On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Miles Scull]

This whole thing is totally baffling to me. If I read this right, Bill was supposed to produce researchers to support what he is saying Bowers said. He gives the name of Gary Mack, and Debra Conway. He is then asked for more. He gives the names of Harris and Lane, but they are not good enough because:

.

He was supposed to call them and report what they said(but)

He wouldn't have been believed if he had, unless it was recorded.

Now,he does not need to call them, because we already know what they'll say,because any researcher who needs Bill " to read evidence for them, evidence that they already have to hand I add, needs looking at for many reasons."

And since the names cames from Gary, and not from Bill, we now need a few more names(??)

Are you arguing over the number of names or the evidence???

sev·er·al /ˈsɛvərəl, ˈsɛvrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sev-er-uhl, sev-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective

1. being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind: several ways of doing it.

Now if Miles uses Dale Myers (which is fine by the way), how come that doesn't count as just one??? And is Miles not doing research because he constantly quotes him???Miles just read something and presented it. That's fine. That's what you are supposed to do,put it up for discussion. and find out what else is there. But then Bill has research and and throws out a few names, and he has to produce more, because Gary gave him those?

And what about Jack White? He is ever present and available, where does he fit in?

IMO, the objectivity of this thread (if it ever had one) is lost on attempts to one-up one another.

Right you are, Kathy!

Matters can get pretty murky, OK.

But did you see my research fruits?

And is Miles not doing research because he constantly quotes him???Miles just read something and presented it.

Kathy, Kathy, Kathy

I ferreted out this Atom Bomb by working with archivists & by sifting through reams & reams of obscure documents.

This cinches the matter.

Miller is DOA.

And so is the age old fairy tale of Bowers' two men behind the fence.

[Bill Miller]

Kathy, Kathy, Kathy

I ferreted out this Atom Bomb by working with archivists & by sifting through reams & reams of obscure documents.

This cinches the matter.

Miller is DOA.

And so is the age old fairy tale of Bowers' two men behind the fence.

I am sure your response really impressed Kathy a lot, as well as the rest of the research community. So all this time you have been trolling the idea that the two guys with Hudson on the steps were the two men Bowers spoke about - please tell this forum what flash of light or smoke do you figure Bowers would have seen there amongst them guys? (And please try to give an intelligent answer for a change)

Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

Bowers did say he could see the south side of the fence, how many times do I have to show you the transcript?

Deal with it.

You do not need to show me the transcript - you need someone to with understanding what you read.

I need "someone to with"?

What language is that?

In almost 4.5 decades passes

That's proper English is it?

Well I'll be.

and finally some odd-ball tries to make something out of nothing and he thinks the whole world should listen. Had you and I have been

"Had you & I been" there, is the correct way to say it, not had & have been.

on the South knoll looking towards the RR yard when Holland and Lane did their interview, then we would have been correct to say that we could see the south side of the fence and noticed two gentlemen talking to one another. That's all Bowers was doing and you guys have made fools of yourselves by making ludicrous claims that when Bowers said 'south' ... he must have meant 'north', and when Bowers said 'high ground' ... he must have meant the 'incline' ... and when Bowers said plaid ... he must have meant 'red'. This is the difference in why people like Thompson, Garrison, Lane, Weisberg, and a list of others became known as experts on the assassination, while people like yourself will be remembered for not knowing what was meant when Bowers said he could see the south side of the fence.

Make your mind up.

First you said Bowers said the same thing to many people, then you said he didn't say it at all & now you are quoting him like he did say it.

That's what you call research?

[Alan Healy]

Now if Miles uses Dale Myers (which is fine by the way), how come that doesn't count as just one??? And is Miles not doing research because he constantly quotes him???Miles just read something and presented it. That's fine. That's what you are supposed to do,put it up for discussion. and find out what else is there. But then Bill has research and and throws out a few names, and he has to produce more, because Gary gave him those?

Are you refering to something I wrote?

Please quote me & I'll see if I can make it clearer.

[Alan Healy]

Alan,

I thought you might be interested in this little Atom Bomb excerpt from the Bowers - Lane interview.

