On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Terry Mauro]

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.........

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

"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........."

EXACTLY! And, I couldn't have put it any better than you have, Bern.

[Alan Healy]

Miles thank you again.

I haven't forgotten the information you kindly relayed to me. When I wrote "you are teasing us" it was made with tongue in cheek,

I was just hoping you might have a little more & I greatly appreciate you supplying that second page.

If you feel I put you in an awkward spot I apologise.

Just from those two unedited pages alone we know there is obviously far more detail in the transcripts about what Bowers saw than most have ever heard of before.

You have certainly upped the usefulness of the thread by a big margin.

Okay, about the "south side" reference.

Your comments are appreciated as they were before but whether Bowers really meant the south or not has become a side issue(I haven't made my mind up what he really meant, it's very possible he did mean the south side just like he said but I don't know for sure). I'm perfectly capable of reasoning either way but to have a so called "researcher" say he has evidence of what Bowers meant exactly & then post nothing to back up these claims is more offensive to me than any childness insult one could throw my way.

That's what you get when you ask people who have already made their mind up to reason I guess.

My fault for asking in the first place.

I can move on, no problem.

Bernice.

Your input is most welcome.

I agree with you whole-heartedly.

I wouldn't trust Myers to share with us information that went against his "final conclusion" & I'm sure that Miles understands why we would think that way.

Whether the complete transcripts back up what Myers says will be found out in time I guess.

FWIW, what I see from what Miles kindly posted, it looks like Dale Myers just chose the bits he wanted & did not tamper with anything that was written.

Both Miles & myself both believe there was at least one shooter behind the fence. That needs repeating.

IMO by analyzing in detail what Bowers has said in the past is only a good thing & just because we agree(with very good reasons) that Bowers did not say he saw two men behind the fence does not mean we think there was no one there at all, far from it.

If what was said about Bowers is in fact true, that he was scared, then it is highly unlikely he told any journalist/reasearcher about an assassin behind the fence & especially not Lane one the most outspoken & well known critic of his generation.

"Two men in a direct line to the underpass", that is the only sentence that "possibly" puts two men behind the fence.

He did not say that to Lane.

He described the two exact same people, same ages, same clothing & he puts them near Emmett Hudson.

Is it possible that Bowers was trying to get away from his WC positioning & give the two men a new spot that was not behind the fence?

Maybe.

Or maybe he was just giving more detail, "the mouth of the underpass" can be understood to be the portion of Elm Street that leads up to the underpass, not the entrance to the underpass itself that passed researchers have thought, but the run up to it.

[Alan Healy]

Miles.

You claimed you dropped an atom bomb with that first page but it's the second one that hit me the hardest.

Lane: Where would you say the search was concentrated after the shots......

Bowers: ...... the embankment....

Wait for it..........

Bowers: ... which is diectly to the SOUTH & slightly east of the triple underpass!

So now does anyway think Bowers was confused & meant north or do you think he saw a rush to the south knoll that no one else noticed?

Feel free to comment on the hard evidence that Miles supplied.

[Bill Miller]

Okay, about the "south side" reference.

Your comments are appreciated as they were before but whether Bowers really meant the south or not has become a side issue(I haven't made my mind up what he really meant, it's very possible he did mean the south side just like he said but I don't know for sure). I'm perfectly capable of reasoning either way but to have a so called "researcher" say he has evidence of what Bowers meant exactly & then post nothing to back up these claims is more offensive to me than any childness insult one could throw my way.

I'm not sure that the person needs to be a researcher, but rather a good understanding of the English language and how it is used. For instance: I had a person look at what was written and it took them about 2 minutes to tell me the following ... 'The letter "R" should have been the letter "F", which was right below that key on the typewriter. As written, the quote doesn't make sense, but the corrected version is fine!' This means that Bowers statement would have read like this ......

"Now I could see back OF the South side of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously there was no one there...."

This is why that follow-up contact would have helped if for no other reason than to have possibly gotten a reasonable explanation from Lane or De Antonio. But it didn't seem like Miles or anyone who has complained of accepting hearsay was interested in actually getting an explanation that would go against their position.

Both Miles & myself both believe there was at least one shooter behind the fence. That needs repeating.

IMO by analyzing in detail what Bowers has said in the past is only a good thing & just because we agree(with very good reasons) that Bowers did not say he saw two men behind the fence does not mean we think there was no one there at all, far from it.

