On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Terry Mauro]

Now, is that right? When the xxxx hits the fan, discredit Lane. Well guess what, fellas? You're all wet. Just a couple of revisionistas, and the whole world is laughing at your bizarre attempts to re-write history.

There you go talking for everyone again.

Mark Lane is a hero of mine & to accuse me of trying to discredit him is a bit much.

We are talking about one thing here, not his whole involvment in the case.

What I would suggest to you & others who haven't seen it for a while is to go watch RTJ again the first chance you get.

What Bowers said in it(or rather what was left out) may surprise you if you haven't took that much notice before.

If you think he referred to the area behind the fence in that film you are very much mistaken, it was Lane who suggested that, not Bowers.

To help,

Bowers makes his first appearance in the film around twenty minutes in, his second almost thirty minutes later, right after Charles Brehm.

The first portion deals with Bowers observation of the three cars, the second concentrates on the time of the shooting itself & the aftermath.

If you don't have it handy, this is what happens.

After a minute or two in the later segment, Bowers mentions the two men for the first & last time! It happens real fast, be ready with the remote.

The scene changes from the intimate interview, to an overhead photo of DP with a great big "X" plastered on the corner of the fence as Lee says the following;

Bowers: "At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where these two men I described where.... there was a flash of light, or something which caught my eye in this immeadiate area on the embankment"

That's it.

Bowers does not say there were men behind the fence & he does not talk about the two men at all other than this one small side reference to them.

If this was the only mention of the two men we had to go on then we might be forgiven for considering them irrelevant & not part of the murder at all, since the filmakers did not incude but this one tiny reference to them.

If you don't believe me, go watch the film or turn to p118 in "SSID" where Thompson has quoted what was said in the film about these two men word for word.

While your there "you" can also ponder why Thompson refers to these two men on that exact same page as being "behind the fence".

It's a mystery to me since he too gives his audience the exact same evidence to back that statement up as Lane did. Absolutely nothing.

Now let's review again the quote from "A Citizens Discent".

"In a filmed and tape-recorded interview in 1966, Bowers told me that, 'other than these two [men behind the fence] and the people who were over on the top of the underpass who, for the most part, were railroad employees or employees of a Fort Worth welding firm who were working on the railroad, there were no strangers out on this area."

That is Mark Lane quoting the transcript of RTJ word for word.

With just one major difference.

Can you notice that the words "men behind the fence" are in brackets? Does that not strike you as slightly odd?

Now read the the exact same portion of the transcript taken from Dale Myer's web page.

LEE BOWERS: "Other than these two and the people who were over on the top of the Underpass who - that were, for the most part, were railroad employees or were employees of a Fort Worth welding firm who were working on the railroad, uh - there were no strangers out in this area."

The words in brackets are missing.

So I guess what you really want to know is, which do you believe?

Lane & his bracketed words or the less than trustworthy Myers?

Well your kinda in a bad spot there Terry because the only man who can confirm what the original transcript says is Gary Mack.

If you really feel you can trust him, then ask him yourself & while your at it you can ask him if there is even one mention in the entire transcript that either these two men or the strange occurance were behind the fence.

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

"Mark Lane is a hero of mine & to accuse me of trying to discredit him is a bit much."

Oh, my stars and garters, you could've fooled me!

Listen, if you and those numbnuts you've been hanging around with are so hell-bent on trashing Lane's transcript, then fine, who are we to argue with you for one minute more? All you've managed to succeed in doing is forcing a lot of people to search for a document, video, kinescope, or what have you, where Bowers utters those exact words you proclaim to be "bracketed" thoughts of Lane's. Then, you'll proceed to attempt to blow holes in some semantic form of minutiae with regard to what "was really meant" by that statement. What are you really trying to do here, Alan?

[Bill Miller]

"Mark Lane is a hero of mine & to accuse me of trying to discredit him is a bit much."

Oh, my stars and garters, you could've fooled me!

Listen, if you and those numbnuts you've been hanging around with are so hell-bent on trashing Lane's transcript, then fine, who are we to argue with you for one minute more? All you've managed to succeed in doing is forcing a lot of people to search for a document, video, kinescope, or what have you, where Bowers utters those exact words you proclaim to be "bracketed" thoughts of Lane's. Then, you'll proceed to attempt to blow holes in some semantic form of minutiae with regard to what "was really meant" by that statement. What are you really trying to do here, Alan?

These jokers were given contact information and they sat with their thumbs in their @$$ and did nothing. Alan has been told by Mack that Gary knows of at least three people who interviewed Bowers independently of one another and all three had said Bowers told them that he saw two men behind the fence. Miles says he cannot show the rest of the documents because he promised not to. Hell, Myers agreed not to show the documents to anyone and it didn't stop him. Miles posted one page, but cannot show others - give me a break for their is no honor among thieves as they say.

