On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Bill Miller]

Returning to the thread topic, Myers has demonstrated that Bowers actually said that the two men he saw were in the area of the sidewallk.

Both men seen in Nix wore shirts & jackets which were plaid in appearance.

This corroborates Myers contention.

What does it take to corroborate Myers contention??? So far it took someone to claim that when Bowers told Ball that the men were on the "High Ground" between he and the mouth of the underpass - that this meant that the men were on what Bowers called the incline between he and the walkway. It took someone to claim that when Bowers said the word "south" - that Lee must have meant 'north'. It took someone to then say that when Bowers said the man in the dark pants was "Heavy-Set" - that this must mean that Bowers only meant that one skinny man looked bigger than the other skinny man. It also took someone to claim that when Bowers told Ball about seeing two men - that Bowers must have meant three men. It also took someone to believe that when Bowers said that the two men were 10 to 15 feet apart - that this meant that they were side by side and shoulder to shoulder for Hudson and the man next to him were only inches apart. It also took someone to believe that when Bowers spoke of these two men standing as the the caravan came into the plaza from Main onto Houston Street - that Lee must have meant they were sitting next to each other and stood up when the caravan turned off of Houston and onto Elm Street. And the icing on the cake came when it took someone to resort to using such a well-known poor quality multi-generational film as the Nix film is, which doesn't even allow one to see these mens faces, so to be able to lay claim that the men on the steps wore plaid coats and shirts - while ignoring far better original high resolution scans that the 6Th Floor Museum has on hand which doesn't show any plaid designs.

So it basically took the re-writing of the evidence altogether. Yes, all that corroborated Myers contention quite nicely!

Bill Miller

Edited October 15, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Returning to the thread topic, Myers has demonstrated that Bowers actually said that the two men he saw were in the area of the sidewalk.

Both men seen in Nix wore shirts & jackets which were plaid in appearance.

This corroborates Myers contention.

What does it take to corroborate Myers contention??? ... And the icing on the cake comes if someone resorts to using such a well-known poor quality multi-generational film as the Nix film is, which doesn't even allow one to see these mens faces, so to be able to lay claim that the men on the steps wore plaid coats and shirts - while ignoring far better original high resolution scans that the 6Th Floor Museum has on hand.

No one is ignoring these scans & no one ever did so. And no one ever said that the two men were wearing plaid. But they could have easily have seemed to be wearing plaid to Bowers.

Yes, all that corroborated Myers contention quite nicely!

Bill Miller

The Nix film & the Muchmore film clearly show, despite their poor quality, that the two men were wearing a shirt & jacket that Bowers from his remove could have perceived & DID perceive as plaid.

Whether, the shirt & jacket were in reality plaid (which they may very well, in fact, HAVE BEEN) is beside the point.

The point is Bowers could have & DID perceive the garments to be plaid.

This is strong verification & corroboration of Myers' contention that Bowers said that the two men were by the stairs, which, of course, is exactly what Bowers did say to Lane.

Whether mythical better quality images at the 6th Floor Museum show plaid or no plaid is completely beside the point & irrelevant.

Bowers thought & perceived that they were plaid.

QED

[Bill Miller]

The Nix film & the Muchmore film clearly show, despite their poor quality, that the two men were wearing a shirt & jacket that Bowers from his remove could have perceived & DID perceive as plaid.

Whether, the shirt & jacket were in reality plaid (which they may very well, in fact, HAVE BEEN) is beside the point.

Yet Bowers never even mentioned seeing Hudson - only two men he told Ball about and you are wanting everyone to believe that the one man who would have been blocked from Bowers view according to the Thompson picture you provided was the only man he attributed a plaid shirt or jacket to. In one of your responses you estimated that man to be 100 yards away. And we have already been through this ... Bowers placed them on the High Ground between the tower and the mouth of the underpass.

But while we are on the topic of what Bowers said and saw ... let's see what points in my previous post did you address for they need to also fit your claim in order to even have half a chance at seriously being considered.

What does it take to corroborate Myers contention???

1) So far it took someone to claim that when Bowers told Ball that the men were on the "High Ground" between he and the mouth of the underpass - that this meant that the men were on what Bowers called the incline between he and the walkway.

2) It took someone to claim that when Bowers said the word "south" - that Lee must have meant 'north'.

3) It took someone to then say that when Bowers said the man in the dark pants was "Heavy-Set" - that this must have meant that Bowers only meant that one skinny man looked bigger than the other skinny man.

4) It also took someone to claim that when Bowers told Ball about seeing two men - that Bowers must have meant three men.

5) It also took someone to believe that when Bowers said that the two men were 10 to 15 feet apart - that this meant that they were side by side and shoulder to shoulder for Hudson and the man next to him were only inches apart.