Whoa! Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Miles' whole string of ridiculous responses was based on him saying that Bowers had a clear view of the RR yard and Bowers saying that he saw no one on the back side/south side of the fence had also meant that he then didn't see anyone on the RR side of the fence.

Bill

Edited September 22, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Miles.

You claimed you dropped an atom bomb with that first page but it's the second one that hit me the hardest.

Lane: Where would you say the search was concentrated after the shots......

Bowers: ...... the embankment....

Wait for it..........

Bowers: ... which is diectly to the SOUTH & slightly east of the triple underpass!

So now does anyway think Bowers was confused & meant north or do you think he saw a rush to the south knoll that no one else noticed?

Feel free to comment on the hard evidence that Miles supplied.

Alan,

I was wondering if you'd pick up on this. Who fools the fox? Ha.

Yes, this argues strongly for Myers' reading that Bowers misspoke "south" for "north" of the fence re: that "no one was there."

Edited September 22, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

You refuse to call people who interviewed Bowers and you seemingly are not interested in looking at the Towner original slides. Like I said before - you are the master of your own reputation as a serious researcher.

What if we call them & they say something opposite to what was recorded 40 years ago?

Just like you & Golz.

Well, Alan ...... Gary Mack is a bit of an authority and historian on the JFK assassination. He is one of the few people that has probably spoken to many of the people in question here and has a mountain of data that goes beyond what little that makes it to the rest of us, unless of course we call him on a regular basis as I do so to solicit such information. In the case of the Towner's ... Gary knew/knows these people and I know he has spoken to Tina over the years. Gary has also said that ANYONE can make an appointment and come in to view high resolution scans of Tina's father's original slides. Now my experience has told me that when a man lays his cards out there and even gives someone the opportunity to look at them .... he pretty much is being as straight as one could possibly be - no games - nothing to hide. This is why I presented you and Miles the contact infromation, so you two could put your own minds at ease and hear it from the horses mouth -so-to-speak.

I don't know what you are referring to about Golz, but if you are talking about Yarborough getting mixed up in an interview he did with Murph not long before his death ... I not only find it easy to see how Ralph got mixed up, I also am smart enough to know that on two occasions and 10 years apart in more recent years following the assassination ... Yarborough told the same thing. That before Golz even knew of Yarborough seeing anything - Ralph knew of Gordon Arnold and it was Ralph who contacted Golz after seeing the story of Gordon Arnold in the newspaper so to tell him that he saw the man in Earl's article. Then Turner who knew of Earl's conformation from Yarborough had also contacted Ralph. After speaking to Yarborough, Turner then recorded an interview with the ex-Senator and aired a part of it in his documentary called "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". I have no information that leads me to believe that Yarborough or his family has ever voiced a complaint that Turner misrepresented Ralph's interview in any way. In fact, while I do not have the documentary in front of me - I seem to recall that Ralph said words to the effect that during the shooting he had caught a movement out of the corner of his eye (when talking about Gordon Arnold). In the Murph interview, which I do not have in front of me either, Ralph was asked about where he was located when the shooting started and I believe there lies the confusion because as Ralph correctly stated .... he could not have seen the knoll at that point. But by the time the kill shot had been fired, the then Senator's car had advanced down Elm Street enough to have seen Arnold.

Anyway, this is how I understand the events that transpired.

Bill

Edited September 22, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

Okay, about the "south side" reference.

Your comments are appreciated as they were before but whether Bowers really meant the south or not has become a side issue(I haven't made my mind up what he really meant, it's very possible he did mean the south side just like he said but I don't know for sure). I'm perfectly capable of reasoning either way but to have a so called "researcher" say he has evidence of what Bowers meant exactly & then post nothing to back up these claims is more offensive to me than any childness insult one could throw my way.

I'm not sure that the person needs to be a researcher, but rather a good understanding of the English language and how it is used. For instance: I had a person look at what was written and it took them about 2 minutes to tell me the following ... 'The letter "R" should have been the letter "F", which was right below that key on the typewriter. As written, the quote doesn't make sense, but the corrected version is fine!' This means that Bowers statement would have read like this ......

"Now I could see back OF the South side of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously there was no one there...."

This is why that follow-up contact would have helped if for no other reason than to have possibly gotten a reasonable explanation from Lane or De Antonio. But it didn't seem like Miles or anyone who has complained of accepting hearsay was interested in actually getting an explanation that would go against their position.

Some times you should stop & actually think about what you write.

The back of the south side of the fence is the North side.

Take a day off & figure it out. Your contridicting your position & you are too stubborn to realise it.

