On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Alan Healy]

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

It's too little, too late.

Miles has already posted hard evidence that when Bowers said south he actually meant north & it's on the same page of the transcript as the other reference.

Oh you missed it?

What a surprise!

Nice to see your still trolling & looking up on how to spell words btw but, as usual, your only half right.

It won't help your reputation though, that has been shot through.

Look up the word "xxxxx" next & see how many boxes you tick, I've noticed quite a few that describe your posting pretty well.

[Alan Healy]

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

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

What?

Yes it was me.

[Miles Scull]

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.

"Bowers also observed two unfamiliar men standing on top of the Knoll at the edge of the parking lot,

Bowers never said this. This is false.

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?

According to the recorded transcript. And according to me.

You? Show me who's claiming that statement.

Alan is completely correct. Lane fudged in this little self serving parenthesis. Bowers never said this.

[Miles Scull]

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

Alan,

Saved & stored. Thx

BTW, here's an other HYDROGEN BOMB, just exploded:

http://www.dfwvirtualtours.net/jfkstuff/freewayman.pdf

[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!

It is started to become clear why you are a minority of one and a half. Nowhere did I say that I didn't own a copy of "Citizen's Dissent" or have not read it. In fact, when I was buying up books off of Ebay many years ago ... I had acquired several copies of that book. Two of those copies I have since given away as gifts to other researchers. One would think that common sense would have told even you that if sets of the 26 Volumes aren't just laying around in the mountains of British Columbia, then just as many copies of Lane's books are not laying around out here in the forest either.

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.

See answer above. Once again you do not have your facts straight and you falsely assume things that you know nothing about.

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.

I think we covered this hearsay crap before. You had the opportunity and still do to call Lane, Jones Harris, or De Antonio to see if you can get some clarification as to what Bowers told them. To date it appears that you have chosen not to do so.

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."

The stairs are east of the fence and certainly are not in a line between the town and the mouth of the underpass.

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

Yes, I believe that Lee Bowers referenced that what he saw could have been "smoke", thus anyone shooting over the fence would have propelled a puff of smoke out over the embankment and this is probably why Holland the guys with him saw the cloud of smoke come through the trees.

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?''

The only thing that has been shown is that you double talk depending on whatever position you are trolling for at any given moment in time. If one goes back and looks at the illustrations you have used in past responses ... the men on the steps would not have been behind the fence, but rather to the east of it. This would encompass the area between the fence and the shelter as you have pointed out several times now.

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:

"There" would be the location where Bowers saw the puff of smoke and/or the flash of light.

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

Let's see if I got this straight ... Weisberg, Garrison, Thompson, Penn Jones, Mack, White, Groden, Conway, Stone, and about everyone but you got it wrong ... that somehow the guy who really isn't even sure which guy on the steps was Emmett Hudson has gotten it right. Is that what you are basically trying to sell here?

Time to call the clinic on bed availability.

What clinic ... the one for obesity, sleep deprivation, substance abuse, poor research ethics? Your responses are to always open to interpretation.

[/b](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.)

So it is your position that Bowers didn't see a guy high elevated off the ground (assuming you are trying to salvage Duncan's claim of the floating cop torso), but Bowers could make out a plaid design on someone's shirt who has two men standing directly between he and the Bowers who you said was 100 years away - THANK GOD FOR ARCHIVED RESPONSES!!!

Bill Miller

Edited September 23, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Terry Mauro]

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.

"Bowers also observed two unfamiliar men standing on top of the Knoll at the edge of the parking lot,

Bowers never said this. This is false.

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?

According to the recorded transcript. And according to me.

You? Show me who's claiming that statement.

Alan is completely correct. Lane fudged in this little self serving parenthesis. Bowers never said this.

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

"Alan is completely correct. Lane fudged in this little self serving parenthesis. Bowers never said this."

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.

[Miles Scull]

Let's see if I got this straight ... Weisberg, Garrison, Thompson, Penn Jones, Mack, White, Groden, Conway, Stone, and about everyone but you got it wrong ...

Bill Miller

There you go !... (With regard to their misconception that Bowers placed the two men he saw behind the picket fence, of course.)

Thought you'd never catch on. It is tricky.

You've been talking nonsense for years.

And not only about Bowers & Gordon Arnold.

But, also, about Ed Hoffman's apocryphal tale. See: http://www.dfwvirtualtours.net/jfkstuff/freewayman.pdf

Now, you can play with the big boys: Craig, Duncan & Alan & Dale Myers.