Miles posted a Thompson photo and marked two trees which one man would have filled the gap between them from Bowers field of view. So what does Miles do when asked about those trees - he says nothing. Miles mentioned Bowers seeing smoke from a cops cycle that came up the embankment - again when faced with his previous remarks in a Duncan thread whereas he pushes the smoke further west to the McCrae shooter - Miles instead cries foul for going into the archives and showing his inconsistency. The fact that Miles wanted to use an event such as a cycle that he knows in reality it never did go up an embankment speaks volumes to Miles desire to get at the truth.

Next, Bowers can't see three men on the steps, but Miles tells us Bowers sees a plaid design on the furthest mans shirt who Miles claims to be 100 yards away. The original Towner slides show that there is no plaid design anywhere on that man's shirt, but that doesn't matter to Miles - he goes to a poor version of the Muchmore and or Nix film and tries to sell a crap image over a clear original Towner image.

Miles says Bowers was looking towards the colonnade when the shooting started which may be true, but it was the flash of light and/or smoke that caused Bowers to look towards the men he told Ball about. Where were those men - on the high ground and on a direct line from the tower to the mouth of the underpass. Can anyone not just lay a straight edge on an aerial photo from the tower to the mouth of the underpass so to know where these men were positioned! Had Miles of lost his car keys and he was told that someone had seen them on the ground and to find them he needs to go to the tower and follow a direct line to the mouth of the underpass ... why would Miles then wonder east over to the steps? The fact is he wouldn't!

And when pressed with evidence - what does Miles do - he post idiotic photos of A-Bombs, candy, cannons, and etc., while never addressing the facts presented to him. Go back and read what miles said when Don made the claim that Hudson was the red shirted man ... what did Miles do? What he did was to congratulate Don on presenting facts when even Miles knew that Don was wrong.

Terry was right in expressing her anger for this type of crap. Somehow in Miles demented way of thinking he believes that by using colored print - outrageous sized print - combined with images of candy that looks like Miles man diet choice ... that somehow he has rebutted the evidence put forth to him. Then when he sees that his responses are unacceptable and it is insisted that he address the points against his conclusion, then Miles whines that he doesn't have to answer any questions and that he will just refuse to respond to future request.

How confident and serious did Miles and these others take their position ... not so seriously that they felt the need to say that when Bowers said 'south' that he must have meant 'north'. That when Bowers said 'plaid' that he must have meant 'red plaid'. The whole thing was a joke from the beginning! Unless John Simkin creates a new rule whereas a member must address a response by using data, but cannot be allowed to disrupt the flow of a thread by posting photos of A-Bombs and candy, then the purpose by which this forum was created is all but lost. I support the remarks that both Terry and Kathy have made concerning such destructive behavior.

Bill Miller

Edited September 26, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

"Mark Lane is a hero of mine & to accuse me of trying to discredit him is a bit much."

Oh, my stars and garters, you could've fooled me!

Listen, if you and those numbnuts you've been hanging around with are so hell-bent on trashing Lane's transcript, then fine, who are we to argue with you for one minute more? All you've managed to succeed in doing is forcing a lot of people to search for a document, video, kinescope, or what have you, where Bowers utters those exact words you proclaim to be "bracketed" thoughts of Lane's. Then, you'll proceed to attempt to blow holes in some semantic form of minutiae with regard to what "was really meant" by that statement. What are you really trying to do here, Alan?

Trashing Lane's transcript?

I think I made it abundantly clear in my last post to you what it is am really doing & if your still confused after that I really can't help you other than to suggest you read it again a little more carefully.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Alan Healy]

Miles says Bowers was looking towards the colonnade when the shooting started which may be true, but it was the flash of light and/or smoke that caused Bowers to look towards the men he told Ball about. Where were those men - on the high ground and on a direct line from the tower to the mouth of the underpass. Can anyone not just lay a straight edge on an aerial photo from the tower to the mouth of the underpass so to know where these men were positioned!

First of all, I think you had better make your mind up about which evidence you are going to rely on for what Bowers said.

If you are going to just stick to the WC testimony then you can forget about the flash of light &/or smoke because that came from the Lane interview only.

I just am unable to describe rather than it was something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify.

On the other hand, if you do want to include what he said to Lane, then you must at least consider the position of the two men & the strange occurence to be somewhere on the embankment & between the curved decorative wall & the fence. That too can be considered as on a direct line to the mouth of the underpass.

You didn't think of that yet or do you have evidence that tells us Bowers meant on a direct line to the underpass itself & "the mouth" part was a just slip?