[Bill Miller]

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.

And don't forget all that applauding and grandstanding you did upon being swayed by Duncan's floating cop torso ... must not leave that out, Miles. At that time you must not either believed Bowers story or you are possibly forgetting some past responses you've made.

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?

Do you mean the one where you kept saying Holland ran immediately off the underpass or the one where you kept saying that Bowers saw a red plaid shirted man! Both of which were shown to be untrue and yet you kept citing them as they were.

Edited September 23, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

If one cannot get the alleged researcher to contact Mark Lane, then let's get Mark Lane to contact the researcher and what better way to do this than through the following book ... "A Citizen's Dissent". Gary Mack was kind enough to share with me some of the things Lane wrote that I had inquired about this past couple of weeks.

Below is some of what Gary Mack had shared with me about this particular book.

Gary said the following .......

"Mark Lane's 1968 book, A Citizen's Dissent, is quite interesting and it contains information about Lee Bowers that does not appear in Lane's earlier book, Rush To Judgment. Lane's information proved to be most helpful during my early studies of the Badge Man photograph.

What is so important about Lane's opinion, which was precisely matched by director Emile De Antonio to me in 1988, is that his conclusions were reached as a result of interviewing Bowers beforehand by telephone, in person prior to the formal interview, and the filmed interview itself. If there had been doubts about Bowers' veracity or accuracy, his story would likely not have been filmed.

What was Mark Lane's personal and professional opinion of Lee Bowers and his credibility? From his advance telephone interview(s) to his face-to-face meeting and filmed interview in 1966, Lane concluded on page 69, "The most impressive of the witnesses was Lee E. Bowers, Jr. His wry sense of humor and his excellent memory made him perhaps the finest witness I have ever questioned. He was behind the fence in a railroad tower when the shots were fired. He saw two men in the area and something that attracted his attention to the fence when the shots were fired." So Bowers' account to Lane, as told in one or more earlier, unrecorded interviews, and repeated on film, specifically placed the source of some odd disturbance at the fence, not down at the street or somewhere in between.

What was the actual location of the unknown event Bowers observed? The fence, as Lane explained on page 174. "Bowers had stated that when the shots were fired his attention was attracted to the area just behind the fence because of something that caught his eye there: 'Now, what this was, I could not state at the time and at this time I could not identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence - a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there.'" Again, Lane and Bowers state that he was observing the fence area, not the steps or walkway or any other location.

Was the occurrence which Bowers described at the fence or away from it such as halfway down the steps toward the street? After speaking with Bowers personally, Lane knew exactly, as he wrote on page 220, "Lee Bowers, who said he saw two men behind the wooden fence at the time of the shooting and observed what was possibly 'a flash of light there when the assassination occurred." In this instance, Lane makes it abundantly clear that the precise spot was at the fence, not 25 feet in front of it or anywhere else.

Did Bowers ever explain which side of the fence he was referring to? The answer is obviously yes, for Lane wrote on page 223, "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." There were plenty of people south of the fence and pergola who were obviously strangers to Bowers, so he could not have been referring to them as being "behind" the fence. Therefore, the men he saw were on his side - the back side - of the fence."

A special thanks to Gary Mack for pointing out the references Lane made. For those of us who do not have a copy of Lane's book handy, Gary was kind enough to share some of those valuable citations with me and now I have passed them along to this forum.

Bill Miller

Edited September 23, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Some times you should stop & actually think about what you write.

The back of the south side of the fence is the North side.

Take a day off & figure it out. Your contridicting your position & you are too stubborn to realise it.

I am sorry, Alan ... we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe that Bowers was saying that he could see the area back of the south side of the fence. In my mind, this would encompass the area immediately on the south side of the fence before dropping from view due to the slope of the knoll .... and that Lee Bowers saw no one there on the south side of the fence as he looked southward and downward from inside the tower.

By the way, you misspelled the word "contradicting" and the word "realize".

Bill

[Miles Scull]

If one cannot get the alleged researcher to contact Mark Lane, then let's get Mark Lane to contact the researcher and what better way to do this than through the following book ... "A Citizen's Dissent". Gary Mack was kind enough to share with me some of the things Lane wrote that I had inquired about this past couple of weeks.

Below is some of what Gary Mack had shared with me about this particular book.

Gary said the following .......

"Mark Lane's 1968 book, A Citizen's Dissent, is quite interesting and it contains information about Lee Bowers that does not appear in Lane's earlier book, Rush To Judgment. Lane's information proved to be most helpful during my early studies of the Badge Man photograph.

