas Times Herald which contained a copy of the Moorman photo. Of the three men shown standing on the concrete stairs, Hudson "POINTED TO THE MAN IN THE MIDDLE" and said, "That is me in the light colored clothing and that is where I was standing at the time the President was shot."

This eliminates the man in the red shirt. Simple as that.

Ken

I said that he fits the bill.

Whether he is Emmett or not is irrelevant to the point I'm making.

The red shirted man on the lower step fits the the bill as you say.

I've noticed the red colours of the sitting man's plaid jacket.

Your insight is astute & cuts to the heart of the matter.

His fitting the bill, even while not being Emmett (MY POINT), raises the insight that Emmett was ALSO wearing PLAID, a PLAID jacket, a red PLAID jacket, which Bowers saw.

This means that Bowers saw a plaid shirt & a plaid jacket.

In other words, whether Emmett is the red shirted man OR the red jacketed man, he is seen either way as a man in PLAID by Bowers.

To repeat, my statement that he fits the bill is an assertion that Bowers saw exactly what Bowers said he saw: a plaid shirt or a plaid jacket.

The statement that "he fits the bill" does NOT state that anyone is Emmett Hudson.

You missed the point. Simple as that.

No, Miles. It's not as simple as that.

You, and you alone, chose to post the following train of thought on 9/21/07:

1. From Don: "So what I’m saying is that Emmett Hudson is the red shirt man on the stairs."

2. From Bill to Don: "And what I am telling you is that Emmett Hudson was 58 years old on the day of the assassination, stocky, and had gray bushy hair."

3. From Don to Bill: "Sorry Bill, you are wrong... Hudson was 56 on the day of the assassination. The red shirt man does fit the description of a stocky 56-year-old man. The gray bushy hair is your own claim. The old man tramp also has gray hair as a disguise; maybe his hair was bushy underneath his hat. Anyways, I go by the facts, not hearsay from some person on a forum."

4. From Miles to Don: "It's great to see some one else dealing with facts & not hearsay. Pompous nonsense soon proves profitless & retrograde, indeed. (Can you believe the nonsense about Hudson being in uniform? The pants & shirt are completely different in colour & fabric!). Your point is well taken. The red shirted man on the lower step fits the the bill as you say. . ."

So, Miles. There's really no question as to what's being discussed here. It's the identity of Emmett Hudson among the three men on the stairs. Don says it's the man in the red shirt. Bill disagrees. Don says Bill is wrong, and Don "goes by the facts." Then you, Miles, say, "It's great to see someone else dealing with facts. . . The red shirted man on the lower step fits the bill as you say. . ."

Thanks for clarifying what you really meant in a dialogue that strongly indicates just the opposite.

Meanwhile, the very first post in this thread, by Don, claimed that Emmett Hudson was the man "standing on the lower step below the other two." This is incorrect according to Emmett Hudson who should know.

Ken

Don said:

"So what I’m saying is that Emmett Hudson is the red shirt man on the stairs."

Then Miles said to Don:

"The red shirted man on the lower step fits the the bill as you say."

It's hard to believe that Emmett Hudson's identity is still being debated 44 years after the assassination. Let Hudson speak for himself.

On 11/25/63, FBI agents Gaston C. Thompson and Jack B. Peden interviewed Hudson and dictated their report, file #DL 89-43, on 11/26/63. In that interview, Hudson called attention to the 11/24/63 edition of the Dallas Times Herald which contained a copy of the Moorman photo. Of the three men shown standing on the concrete stairs, Hudson "POINTED TO THE MAN IN THE MIDDLE" and said, "That is me in the light colored clothing and that is where I was standing at the time the President was shot."

This eliminates the man in the red shirt. Simple as that.

Ken