"...in the vicinity of where the two men I've described were,..." = THE STAIRS

Miles thank you for that but,

your teasing us by postiing just that one page but I admire your presentation very much!

Also,

if I have read Bill's "interpretation" of the WC testimony correctly, he reckons that Bowers was talking about two men behind the fence at that time but, he doesn't have any trouble with the RTJ transcript referring to two other men between the pergola & the fence.

In other words we all agree that the RTJ transcripts put two men "in the vacinity" of Hudson & Co.

One page I would like to see Miles, is the one that holds the question Bowers was asked when he referred to "the south side of the fence".

Bowers said "there wasn't anyone one else there either" so,

he must of been talking of somewhere else that was absent of people before that statement.

Thanks again for posting that unedited page.

[Alan Healy]

From Bowers WC testimony.

Mr. Ball.

Did you see any activity in this high ground above Elm after the shot?

Mr. Bowers.

At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline.

So according to your logic Bill, since Ball mentioned the word "highground" in his question Bowers must of seen Haygood on the highground, on his bike.

That does not make sense to me.

It continues after a few lines...

Mr. Bowers.

He came almost to the top and I believe abandoned his motorcycle for a moment and then got on it and proceeded, I don't know

That's not what happened Lee but it was an intelligent guess.

Mr. Ball.

He didn't come then by way of Ell, which dead ends there?

Mr. Bowers.

No; he left the motorcade and came up the incline on the motorcycle.

Mr. Ball.

Was his motorcycle directed toward any particular people?

Mr. Bowers.

He 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 here we have Bowers telling Ball, Haygood came into the same area where the men were, on his bike!

Even though we know it's not strictly accurate it gives one a clear understanding of the area where the men were stood.

Sorry you can't see that but maybe you'll get it in time.

Edited September 22, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Bill Miller]

From Bowers WC testimony.

Mr. Ball.

Did you see any activity in this high ground above Elm after the shot?

Mr. Bowers.

At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline.

So according to your logic Bill, since Ball mentioned the word "highground" in his question Bowers must of seen Haygood on the highground, on his bike.

That does not make sense to me.

It continues after a few lines...

Mr. Bowers.

He came almost to the top and I believe abandoned his motorcycle for a moment and then got on it and proceeded, I don't know

That's not what happened Lee but it was an intelligent guess.

Mr. Ball.

He didn't come then by way of Ell, which dead ends there?

Mr. Bowers.

No; he left the motorcade and came up the incline on the motorcycle.

Mr. Ball.

Was his motorcycle directed toward any particular people?

Mr. Bowers.

He 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 here we have Bowers telling Ball, Haygood came into the same area where the men were, on his bike!

Even though we know it's not strictly accurate it gives one a clear understanding of the area where the men were stood.

Sorry you can't see that but maybe you'll get it in time.

I honestly don't know if you cannot understand the meanings of what people are saying or if you are purposely pretending not to get it. Ball asked about the High-ground (in fact he had been told about these two men) and Ball was basically asking him what went on there after the shot ... Bowers mentions commotion going on and that a cop almost shot his bike up to the top of the incline. (Remember: the incline is what Bowers says leads to the high-ground) Ball then asked if the cop was directing his line of travel towards anyone in particular and Bowers said that he was headed up towards these two men he had described. Now thats how I read it.

And BTW, Bowers didn't say the cop came up to where the men were, but rather he came up to where there were some trees and the men he had been talking about had been in the general vicinity of this. To most people of the years - Bowers saw a flash of light or smoke at the fence ... there was a commotion that went on ... a cop left the motorcade and headed up the incline almost all the way to the top where the trees are. The men Bowers saw were on the north side of the fence from there, which means they were in the vicinity of the area where the cap had come up the knoll/incline.

And when Bowers tells Ball that in the area where the men were ... that he could see the south side of the fence and no one was there (as if to say they had no accomplices on the street side of the fence that Lee could tell). This allows one to piece together what Bowers had described without using code-language for the terms Bowers used, it explains the smoke that witnesses seen coming through the tree foliage after the shooting, and it explains why a man wearing a red shirt being blocked from Bowers view and who didn't have a plaid design on his clothing ... was not one of the two men Bowers testified about.