What is so important about Lane's opinion, which was precisely matched by director Emile De Antonio to me in 1988, is that his conclusions were reached as a result of interviewing Bowers beforehand by telephone, in person prior to the formal interview, and the filmed interview itself. If there had been doubts about Bowers' veracity or accuracy, his story would likely not have been filmed.

What was Mark Lane's personal and professional opinion of Lee Bowers and his credibility? From his advance telephone interview(s) to his face-to-face meeting and filmed interview in 1966, Lane concluded on page 69, "The most impressive of the witnesses was Lee E. Bowers, Jr. His wry sense of humor and his excellent memory made him perhaps the finest witness I have ever questioned. He was behind the fence in a railroad tower when the shots were fired. He saw two men in the area and something that attracted his attention to the fence when the shots were fired." So Bowers' account to Lane, as told in one or more earlier, unrecorded interviews, and repeated on film, specifically placed the source of some odd disturbance at the fence, not down at the street or somewhere in between.

What was the actual location of the unknown event Bowers observed? The fence, as Lane explained on page 174. "Bowers had stated that when the shots were fired his attention was attracted to the area just behind the fence because of something that caught his eye there: 'Now, what this was, I could not state at the time and at this time I could not identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence - a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there.'" Again, Lane and Bowers state that he was observing the fence area, not the steps or walkway or any other location.

Was the occurrence which Bowers described at the fence or away from it such as halfway down the steps toward the street? After speaking with Bowers personally, Lane knew exactly, as he wrote on page 220, "Lee Bowers, who said he saw two men behind the wooden fence at the time of the shooting and observed what was possibly 'a flash of light there when the assassination occurred." In this instance, Lane makes it abundantly clear that the precise spot was at the fence, not 25 feet in front of it or anywhere else.

Did Bowers ever explain which side of the fence he was referring to? The answer is obviously yes, for Lane wrote on page 223, "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." There were plenty of people south of the fence and pergola who were obviously strangers to Bowers, so he could not have been referring to them as being "behind" the fence. Therefore, the men he saw were on his side - the back side - of the fence."

A special thanks to Gary Mack for pointing out the references Lane made. For those of us who do not have a copy of Lane's book handy, Gary was kind enough to share some of those valuable citations with me and now I have passed them along to this forum.

Bill Miller

If one cannot get the alleged researcher to contact Mark Lane, then let's get Mark Lane to contact the researcher and what better way to do this than through the following book ... "A Citizen's Dissent". Gary Mack was kind enough to share with me some of the things Lane wrote that I had inquired about this past couple of weeks.

OK... so you do not have the book & have not read it. Good start!

Below is some of what Gary Mack had shared with me about this particular book.

Since you do not have the book & have not read it.

Gary said the following .......

Said? You mean wrote, of course.

"Mark Lane's 1968 book, A Citizen's Dissent, is quite interesting and it contains information about Lee Bowers that does not appear in Lane's earlier book, Rush To Judgment. Lane's information proved to be most helpful during my early studies of the Badge Man photograph.

What is so important about Lane's opinion, which was precisely matched by director Emile De Antonio to me in 1988, is that his conclusions were reached as a result of interviewing Bowers beforehand by telephone, in person prior to the formal interview, and the filmed interview itself. If there had been doubts about Bowers' veracity or accuracy, his story would likely not have been filmed.

Well, of course. Why interview a xxxx? Whatever Bowers told Lane & De Antonio before the interview on the phone is not documented. Consequently, that information must be treated as hearsay & suspect, especially as there is direct evidence that Bowers' interview evidence may have been removed in order to avoid conflicts & contradictions with the false story ultimately published.

What was Mark Lane's personal and professional opinion of Lee Bowers and his credibility? From his advance telephone interview(s)

But, these telephone interviews are NOT to be regarded as they are unverifiable & possibly false.

to his face-to-face meeting and filmed interview in 1966, Lane concluded on page 69, "The most impressive of the witnesses was Lee E. Bowers, Jr. His wry sense of humor and his excellent memory made him perhaps the finest witness I have ever questioned. He was behind the fence in a railroad tower when the shots were fired. He saw two men in the area

But, in what area? The area of the stairs is ALSO in Bowers' area. Because Bowers was behind the fence does NOT delimit Bowers' area to "behind the fence."

and something that attracted his attention to the fence when the shots were fired."