Remember to bring your marbles, all of them this time.

[Bill Miller]

Let's see if I got this straight ... Weisberg, Garrison, Thompson, Penn Jones, Mack, White, Groden, Conway, Stone, and about everyone but you got it wrong ...

Bill Miller

There you go !... (With regard to their misconception that Bowers placed the two men he saw behind the picket fence, of course.)

Thought you'd never catch on. It is tricky.

You've been talking nonsense for years.

And not only about Bowers & Gordon Arnold.

But, also, about Ed Hoffman's apocryphal tale. See: http://www.dfwvirtualtours.net/jfkstuff/freewayman.pdf

Now, you can play with the big boys: Craig, Duncan & Alan & Dale Myers.

Remember to bring your marbles, all of them this time.

Miles,

You come across as an over inflated wind-bag that does little more than xxxxx forums. Even if it means double talking about no one being behind the fence or which man is is Hudson on the steps - you bring shame to the research community in my opinion. You on one hand complain evidence as hearsay, which is basically what the document you posted is. You have not called Lane to even know if the document is accurate and legit. Can we assume that you have not spoken to Lane yet to see if there is a logical explanation that has lead to your ridiculous observations? South means North - plaid means red - if someone tries to discuss your nonsense with a respected researcher - they don't even want to waste their time in discussing the nonsense you have demonstrated. In court ... without validating the document with the person who supposedly transcribed it, then it would be just as inadmissible as hearsay. What would have to happen is the now late De Antonio would be called to see if he could explain away your concerns. You've done nothing to do what a responsible researcher should do by at least contacting Lane or Harris to see if they had any additional data to offer that may clear up any concerns you have.

And thanks for making it clear that your illustration image was an 'atom bomb' because I was wondering if it may have been a picture taken at the moment someone had stuck you with a pin.

Bill Miller

Edited September 24, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Duke Lane]

... Can we assume that you have not spoken to Lane yet to see if there is a logical explanation that has lead to your ridiculous observations?

Lane is not famous for answering his phone nor returning his messages.

"Ouch!" on the rest of your message, which is best not quoted.

[Bill Miller]

... Can we assume that you have not spoken to Lane yet to see if there is a logical explanation that has lead to your ridiculous observations?

Lane is not famous for answering his phone nor returning his messages.

"Ouch!" on the rest of your message, which is best not quoted.

Mark Lane is 80 years old and may have his reasons for not answering numbers he doesn't recognize.

Bill

[Alan Healy]

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.

[Bill Miller]

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.

Let us not forget that Mark Lane also has a copy of that transcript. And it should be noted that Lane may have referenced the fence because in speaking with Bowers several times - Lee probably did reference these men as being at the fence. The opportunity for someone to find out was offered and none of the critics bothered to make the simple contact. It would be nice to see the entire interview.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

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.

Alan,

Right you are, old fox.

The original transcript, which when you stop to think about it, was a transcript of the recorded & filmed interview.

The original transcript, which I have in copy but cannot distribute in whole, is identical to Myers' & to Gary's. (Remember, Gary gave a copy of his transcript to Dale.)

In all of these copies there is NO parenthesis insert. That was Lane's doing.

Are we to think that Bowers spoke as a business man would dictate to his dicta-belt, stating every punctuation mark: "Begin paragraph capital the moon comma and the dog comma the cow and the fiddler parenthesis behind the fence end parenthesis all jumped over each other period end paragraph."

Here's Lane's "X" marks the fudge. Notice that in a court of law Lane could defend that the "X" was a clerical graphics error. Smart lawyer.

Too bad Miller was sold a bunch of fudge which he, in his vanity, then made the corner stone of a false wish palace that he has peddled to this & other forums for years. What can you say?

[Alan Healy]

According to the maker/editor of this film.

The two men are irrelevant.

Everything that Bowers told Lane about them has been ripped from the final cut.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3neVe8Nlw

[Alan Healy]

Anyone who has the bottle to ask Lane about this episode can also ask him why, since Lane knew Bowers was talking about men behind the fence, could he not get him to say it for the camera?

"ACD"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."

I'm guessing here(because I did not buy a copy of this when I had the chance )but I guarantee that, that above quote from Bowers is note sourced in a note at the end of the chapter or book.

It's hearsay & the transcript from an in-depth interview points to the embankment.

Edited September 25, 2007 by Alan Healy