Here is some info I got from Gary Mack during one of our conversations ...

"It is my understanding that at least one other researcher, whose name I do not recall, also spoke with Bowers. It may have been Al Chapman, or possibly Shirley Martin. There were other first generation researchers who never wrote books or articles, but I don't have listing of who did what and when.

Have you read Lane's 1968 book, "A Citizen's Dissent"? He wrote a lot about Bowers there and what he said. In fact, Lane made some personal observations about Bowers that happened to match exactly what De Antonio told me 20 years after that book.

Lane, De Antonio and their research assistant all spoke with Bowers in the process of arranging and then filming that interview. No one misunderstood what Bowers was saying."

Edited September 22, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bernice Moore]

This whole thing is totally baffling to me. If I read this right, Bill was supposed to produce researchers to support what he is saying Bowers said. He gives the name of Gary Mack, and Debra Conway. He is then asked for more. He gives the names of Harris and Lane, but they are not good enough because:

.

He was supposed to call them and report what they said(but)

He wouldn't have been believed if he had, unless it was recorded.

Now,he does not need to call them, because we already know what they'll say,because any researcher who needs Bill " to read evidence for them, evidence that they already have to hand I add, needs looking at for many reasons."

And since the names cames from Gary, and not from Bill, we now need a few more names(??)

Are you arguing over the number of names or the evidence???

sev·er·al /ˈsɛvərəl, ˈsɛvrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sev-er-uhl, sev-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective

1. being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind: several ways of doing it.

Now if Miles uses Dale Myers (which is fine by the way), how come that doesn't count as just one??? And is Miles not doing research because he constantly quotes him???Miles just read something and presented it. That's fine. That's what you are supposed to do,put it up for discussion. and find out what else is there. But then Bill has research and and throws out a few names, and he has to produce more, because Gary gave him those?

And what about Jack White? He is ever present and available, where does he fit in?

IMO, the objectivity of this thread (if it ever had one) is lost on attempts to one-up one another.

*****************

Hi Kathy:

Perhaps there is a solution here...

The members reading and who are still interested in this particular ongoing scenario......are being asked, to in effect, accept, what Dale Myers has posted on his web site, in reference to a transcript that he has obtained of said interview by Mark Lane of Lee Bowers, back in I take it around 66...or so....without

showing said transcript...or documentation......Sorry that is simply not acceptable....

Now Miles has posted one page, of which he now states he has been going through reams of obscure documents, which I take it to mean he must have access to...said interview transcripts....if not all, just what do you have access to Miles, how much of the interviews..?

Is this mana being provided by Mr Myers, and if so, why is it not being provided to the research world in general......and if not why not ??

.....No one can possibly think, and this goes for any who have passed along their said input into this, Bill, Gary, Debra and whomever, that any serious researcher is going to take what Mr.Myers has posted on his site, or anyone else has stated as written in stone, without seeing that documentation for themselves...or having the opportunity to do so..

..That is not how research is done...and that is what has and will in the future continue to cause

many a harsh difference within any study on any forum, the information has to be presented upfront, honestly and openly.....for all...

When it is not, well, the peoples are much more intelligent than some apparently are giving them credit for....

They will not buy until they see the merchandise and examine it for themselves, or whomever wishes to

obtain it and see to it that it is posted, for all.....researched and examined as well as proven to be the real McCoy..

Too much in the past has come down the pike as being real, and has then turned out to have been an altered document or a newly re-created one.

Miles are you prepared to post the transcript, the pages of the interview between Lane and Bowers, and if not why not..?.....Seeing that you have posted

the one now, it has shown that you do apparently have access, according to your posted information..

Is Dale Myers willing to sell a copy of this portion of the transcript.....and if he does not have that right, where is it obtainable and who from.??

What is the address....and the price ....and if it is not available, then why not.?.

I think it is time to put up......or.........

B.........

Edited September 22, 2007 by Bernice Moore

[Miles Scull]

dupe

Edited September 22, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

Alan,

I thought you might be interested in this little Atom Bomb excerpt from the Bowers - Lane interview.

"...in the vicinity of where the two men I've described were,..." = THE STAIRS

Miles thank you for that but,

your teasing us by postiing just that one page but I admire your presentation very much!