How many times have you told others to practice comparing photos of the same scene from different angles if possible? So why are you ignoring this sound practice & not trying to cross reference what was said to both Ball & Lane regarding the position of the men?

I think I may know why.

"Directly in line - uh - there - of course is - uh - there leading toward the Triple Underpass there is a curved decorative wall - I guess you'd call it

- it's not a solid wall but it is part of the - uh - park.

And to the west of that there were - uh - at the time of the shooting in my vision only two men. Uh - these two men were - uh - standing back from the street somewhat at the top of the incline and were very near - er - two trees which were in the area..."

"..And one of them, from time to time as he walked back and forth, uh - disappeared behind a wooden fence which is also slightly to the west of that. Uh - these two men to the best of my knowledge were standing there - uh - at the time - of the shooting...[wall-men-fence, east to west remember?]"

"At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where these two men I described where.... there was a flash of light, or something which caught my eye in this immeadiate area on the embankment"

Now as for your last comment about laying a straight edge across an overhead photo of the plaza.

If either you or Gary believed this would position the men accurately for you then why haven't you done it & stuck with what that data told you?

From your earlier remarks I must conclude either you haven't done it yet, or you must have used a boomerang by mistake.

How else could you conclude that this puts them near Hatman's position & how could Gary put these men near the east end of the fence?

Have I spelt preposterous correctly?

Edited September 26, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Bill Miller]

First of all, I think you had better make your mind up about which evidence you are going to rely on for what Bowers said.

If you are going to just stick to the WC testimony then you can forget about the flash of light &/or smoke because that came from the Lane interview only.

Alan, anyone who has ever given an interview or has taken an interview will always know when it is done that they may have forgotten to mention something they wanted to say. Sometimes witnesses are even called upon to clear up something they had said previously or to add more details of something they wanted to say, but had not done so. How many times were the Parkland doctors on record for mentioning the avulsed bones to the back of JFK's head only to have council quickly move them off into another direction ... would it be fair then not to allow those doctors a chance to elaborate elsewhere on what they were allowed to get into during a particular interview? Your way of thinking then would prohibit the De Anonio transcript from being mentioned and that would be wrong IMO.

On the other hand, if you do want to include what he said to Lane, then you must at least consider the position of the two men & the strange occurence to be somewhere on the embankment & between the curved decorative wall & the fence. That too can be considered as on a direct line to the mouth of the underpass.

You didn't think of that yet or do you have evidence that tells us Bowers meant on a direct line to the underpass itself & "the mouth" part was a just slip?

I guess you could say that a direct line going from the tower to the steps could be a direct line leading to the mouth of the underpass if it continued out into outer space and that by the time it came back to the earth that the planet had rotated enough to make it cross over the mouth of the underpass, but do we really need to do that to try and win a point???

Bowers separated the difference between the high ground from the incline for Ball. Ball asked Lee a specific question pertaining to the "high ground" and whether he saw anyone there. That is when Bowers mentioned the two men in question. Bowers didn't mention three men, four men, but rather two men. Bowers said one was heavy set and wore black pants (of the two men on the steps in black pants - neither appear to be heavy set in the slightest way). Bowers mentioned the other man wearing a plaid shirt or jacket (of the two men on the steps - neither show a plaid design on their clothing in the original Jim Towner slides).

Now as I recall and correct me if I am wrong, but Bowers also described a couple of guys on the east end of the RR yard who were wearing clothing like that of a custodian. One of those men seems to appear in the Towner three slide as he stands on the shelter steps and is looking into the RR yard. I believe that some have mistakenly thought these to be the same two men Bowers told Ball about. And when Bowers told of seeing the flash of light and/or smoke ... he was referring to the two men he told Ball about. You may remember that Lane told Lee Bowers that it seemed like he wanted to tell Ball something else about these two me that were on the high ground and in a direct line between the tower and the mouth of the underpass and that is when Bowers described the flash of light and/or smoke. Then if one is still unsure as to where along the embankment that a muzzle flash or smoke was seen, then do as Miles did in the Duncan thread and go show it floating through the trees in the Wiegman film. This is precisely why I went after Miles about his pinpointing the smoke in another thread and this is precisely why he didn't want to address those particular points. The reason is simple - no flashes or smoke is seen anywhere on the steps in the assassination films, but there is up by the fence as the smoke was captured drifting through the trees.