Bowers in the transcript of his recorded interview places this "something on the "embankment" & NOT behind the fence.

So Bowers' account to Lane, as told in one or more earlier, unrecorded interviews,

Remember: these unrecorded conversations are hearsay & suspect.

and repeated on film, specifically placed the source of some odd disturbance at the fence,

This is totally incorrect. Bowers states in the recorded interview the men were in the stairs area. It has been shown that it it not logically correct the say that since Bowers was behind the fence so were the two men he observed behind the fence. A Lane "fudge?''

not down at the street or somewhere in between.

No.

What was the actual location of the unknown event Bowers observed? The fence, as Lane explained on page 174. "Bowers had stated that when the shots were fired his attention was attracted to the area just behind the fence because of something that caught his eye there: 'Now, what this was, I could not state at the time and at this time I could not identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence - a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there.'"

There? Where? See:

Dale Myers quote ( http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm ):

Here is what Lee BOWERS told LANE in the filmed interview:

MARK LANE: "Mr. Bowers, did you see any pedestrians at any time between your tower and Elm Street that day?"

LEE BOWERS: "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..." [114]

You can see in this unpublished transcript that BOWERS began his response to LANE's question with the phrase, "directly in line" - the same phrase he used while testifying to the Warren Commission in 1964. During his 1964 testimony, BOWERS added the words, "towards the mouth of the underpass," which led many to conclude that he was referring to the west end of the stockade fence which lay directly in line with his view of the mouth of the underpass.

However, BOWER's 1966 filmed interview with Mark LANE makes it clear that BOWERS was actually talking about the area of the pergola located near the east end of the fence. In fact, you’ll note that in the above portion of the transcript BOWERS describes the backside of the curved pergola structure that lies immediately behind Zapruder's pedestal. BOWERS continues:

LEE BOWERS: "...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..." [115]

Here again, BOWERS gives an accurate description of the area near the east end of the stockade fence. Anyone familiar with the layout of Dealey Plaza knows that just west of the north pergola, a sidewalk runs from the top of the incline, past an L-shaped concrete retaining wall, and down to the sidewalk bordering Elm Street. There are two trees at the top of the incline. One tree is just west of the sidewalk (i.e., between the sidewalk and the stockade fence), and the other is in front of the stockade fence, about ten feet from the southeast corner. From BOWERS' perch in the two-story railroad tower, he could see a narrow strip of Elm Street as he looked down the stairway that runs between the pergola to the east and the stockade fence to the west.

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]

Thompson's photo:

Again, Lane and Bowers state that he was observing the fence area, not the steps or walkway or any other location.

No. Not so. On the proof of the recorded interview.

Was the occurrence which Bowers described at the fence or away from it such as halfway down the steps toward the street? After speaking with Bowers personally, Lane knew exactly, as he wrote on page 220, "Lee Bowers, who said he saw two men behind the wooden fence

As has already been pointed out "behind the wooden fence" is an erroneous & false interpretation on Lane's part. Propaganda?

at the time of the shooting and observed what was possibly 'a flash of light there when the assassination occurred." In this instance, Lane makes it abundantly clear that the precise spot was at the fence, not 25 feet in front of it or anywhere else.

Yes, very clear & totally incorrect. And in direct conflict with the recorded interview which was tellingly doctored to remove key but unwanted information.

Did Bowers ever explain which side of the fence he was referring to? The answer is obviously

Nothing is obvious when deception is afoot.

yes, for Lane wrote on page 223, "In a filmed and tape-recorded interview in 1966, Bowers told me that, 'other than these two [men behind the fence]

Hello! Ding-Dong. Buzzzzz. - "[men behind the fence]" - What's this little insertion in parenthesis? A little wad of Lane fudge? Yummy.

Of course, as the recorded interview states THE TWO MEN WERE IN THE STAIRS AREA & NOT 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." There were plenty of people south of the fence and pergola who were obviously strangers to Bowers, so he could not have been referring to them as being "behind" the fence. Therefore, the men he saw were on his side - the back side - of the fence."

Time to call the clinic on bed availability.

A special thanks to Gary Mack for pointing out the references Lane made. For those of us who do not have a copy of Lane's book handy, Gary was kind enough to share some of those valuable citations with me and now I have passed them along to this forum.

This is too bad & I feel sorry for Gary, who is a perfectly likable guy & a helpful resource down the 6TH floor Museum. I wish Gary all the best.