Also,

if I have read Bill's "interpretation" of the WC testimony correctly, he reckons that Bowers was talking about two men behind the fence at that time but, he doesn't have any trouble with the RTJ transcript referring to two other men between the pergola & the fence.

In other words we all agree that the RTJ transcripts put two men "in the vacinity" of Hudson & Co.

One page I would like to see Miles, is the one that holds the question Bowers was asked when he referred to "the south side of the fence".

Bowers said "there wasn't anyone one else there either" so,

he must of been talking of somewhere else that was absent of people before that statement.

Thanks again for posting that unedited page.

Alan,

I believe you may recall my post awhile ago in which I stated that Myers obtained his copy of the transcript of Bowers statements recorded, filmed, for Rush to Judgement from Gary Mack.

It is my understanding that Mack has given out only this one copy & that to Myers.

Gary told me that he does not give out any copies because there are property rights or copy right issues. I guess one needs to be careful...

However, after becoming interested in this issue, I started to do a little research.

Long before finding Myers' works ( http://www.jfkfiles.com/index.html ) I had seen Bowers WC testimony & had noticed that Bowers had NOT said that he had seen the two men behind the fence.

Others had been swayed by Ed Hoffman's story.

Was this "behind the fence" an urban legend?

An urban legend or urban myth is similar to a modern folklore consisting of stories often thought to be factual by those circulating them. The term is often used to mean something akin to "apocryphal story". Urban legends are not necessarily untrue, but they are often distorted, exaggerated, or sensationalised.

Was there a vested interest in maintaining the "behind the fence" myth? Had individuals been duped by others? Had so called forum pundits built reputations on erroneous data? Was there a need to save face?

What was going on?

So, when I came across Myers' work I thought: "What? Not another LNer."

But, then, not having a fictive reputation to defend, I started a little independent research.

Bing, botta, boom, Kathy jumped on board & because she also did not have a fictive reputation to defend & so remained open minded & fair, Kathy started making some good points!

Such as:

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

Alan,

The use or misuse of the word "south" by Bowers does not affect the import of Bowers' testimony which puts the two men at the stairs area.

With all due respect for your points which are very well taken & which I happen to agree with, it seems to me that the "south" quibble is a grasping at a straw diversionary tactic designed to bamboozle.

Just more risible nonsense.

My earlier post which Kathy praised:

QUOTE

LEE BOWERS: "Now I could see back or the South side [bOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence] of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired."

LEE BOWERS: "Now I could see back or the South side [bOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence]

Of course, Bowers is speaking of what he can see.

If Bowers means what he sees between the north side of the fence & his position in the tower, then he saying that he saw no one there in that area at the moment that the shots were fired.

If, for purpose of argument, we allow that Bowers is saying that what he sees is instead the area beyond the fence from him, i.e., from the fence to points south of the fence, then Bowers is saying that he saw no one in that area at the moment that the shots were fired.

Well, what is the problem?

Either way, Bowers saw no one.

of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired."

The point is that if Bowers saw no one south of the fence at the critical time of the firing of the shots, then he also saw no one on the north side of the fence as well.

Why?

Because the field of view to the remote south of the fence is in direct line with & incorporates & includes the view of the area to the north of the fence.

That's the logic.

If you view the south you also view the north.

No one is in either area, so says Bowers.

Thus, if you care to take Bowers literally, then fine, proceed with blessings.

The import remains the same.

At the time of the shooting there was no one behind the fence along its NORTH side, that Bowers saw !

Alan, what I could obtain for you:

[Bill Miller]

That's the logic.

If you view the south you also view the north.

No one is in either area, so says Bowers.

Thus, if you care to take Bowers literally, then fine, proceed with blessings.

The import remains the same.

There has been nothing logical about screwing up what Bowers had said. It is this narrow minded logic that has caused you to feel the need to change meanings to the opposite of what Bowers said - add words he didn't say - refuse to follow-up with contact information so not to be able to complain of hearsay problems - and now to pretend to not see what Bowers was talking about.