So what does one do? They start by weighing the evidence as to which theory makes the most sense. Did the people who interviewed Bowers separately all misunderstand Lee as to where these men were standing ... seems highly unlikely to me. Was Bowers clear as to what the difference between the high ground and the incline was ... seems he was to me and obviously to Mr. Ball for Ball didn't need to ask for any clarification. Is it important that neither of the two men on the steps with Hudson were not middle aged and heavy set ... it would seem that would be important to a researcher wondering if these are even the men Bowers had seen. Bowers said during the shooting is when he saw the flash of light and/or smoke ... would it not be important to know if there are any signs of smoke and light flashes around the men on the steps ... I would think so. Would it not be important to consider that there is smoke seen on two assassination films and as Miles pointed out about the direction the air was moving - that smoke came from somewhere west of the steps.

What is there for proof to rebut the evidence described above? We have Miles telling us that when Bowers says 'south' he must have meant 'north'. Miles says that when Bowers said 'plaid' that he must have meant 'red plaid shirt'. So what does Miles offer to even show that the man on the steps was wearing plaid ... he ignores the highest quality resolution scans of the Jim Towner original slides and produces a latter generation image from a poorly shot assassination film as if somehow more blur means more definition and clarity. (Who here among us believes that is good research?) We have Miles telling us that Bowers must have meant the one thin man must have appeared heavy set to Lee when only compared to the other thin man (now really ... does anyone buy that!). The rest has been detailed in the two threads that dealt with the subject. The only thing that could even remotely make the men on the steps be who Bowers was talking about is the wording of one line or so in the De Antonio transcript and even it is up to interpretation and because of that - all the other things I have mentioned cannot be forgotten and pushed aside.

I would love for Mack to get his copy of the transcript out and go over it all to see if other references were made about the two men Bowers talked about. I suspect that there is a reason for only showing the one page and no more. When something like that happens it makes me feel as if someone may not want others to see the whole story and you've been around long enough to know where that sometimes leads.

And to the west of that there were - uh - at the time of the shooting in my vision only two men. Uh - these two men were - uh - standing back from the street somewhat at the top of the incline and were very near - er - two trees which were in the area..."

First of all the steps are to Bowers east. Had EBC of left the Hudson tree in his graphic that Miles likes to use, then the two trees would be on each side of where the smoke came out over the embankment on the knoll.

"At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where these two men I described where.... there was a flash of light, or something which caught my eye in this immeadiate area on the embankment"

Yes, this was a follow up remark Bowers made to Lane about the two men he had described to Ball. Those men were said to be on the high ground on a direct line from the tower to the mouth of the underpass.

Now as for your last comment about laying a straight edge across an overhead photo of the plaza.

If either you or Gary believed this would position the men accurately for you then why haven't you done it & stuck with what that data told you?

From your earlier remarks I must conclude either you haven't done it yet, or you must have used a boomerang by mistake.

How else could you conclude that this puts them near Hatman's position & how could Gary put these men near the east end of the fence?

Have I spelt preposterous correctly?

I have done it and I simply do not follow what you are talking about. A straight edge from the tower to the mouth of the underpass heads off in a south westerly direction. To the steps is a south easterly direction.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Miles says Bowers was looking towards the colonnade when the shooting started which may be true, but it was the flash of light and/or smoke that caused Bowers to look towards the men he told Ball about. Where were those men - on the high ground and on a direct line from the tower to the mouth of the underpass. Can anyone not just lay a straight edge on an aerial photo from the tower to the mouth of the underpass so to know where these men were positioned!

First of all, I think you had better make your mind up about which evidence you are going to rely on for what Bowers said.

If you are going to just stick to the WC testimony then you can forget about the flash of light &/or smoke because that came from the Lane interview only.

I just am unable to describe rather than it was something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify.

On the other hand, if you do want to include what he said to Lane, then you must at least consider the position of the two men & the strange occurence to be somewhere on the embankment & between the curved decorative wall & the fence. That too can be considered as on a direct line to the mouth of the underpass.

You didn't think of that yet or do you have evidence that tells us Bowers meant on a direct line to the underpass itself & "the mouth" part was a just slip?

How many times have you told others to practice comparing photos of the same scene from different angles if possible? So why are you ignoring this sound practice & not trying to cross reference what was said to both Ball & Lane regarding the position of the men?

I think I may know why.

"Directly in line - uh - there - of course is - uh - there leading toward the Triple Underpass there is a curved decorative wall - I guess you'd call it

- it's not a solid wall but it is part of the - uh - park.

And to the west of that there were - uh - at the time of the shooting in my vision only two men. Uh - these two men were - uh - standing back from the street somewhat at the top of the incline and were very near - er - two trees which were in the area..."

"..And one of them, from time to time as he walked back and forth, uh - disappeared behind a wooden fence which is also slightly to the west of that. Uh - these two men to the best of my knowledge were standing there - uh - at the time - of the shooting...[wall-men-fence, east to west remember?]"