I have checked Gary's quotes from Lane's A Citizen's Dissent & have found them accurate quotes from Lane. I think Gary has the paperback.

Unfortunately, Gary, like countless others, has been misled by Lane who apparently (to be kind) has himself misinterpreted Bowers or who has apparently jimmied Bowers' real testimony in order to promote his agenda.

(As a side note: I believe that there was a shooter behind the fence that BOWERS DID NOT SEE. He was about 33 feet down the fence from its corner.)

Edited September 24, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Terry Mauro]

If one cannot get the alleged researcher to contact Mark Lane, then let's get Mark Lane to contact the researcher and what better way to do this than through the following book ... "A Citizen's Dissent". Gary Mack was kind enough to share with me some of the things Lane wrote that I had inquired about this past couple of weeks.

Below is some of what Gary Mack had shared with me about this particular book.

Gary said the following .......

"Mark Lane's 1968 book, A Citizen's Dissent, is quite interesting and it contains information about Lee Bowers that does not appear in Lane's earlier book, Rush To Judgment. Lane's information proved to be most helpful during my early studies of the Badge Man photograph.

What is so important about Lane's opinion, which was precisely matched by director Emile De Antonio to me in 1988, is that his conclusions were reached as a result of interviewing Bowers beforehand by telephone, in person prior to the formal interview, and the filmed interview itself. If there had been doubts about Bowers' veracity or accuracy, his story would likely not have been filmed.

What was Mark Lane's personal and professional opinion of Lee Bowers and his credibility? From his advance telephone interview(s) to his face-to-face meeting and filmed interview in 1966, Lane concluded on page 69, "The most impressive of the witnesses was Lee E. Bowers, Jr. His wry sense of humor and his excellent memory made him perhaps the finest witness I have ever questioned. He was behind the fence in a railroad tower when the shots were fired. He saw two men in the area and something that attracted his attention to the fence when the shots were fired." So Bowers' account to Lane, as told in one or more earlier, unrecorded interviews, and repeated on film, specifically placed the source of some odd disturbance at the fence, not down at the street or somewhere in between.

What was the actual location of the unknown event Bowers observed? The fence, as Lane explained on page 174. "Bowers had stated that when the shots were fired his attention was attracted to the area just behind the fence because of something that caught his eye there: 'Now, what this was, I could not state at the time and at this time I could not identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence - a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there.'" Again, Lane and Bowers state that he was observing the fence area, not the steps or walkway or any other location.

Was the occurrence which Bowers described at the fence or away from it such as halfway down the steps toward the street? After speaking with Bowers personally, Lane knew exactly, as he wrote on page 220, "Lee Bowers, who said he saw two men behind the wooden fence at the time of the shooting and observed what was possibly 'a flash of light there when the assassination occurred." In this instance, Lane makes it abundantly clear that the precise spot was at the fence, not 25 feet in front of it or anywhere else.

Did Bowers ever explain which side of the fence he was referring to? The answer is obviously yes, for Lane wrote on page 223, "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." There were plenty of people south of the fence and pergola who were obviously strangers to Bowers, so he could not have been referring to them as being "behind" the fence. Therefore, the men he saw were on his side - the back side - of the fence."

A special thanks to Gary Mack for pointing out the references Lane made. For those of us who do not have a copy of Lane's book handy, Gary was kind enough to share some of those valuable citations with me and now I have passed them along to this forum.

Bill Miller

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

I've been scouring the net for "A Citizen's Dissent," in hopes of finding a manuscript of the book in order that I may copy and paste the link, as well as the pertinent pages cited by Bill and Gary Mack in this regard.

So far, I've been able to find an article from Ramparts citing Penn Jones. Here is the link, followed by Bower's testimony to Lane.

From the Pages of "Ramparts"

Add to them the book-writers---Mark Lane, the most persistence public gadfly of ..... Lee Bowers' testimony is perhaps as explosive as any recorded by the ...

www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/09th_Issue/ramparts.html - 56k - Cached - Similar pages

Lee Bowers---Automobile Accident

Lee Bowers' testimony is perhaps as explosive as any recorded by the Warren Commission. He was one of 65 known witnesses to the President's assassination who thought shots were fired from the area of the Grassy Knoll. (The Knoll is west of the Texas School Book Depository.) But more than that, he was in a unique position to observe some pretty strange behavior in the Knoll area during and immediately before the assassination.