Yes, Bowers could see the north side of the fence if he could see to the south side - that is logical. But Bowers had already told of seeing two men on the high ground who were on a line between the tower and the mouth of the underpass and then Bowers talks about also being able to see the south side of the fence where he said that he could not see anyone there. All Lee Bowers said in that comment was that he could not see anyone on the south side of the fence. What you have attempted is to fool people into thinking that when Lee made that statement that this meant he was also talking about the north side of the fence, as well and thats why so many intelligent researchers from Weisberg to Garrison to Lane have disagreed with you on this matter. In fact, it was Lane who wanted the Commission to help with any additional questions that might need asked of witnesses so the record could be precise and clear, but the Commission wanted no part of Lane's offer.

Bowers went out of his way to separate the high ground from the incline and he also separated the difference between the north side of the fence from the south side and did so when he used the word "SOUTH" side. Your logic is as illogical as someone saying they can see across to a neighbors yard three houses away and could see that this person has no grass in his yard, then someone like you comes along and then tries to say that this must also mean that the other yards between the first house and the yard three houses away must also be void of grass.

Bill Miller

Edited September 22, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

My earlier post which Kathy praised: [...]

___________________________

Miles, you're the greatest! In fact, you've been so smart and great and clever and hilariously funny recently that today in your after-school snack you're gonna get an extra dozen donuts with your chocolate milk!!!!!

Please keep up the good work and your all-important "research!"

___________________________

Edited September 22, 2007 by Thomas Graves

[Miles Scull]

Miles, you're the greatest!

Please keep up the good work and your all-important "research!"

___________________________

OK.

Alan,

These photos bear on what Bowers saw.

Did he see plaid, as he says he did in the stairs area?

[Bill Miller]

Alan,

These photos bear on what Bowers saw.

Did he see plaid, as he says he did in the stairs area?[/color][/b]

Miles,

I would be willing to bet that even Alan has his limits as to you handing him disinformation. Even if Bowers said the one man had on a plaid Jacket/shirt ...Bowers never mentioned the stairs. As has been repeatedly said ... Bowers separated the High Ground (where he said these men were) from the Incline which would cover the stairs. So at least cite the facts and stop adding things that simply did not exist.

And to address the "two trees" ... in the illustration you like to show there are numbers along the fence. I recall seeing 2,3,5,et. I don't recall number 4. Anyway, There are two trees between where Number 3 -4 would be and number 5. (This would be the "HUDSON" tree which is missing from the illustration) It was west of the Hudson tree that the acoustics test said that a hot had been fired from. It is also west of the Hudson tree where the Hat Man location was said to be. Between that missing tree and number 5 - I noticed that this falls within the LOS that goes from the tower to the mouth of the underpass ... maybe that is why that particular tree is missing from that illustration ... perhaps not to draw attention to it. This area along the fence would also support where Holland saw the smoke come through the trees - it would support what is seen on the Dave Wiegman film - It would certainly support an area between the tower and the mouth of the underpass - and it would certainly support what Bowers said to Ball when asked about seeing anyone on the "High Ground" - it would support why Bowers separated the High Ground from the Incline which slopes to the street - it would support why the original high resolution slides don't show anyone wearing plaid on the stairway - it would support what looks to be the head of someone seen over the fence in the Nix location at the time the limo sped away (see Rick Needham image) and it would be supportive as to what every past admired researcher from Weisberg to Lane - to Thompson - to Gary Mack have all said about where Bowers placed these men. Does not any of this sink in with you and remember before you say anything else ... you are the author as to how your reputation as a serious researcher will be viewed by your peers.

Bill Miller

Edited September 22, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Emmett Hudson's son still lives in the Dallas area ... His name is William and I have spoken with him in the past about his father. Would you (Miles) like to call William Hudson to find out if his Dad's coat had a plaid design??? William may even still have the coat his dad wore on 11/22/63. (I'm smiling like a mule eating briers~) Or does this smell like a set-up and you don't do contacts.

Oh yes ... do you think a man in a tower that is alleged by you to be able to see a plaid design from as far away as you said he was (100 yards) could not tell the difference between the old 58 year old man and a young man in his mid-twenties??? (Please bless us with some of that logic you been talking about.)

Bill Miller

Edited September 22, 2007 by Bill Miller