"At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where these two men I described where.... there was a flash of light, or something which caught my eye in this immeadiate area on the embankment"

Now as for your last comment about laying a straight edge across an overhead photo of the plaza.

If either you or Gary believed this would position the men accurately for you then why haven't you done it & stuck with what that data told you?

From your earlier remarks I must conclude either you haven't done it yet, or you must have used a boomerang by mistake.

How else could you conclude that this puts them near Hatman's position & how could Gary put these men near the east end of the fence?

Have I spelt preposterous correctly?

Alan,

Myers' paper ( http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm ) proves that Bowers saw the two men at the stairs' locus & not behind the fence.

Here is how the case of proof is made:

Dale Myers:

Where then are the two men BOWERS is describing? According to BOWERS, the men are standing back from the street somewhat, at the top of the incline, very near the two trees that lie along this stairway - not behind the fence as MACK described. We know for a fact that BOWERS is not talking about two men behind the fence because of what he says next:

LEE BOWERS: "...And one of them, from time to time as he walked back and forth, uh - disappeared behind a wooden fence which is also slightly to the west of that. Uh - these two men to the best of my knowledge were standing there - uh - at the time - of the shooting..." [emphasis added] [116]

BOWERS' statement that one of the men disappeared behind a wooden fence is highly significant when one realizes that Lee BOWERS had a clear view of the north side of the stockade fence - both the east-west and north-south extensions. This fact has been generally known since 1967, when Josiah THOMPSON published a photograph of the stockade fence area, as seen from BOWERS' railroad tower, in his book Six Seconds in Dallas. [117]

Exhibit 21 - Portion of a transcript of Mark Lane's interview with Lee Bowers Jr.

How then, you might ask, could a man disappear behind the fence if BOWERS had a clear, unobstructed view? Answer: The man (and in this case, the men) were on the south side of the stockade fence, between the fence and Elm Street, not crouching on the north side of the fence getting ready to shoot the president. Consequently, the fence was between BOWERS and the two men, thus blocking his view of them as they walked back and forth. This, of course, makes sense when we consider that BOWERS himself said that the men were standing "back from the street somewhat, at the top of the incline." BOWERS' words place the men between the street and the stockade fence at the top of the grassy knoll, not behind the fence at the top of the knoll.

BOWERS went on to describe the two men and their movements immediately before the motorcade arrived:

LEE BOWERS: "...Ah - one of them, as I recall, was a middle-aged man, fairly heavy-set with - what looked like a white shirt. Uh - he remained in sight practically all of the time. The other individual was uh - slighter build and had either a plaid jacket or a plaid shirt on and he - uh -is walking back and forth was in and out of sight, so that I could not state for sure whether he was standing there at the time of the shots or not..." [118]

So again, BOWERS describes one of the men walking back and forth and disappearing "in and out of sight" behind the fence - indicative, as I've shown, of someone standing south of the stockade fence in plain view of everyone in Dealey Plaza. The clothing description - the same given to the Warren Commission in 1964 - assures us that BOWERS is describing the same two men he testified about to the Commission.

Were there any eyewitnesses in the area described by BOWERS? As a matter of fact, films and photographs made at the time of the head shot do show three men standing in the area described by BOWERS. All three appear on a concrete landing located on the Elm Street stairway halfway between the sidewalk and the top of the incline. A color slide made a moment earlier, just as the president's limousine came under gunfire, shows only two men standing in that area (again, just as BOWERS described). A third man (referred to by conspiracy theorists as "Black Dog Man," because the shape of the man's image on film resembles a dog) can be seen in the vicinity of the L-shaped concrete wall. [119] It could be that this third man, who appears to be a black man, came down the stairway during these moments and joined the pair on the landing.

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

So, while the 1966 interview with Lee BOWERS clears up any confusion about the position of the two men (they were indeed standing near the east end of the stockade fence, as MACK stated), the interview transcripts also make clear that the two men BOWERS described were standing in front of the stockade fence, not behind it.