Bowers, then a towerman with the Union Terminal Co., was stationed in his 14-foot tower directly behind the Grassy Knoll. As he faced the assassination site, he could see the railroad overpass to his right front. Directly in front of him was a parking lot, and then a wooden stockade fence and a row of trees running along the top of the Grassy Knoll. The Knoll sloped down to the spot on Elm Street where Kennedy was killed. Police had "cut off" traffic into the parking area, Bowers said, "so that anyone moving around could actually be observed."

Bowers made two significant observations which he revealed to the Commission. First, he saw three unfamiliar cars slowly cruising around the parking area in the 35 minutes before the assassination; the first two left after a few minutes. The driver of the second car appeared to be talking into "a mike or telephone"---"he was holding something up to his mouth with one hand and he was driving with the other." A third car, with out-of-state plates and mud up to the windows, probed all around the parking area. Bowers last remembered seeing it about eight minutes before the shooting, pausing "just above the assassination site." He gave detailed descriptions of the cars and their drivers.

Bowers also observed two unfamiliar men standing on top of the Knoll at the edge of the parking lot, within 10 or 15 feet of each other---"one man, middle-aged or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or a plaid coat or jacket." Both were facing toward Elm and Houston, where the motorcade would be coming from. They were the only strangers he remembered seeing. His description shows a remarkable similarity to Julia Ann Mercer's description of two unidentified men climbing the knoll [minor deletia.]

When the shots rang out, Bowers' attention was drawn to the area where he had seen the two men; he could still make out the one in the white shirt---"the darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees." He observed "some commotion" at that spot, "...something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around...which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify." At that moment, he testified, a motorcycle policeman left the Presidential motorcade and roared up the Grassy Knoll straight to where the two mysterious gentlemen were standing behind the fence. The policeman dismounted, Bowers recalled, then after a moment climbed on his motorcycle and drove off. Later, in a film interview with attorney Mark Lane, he explained that the "commotion" that caught his eye may have been "a flash of light or smoke." His information dovetails with what other witnesses observed from different vantage points.

On the morning of August 9, 1966, Lee Bowers, now the vice-president of a construction firm, was driving south from Dallas on business. He was two miles from Midlothian when his brand new company car veered from the road and hit a bridge abutment. A farmer who saw it said the car was going 50 miles an hour, a slow speed for that road. There were no skidmarks to indicate braking.

Bowers died of his wounds at 1 p.m. in a Dallas hospital. He was 41. There was no autopsy, and he was cremated soon afterward. Doctors saw no evidence that he had suffered a heart attack. A doctor from Midlothian, who rode in the ambulance with Bowers, noticed something peculiar about the victim. "He was in a strange state of shock," the old doctor said, "a different kind of shock than an accident victim experiences. I can't explain it. I've never seen anything like it."

Bowers widow at first insisted to Penn Jones that there was nothing suspicious about her husband's death. Then she became flustered and said: "They told him not to talk."

I'll keep searching. But Bill, if you could get Gary to scan those particular pages of testimony from "A Citizen's Dissent" directly to you, you could copy and paste them right here on the forum, as true documentation.

Edited September 23, 2007 by Terry Mauro

[Alan Healy]

What is so important about Lane's opinion, which was precisely matched by director Emile De Antonio to me in 1988, is that his conclusions were reached as a result of interviewing Bowers beforehand by telephone, in person prior to the formal interview, and the filmed interview itself. If there had been doubts about Bowers' veracity or accuracy, his story would likely not have been filmed.

Opinions that are not backed up by the words of the actual witness remain just that, opinions.

We already know Lane's opinion anyway, he put him in a film to try & bolster the grassy knoll assassin but Bowers appearance there did nothing but mask the fact that he did not say the men were behind the fence.

He saw two men in the area and something that attracted his attention to the fence when the shots were fired." So Bowers' account to Lane, as told in one or more earlier, unrecorded interviews, and repeated on film, specifically placed the source of some odd disturbance at the fence, not down at the street or somewhere in between.

Nowhere does Bowers say that the two men & the flash of light & or smoke were at the same exact spot.

Does he say the flash of light or smoke was behind the fence in the transcripts?

Of course he doesn't.

Lane: "Bowers had stated that when the shots were fired his attention was attracted to the area just behind the fence"...........

Mack: "Lane and Bowers state that he was observing the fence area"

Bowers may of said that "the occurence was at the fence" to Lane over the phone or whatever, I for one can't possibly know he didn't but, any healthy sceptic has to ask the question, "if he did, then why didn't Lane get it on tape & why didn't he use it in the film since this was one of the main thrusts of the documentary?".