More importantly, BOWERS' specifically says in the 1966 filmed interview that no one was standing anywhere behind the stockade fence. In an early exchange, BOWERS told LANE and De ANTONIO about three cars that entered the parking area below the railroad tower shortly before the shooting, circled the lot, then left. [120] These three cars were also described in detail for the Warren Commission in 1964. [121] BOWERS told LANE and De ANTONIO that the three cars that entered and the left the parking area were "the only things of significance to occur during this period prior to the time of the shooting," [122] adding:

LEE BOWERS: "Most of the other people who were in the area - ah - I was - I knew, if not by name, then by seeing them day after day so that there was - uh - no one unaccounted for in the immediate area other than this -uh - the three who were in these three cars that have been mentioned." [123]

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

LEE BOWERS: "Other than these two and the people who were over on the top of the Underpass who - that were, for the most part, were railroad employees or were employees of a Fort Worth welding firm who were working on the railroad, uh - there were no strangers out in this area." [124]

And there is absolutely no question that BOWERS is referring here to the area behind the stockade fence, the very location where MACK and WHITE claim two of the three figures they see in the MOORMAN photograph (i.e., Badge Man and Hard Hat Man) were standing. In a later exchange BOWERS makes this point crystal clear:

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." [125]

Exhibit 22 - Portion of a transcript of Mark Lane's interview with Lee Bowers Jr. The markings indicate that this portion of the transcript was not to be used in the final film, Rush To Judgment.

Here, we can see that BOWERS spells it right out - there was no one behind the fence at the time the shots were fired. So, contrary to claims made in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, BOWERS never offered anything in either his 1964 testimony or 1966 interview that could be construed as supportive of the claim that two men were standing behind the east end of the stockade fence; the place where Badge Man and Hard Hat Man were allegedly located. In fact, BOWERS specifically says that no one was behind the fence at the time the shots were fired.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Alan Healy]

Now as for your last comment about laying a straight edge across an overhead photo of the plaza.

If either you or Gary believed this would position the men accurately for you then why haven't you done it & stuck with what that data told you?

From your earlier remarks I must conclude either you haven't done it yet, or you must have used a boomerang by mistake.

How else could you conclude that this puts them near Hatman's position & how could Gary put these men near the east end of the fence?

I have done it and I simply do not follow what you are talking about. A straight edge from the tower to the mouth of the underpass heads off in a south westerly direction. To the steps is a south easterly direction.

Show us how your straight line from the tower to the underpass puts one of these men at the hatman position or anywhere near the corner of the fence.

[Bill Miller]

Show us how your straight line from the tower to the underpass puts one of these men at the hatman position or anywhere near the corner of the fence.

Alan, go east only 2 to 3 cars and that is where the smoke came from the fence and drifted through the trees. That is also the spot where Holland took Lane. So what should we make of that ... the smoke was off by about 15 to 20 feet or Bowers was off of 15 to 20 feet? Think hard!

This may help: Hat Man only appears to be to the right of the Hudson tree from Moorman's field of view concerning the angle at which she was facing the fence. The Nix film, as used by Rick Needham in the gif he created long ago showing what looks like someone's head over the fence, shows the Hat Man location from Nix's field of view.

Then tell us how going even further east to the Hudson location stays anywhere close to the LOS?

Bill

[Alan Healy]

Show us how your straight line from the tower to the underpass puts one of these men at the hatman position or anywhere near the corner of the fence.

Alan, go east only 2 to 3 cars ......

Yep I suspected as much.

Hatman is not on a straight line to the underpass from the tower, not even if you use the most extreem south side of the triple underpass to draw your line.

So what you should of said really was, "draw a straight line to the underpass, then ignore it & concentrate instead on where we can see the possile shape of a hat in Moorman".

If you have any data that positions the alleged Moorman hat within a few feet, post it here please & people can make their own mind up as to if it comes close enough for them to except.

Where were those men - on the high ground and on a direct line from the tower to the mouth of the underpass. Can anyone not just lay a straight edge on an aerial photo from the tower to the

mouth of the underpass so to know where these men were positioned!

The answer was obviously, NO!

[Bill Miller]

Yep I suspected as much.

Hatman is not on a straight line to the underpass from the tower, not even if you use the most extreem south side of the triple underpass to draw your line.

So what you should of said really was, "draw a straight line to the underpass, then ignore it & concentrate instead on where we can see the possile shape of a hat in Moorman".

Alan, You cannot seem to see the forest for the trees. I think its a bit silly to think these men didn't move around a little. Bowers did say they were 10 to 15 feet apart, but this is not the only reason why I concentrate on the Hat Man location so much ... its because Bowers saw only two men out in front of him. The hat of one such man is seen in Moorman's photo. Some have said that the hat is too low to be shooting at JFK, but look at how far Jackie got in just four Zapruder film frames. Moorman's photo was taken 4/18's of a second after the fatal shot was fired into JFK's head. The smoke and the sound of a shot came from the Hat Man location and was witnessed by no less than four men on the underpass,people on the knoll, and two assassination films. The gun-smoke alone coming through the trees tells me that truly someone was there at the time of the shooting, so if Bowers saw only two men along the fence there whether it be three car lengths west in his mind .... the smoke dictates the exact location IMO.

Bill Miller

Edited September 27, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

Yep I suspected as much.

Hatman is not on a straight line to the underpass from the tower, not even if you use the most extreem south side of the triple underpass to draw your line.

So what you should of said really was, "draw a straight line to the underpass, then ignore it & concentrate instead on where we can see the possile shape of a hat in Moorman".

Alan, You cannot seem to see the forest for the trees. I think its a bit silly to think these men didn't move around a little. Bowers did say they were 10 to 15 feet apart, but this is not the only reason why I concentrate on the Hat Man location so much ... its because Bowers saw only two men out in front of him. The hat of one such man is seen in Moorman's photo. Some have said that the hat is too low to be shooting at JFK, but look at how far Jackie got in just four Zapruder film frames. Moorman's photo was taken 4/18's of a second after the fatal shot was fired into JFK's head. The smoke and the sound of a shot came from the Hat Man location and was witnessed by no less than four men on the underpass,people on the knoll, and two assassination films. The gun-smoke alone coming through the trees tells me that truly someone was there at the time of the shooting, so if Bowers saw only two men along the fence there whether it be three car lengths west in his mind .... the smoke dictates the exact location IMO.

Bill Miller

The men between the pergola & the fence did move, or at least one of them did & he disapeared behind the fence which was to the west of where they were standing.

To ignore what was said in the Lane interview is downright stupid, nevermind silly.

Bowers never said they were behind the fence or on the highground to either Lane in his filmed sit down interview or to Ball. "On a direct line to the mouth of the underpass" is the best you have & as I just proved, you can't use it to support your hat(6-7 car widths east of that line at least).

Where is all this smoke in Moorman that the hat produced btw?

I have always believed that smoke was seen by those men standing on the overpass but watching their statements to Lane again & having to sift through the garbage you write, I am now for the first time having doubts.

That's how convincing your words are.

Try producing some real hard photographical evidence for the smoke, verbal assurances from you farm hand types are not doing it for me anymore.

[Miles Scull]

dupe

Edited September 27, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

Yep I suspected as much.

Hatman is not on a straight line to the underpass from the tower, not even if you use the most extreem south side of the triple underpass to draw your line.

So what you should of said really was, "draw a straight line to the underpass, then ignore it & concentrate instead on where we can see the possile shape of a hat in Moorman".

Alan, You cannot seem to see the forest for the trees. I think its a bit silly to think these men didn't move around a little. Bowers did say they were 10 to 15 feet apart, but this is not the only reason why I concentrate on the Hat Man location so much ... its because Bowers saw only two men out in front of him. The hat of one such man is seen in Moorman's photo. Some have said that the hat is too low to be shooting at JFK, but look at how far Jackie got in just four Zapruder film frames. Moorman's photo was taken 4/18's of a second after the fatal shot was fired into JFK's head. The smoke and the sound of a shot came from the Hat Man location and was witnessed by no less than four men on the underpass,people on the knoll, and two assassination films. The gun-smoke alone coming through the trees tells me that truly someone was there at the time of the shooting, so if Bowers saw only two men along the fence there whether it be three car lengths west in his mind .... the smoke dictates the exact location IMO.

Bill Miller

The men between the pergola & the fence did move, or at least one of them did & he disapeared behind the fence which was to the west of where they were standing.

To ignore what was said in the Lane interview is downright stupid, nevermind silly.

Bowers never said they were behind the fence or on the highground to either Lane in his filmed sit down interview or to Ball. "On a direct line to the mouth of the underpass" is the best you have & as I just proved, you can't use it to support your hat(6-7 car widths east of that line at least).

Where is all this smoke in Moorman that the hat produced btw?

I have always believed that smoke was seen by those men standing on the overpass but watching their statements to Lane again & having to sift through the garbage you write, I am now for the first time having doubts.

That's how convincing your words are.

Try producing some real hard photographical evidence for the smoke, verbal assurances from you farm hand types are not doing it for me anymore.

Alan,

Still mucking about with barnyard nonsense? Ha.

Here's some alleged smoke for you:

Of course, what's the time for this puff, post Z-313?

Seems like the aftermath of a blunderbuss discharge.

Could have come from Duncan's sniper at 33 ft. from corner of fence, however.

But not from midget man as the puff from his popgun would have been blown to an entirely different position, more to the east, by the wind from the NW.

Fits Duncan's sniper.

[Ashton Gray]

Now let's review again the quote from "A Citizens Discent".

"In a filmed and tape-recorded interview in 1966, Bowers told me that, 'other than these two [men behind the fence] and the people who were over on the top of the underpass who, for the most part, were railroad employees or employees of a Fort Worth welding firm who were working on the railroad, there were no strangers out on this area."

That is Mark Lane quoting the transcript of RTJ word for word.