Surely Gary would ask the same question from anyone.

Lane opinionizing that Bowers saw men behind the fence we already have, just watch RTJ.

"Lee Bowers, who said he saw two men behind the wooden fence at the time of the shooting and observed what was possibly 'a flash of light there when the assassination occurred." In this instance, Lane makes it abundantly clear that the precise spot was at the fence, not 25 feet in front of it or anywhere else.

YES. That was Lane's opinion only.

Bill reckons Lane's opinion is important, I do not.

Lane was obviously committed to using Bowers in the film whether he said "behind the fence" or not.

The Bowers segment totally misleads the viewer into thinking Bowers' two men were behind the fence, when he appears to say the complete opposite in the transcript..

Did Bowers ever explain which side of the fence he was referring to? The answer is obviously yes, for Lane wrote on page 223, "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." There were plenty of people south of the fence and pergola who were obviously strangers to Bowers, so he could not have been referring to them as being "behind" the fence. Therefore, the men he saw were on his side - the back side - of the fence."

Lane inserted those words "men behind the fence" into Bowers reply.

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."

If that is not a blantant misuse of a what someone said, I don't know what is.

"Out of order"!

[Alan Healy]

Miles,

just in case you don't have it,

here's a link to an FBI document on Bowers that may prove useful another time.

Posted by Denis Morissette @ Lancer

[Terry Mauro]

What is so important about Lane's opinion, which was precisely matched by director Emile De Antonio to me in 1988, is that his conclusions were reached as a result of interviewing Bowers beforehand by telephone, in person prior to the formal interview, and the filmed interview itself. If there had been doubts about Bowers' veracity or accuracy, his story would likely not have been filmed.

Opinions that are not backed up by the words of the actual witness remain just that, opinions.

We already know Lane's opinion anyway, he put him in a film to try & bolster the grassy knoll assassin but Bowers appearance there did nothing but mask the fact that he did not say the men were behind the fence.

He saw two men in the area and something that attracted his attention to the fence when the shots were fired." So Bowers' account to Lane, as told in one or more earlier, unrecorded interviews, and repeated on film, specifically placed the source of some odd disturbance at the fence, not down at the street or somewhere in between.

Nowhere does Bowers say that the two men & the flash of light & or smoke were at the same exact spot.

Does he say the flash of light or smoke was behind the fence in the transcripts?

Of course he doesn't.

Lane: "Bowers had stated that when the shots were fired his attention was attracted to the area just behind the fence"...........

Mack: "Lane and Bowers state that he was observing the fence area"

Bowers may of said that "the occurence was at the fence" to Lane over the phone or whatever, I for one can't possibly know he didn't but, any healthy sceptic has to ask the question, "if he did, then why didn't Lane get it on tape & why didn't he use it in the film since this was one of the main thrusts of the documentary?".

Surely Gary would ask the same question from anyone.

Lane opinionizing that Bowers saw men behind the fence we already have, just watch RTJ.

"Lee Bowers, who said he saw two men behind the wooden fence at the time of the shooting and observed what was possibly 'a flash of light there when the assassination occurred." In this instance, Lane makes it abundantly clear that the precise spot was at the fence, not 25 feet in front of it or anywhere else.

YES. That was Lane's opinion only.

Bill reckons Lane's opinion is important, I do not.

Lane was obviously committed to using Bowers in the film whether he said "behind the fence" or not.

The Bowers segment totally misleads the viewer into thinking Bowers' two men were behind the fence, when he appears to say the complete opposite in the transcript..

Did Bowers ever explain which side of the fence he was referring to? The answer is obviously yes, for Lane wrote on page 223, "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." There were plenty of people south of the fence and pergola who were obviously strangers to Bowers, so he could not have been referring to them as being "behind" the fence. Therefore, the men he saw were on his side - the back side - of the fence."

Lane inserted those words "men behind the fence" into Bowers reply.

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."

If that is not a blantant misuse of a what someone said, I don't know what is.

"Out of order"!

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

"Bowers also observed two unfamiliar men standing on top of the Knoll at the edge of the parking lot, within 10 or 15 feet of each other---"one man, middle-aged or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or a plaid coat or jacket." Both were facing toward Elm and Houston, where the motorcade would be coming from. They were the only strangers he remembered seeing."

"Lane inserted those words "men behind the fence" into Bowers reply."

According to whom? You? Show me who's claiming that statement.

Edited September 23, 2007 by Terry Mauro