With just one major difference.

Can you notice that the words "men behind the fence" are in brackets? Does that not strike you as slightly odd?

Now read the the exact same portion of the transcript taken from Dale Myer's web page.

LEE BOWERS: "Other than these two and the people who were over on the top of the Underpass who - that were, for the most part, were railroad employees or were employees of a Fort Worth welding firm who were working on the railroad, uh - there were no strangers out in this area."

The words in brackets are missing.

Of course they are missing. They weren't spoken. The editorial insertion of such words without having established a citable foundation is inexcusable, and Bowers never said any such thing. It's that simple.

There's little wonder that Bill Miller is the one who introduced such reprehensible intellectual dishonesty. There's little wonder that he would start this thread in the first place and firehose the forum with infinite "arguments" for an utterly hopeless position that has not a scrap of foundation or merit.

It took me page after page after page in another thread to get him to stop his endless weaseling and finally state a location for his claims of the no-see-um "Hat Man," and when he finally had no choice and answered, I proved just how preposterous the entire pitiful "Hat Man" humbug is: Hat Man's Mythical Location and Miller's Magic Bullet.

In another thread, after countless hours of studying in a 3D model every single proposed and asserted "location" for an outdoor shooter anywhere in Dealey Plaza, and posting 3D views from these purported "sniper" locations, I graphically demonstrated just how potty this cherished, beloved, Holy Divine Faith in the Outdoor Shooters really is: The Parking Lot Spectators' Gallery.

The single most lamentable situation I know of in the entire JFK Assassination community today is this undead and undying Church of the Outdoor Shooter. It is a fanatic's religion. It has every attribute of religion, and is entirely devoid of a single documentable fact. It relies on "expert" opinions for its disciples and saints. People who I greatly respect and admire in many ways yet are militantly proselytizing zealots on this immovable article of faith in there having been one or more Mystical Outdoor Shooters, when there is not one mote of physical evidence anywhere in existence to support any such daffy myth, and when in all the oceans of "testimony" produced in over four decades, there is not even one actual unambiguous reliable eyewitness account of anyone taking a shot from an outdoor location at President John F. Kennedy. Not one.

One reason that the situation is so sadly lamentable is that this zealous blind faith in mythological beasts with mythological guns consummately smothers to death sound and unbiased reasoning toward a real solution to the case.

I understand full well the complexity of the desperation in clinging to this delusory faith, though. Every one of its adherents believes there was a conspiracy to murder Kennedy—which of course there was.

The utterly false idee fixé, though, is that without an outdoor shooter, from the front, there was no conspiracy. It is an infamously specious and fatally flawed premise, but it is the central article of faith of every person I know who believes there was a conspiracy to murder Kennedy. Not only is this core belief fatally flawed, it plays directly to the favor of the conspirators.

The conspirators themselves have created two violently warring "camps" by floating two false "scenarios" as the only two possiblities—both equally absurd: the "LN" (Lone Nutters—Oswald alone did it) camp vs. the "CT" (Conspiracy Theorists—had to be an outdoor shooter) camp.

Neither "theory" is true, so of course the only result is constant warring over two impossibilities, neither of which will ever fit the facts. And so, predictably, we get infinite spouts and fountains and deluges of sewage that flood page after page after page of the forum and drown reason.

Of course there was a conspiracy to murder Kennedy. No other conclusion comes within 60% of embracing and accounting for all the facts of record.

Of course such a conspiracy, to succeed, had to include factions and agencies of the United States government, including CIA and Secret Service personnel. No other conclusion comes within 60% of embracing and accounting for all the facts of record.

But unless and until enough thinking people in the so-called "CT" camp break the black spell of fervent faith in non-existent snipers hiding under every bush and culvert outdoors in Dealey Plaza, unless and until enough rationality asserts itself to overthow forever this mythology of a "frontal shot" from delusional locations where no sniper possibly could have been, then the Mouthpieces of Chaos will continue to monopolize the discussion with pointless, idiotic, and intellectually dishonest "arguments," and continue to drown forums like these with their endless floods of bold-face offal.

Ashton Gray

Edited September 27, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Jack White]

Ashton...I agree with you IN PART. It is folly to endlessly discuss

HOW MANY SHOOTERS CAN BE PUT ON THE HEAD OF A PIN!

All we really know is that JFK was shot from more than one

direction, therefore by more than one shooter.

At this late date finding the names and locations of the shooters

is an exercise in futility. These facts are interesting but irrelevant.

If we have not found them in forty-plus years, we never will.

The best we can hope for is the truth about the plotters; the

shooters were merely mechanics hired for the job.

Jack

Edited September 27, 2007 by Jack White