6) It also took someone to believe that when Bowers spoke of these two men standing as the the caravan came into the plaza from Main onto Houston Street - that Lee must have meant they were sitting next to each other and stood up when the caravan turned off of Houston and onto Elm Street.

(Wow! Bowers said the two men he saw were standing and looking up towards Main and Houston watching the caravan come down and Hudson said that he and the guy next to him were sitting and stood up only when the President came around the corner at Houston and Elm street and somehow in a twisted propaganda kind of way you seem to see them as saying the same thing)

Mr. BALL - Were they standing together or standing separately?

Mr. BOWERS - They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew.

Mr. BALL - In what direction were they facing?

Mr. BOWERS - They were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston, and following the caravan as it came down.

Mr.Hudson - ........ When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and stood up

7) And the icing on the cake came when it took someone to resort to using such a well-known poor quality multi-generational film as the Nix film is, which doesn't even allow one to see these mens faces, so to be able to lay claim that the men on the steps wore plaid coats and shirts - while ignoring far better original high resolution scans that the 6Th Floor Museum has on hand which doesn't show any plaid designs.

One has to laugh when seeing all the switching out of players and what this person must have meant or that person in order to make such a ridiculous claim that the men on the steps were the two guys Bowers told Mr. Ball about, but to then say, "Whether mythical better quality images at the 6th Floor Museum show plaid or no plaid is completely beside the point & irrelevant" is a joke on two levels. Going back through the thread it was apparent that you (Miles) needed to have the men on the steps to be wearing plaid or you knew that you had a problem. And now you call the Towner camera originals 'the mythical better quality images' to then attempt to cover your tail by only now taking the position that the description given by Bowers is irrelevant. This is like saying that the 7 points listed above are irrelevant and what is relevant is that everyone throw out the evidence and makes the three men on the steps become the two men Bowers told Ball about. However ridiculous this may appear to a serious researcher, the 'plaid' illustration in post #468 was a nice touch. The illusion of lines from the pixels could be construed as plaid if one doesn't see then that the sidewalk, grass, and everything else in that image is then plaid. This is why I think the Museum would rather hang on to the camera originals.

Bill Miller

Edited October 15, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

That's what I thought. You cannot figure it out, so I need to spoon feed you the frames so in the end you can say "It's still not smoke". I don't think I'll play that game.

And I do understand the hearsay rules quite well. In fact, there are post I have made to you explaining them and they apply or don't apply accordingly. Now correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't there one such instance where you refused to call Mark Lane to settle an issue over something Bowers had told Mark? I believe the term 'hearsay' was used in defense of not wasting time talking to Lane. The response to that was that Lane would not be saying what someone else told him as to what Bowers may have said, but rather Mark would be offering information to a conversation is participated in. Now lord knows I can misrecall something, but that theme does seem to ring a bell.

Bill

I've figured it out & already posted the details, if you were paying attention you wouldn't have had to ask.

Why would I ask you for frames from the Wfilm anyway when you already told us you don't have Groden's DVD?

Oh that's right, the frame you produced is not on that DVD. Funny stuff.

No, you do not understand hearsay.

You seem to think that Lane or Jones are witnesses because they spoke to Bowers & what they would tell us could be used in court..

You are wrong.

Whatever Lane, Jones or even Golz tells us a witness told them is hearsay.

If Lane walks into court & says "Bowers told me the men were behind the fence", that is hearsay.

Same goes for Jones or anyone else.

If the witness cannot come to court then, we can move to the written or taped evidence.

What Lane "says a witness told him verbally" is worthless.

Now if Lane had recorded evidence to back up what he claims that is different, that evidence will be used. But he has nothing of the kind!

You cannot understand this & that is why you should go study it further before you make yourself look uneducated or something..

The witness is Bowers, not Lane or Jones, what they tell you over the phone is worthless.

Go ask a judge for pitys sake.

[Bill Miller]

No, you do not understand hearsay.

You seem to think that Lane or Jones are witnesses because they spoke to Bowers & what they would tell us could be used in court..

You are wrong.

Whatever Lane, Jones or even Golz tells us a witness told them is hearsay.

If Lane walks into court & says "Bowers told me the men were behind the fence", that is hearsay.

Same goes for Jones or anyone else.

Alan, it gets very tiresome hearing someone like yourself talk about things that you know nothing about and can easily be proven wrong. Over here we have court shows out the ying-yang and almost every other day someone like Judge Judy or Judge Joe Brown has to stop a witness and explain the hearsay rule. I am going to give it to you one more time.

If you and I had a discussion, then you can tell the court what I said directly to you based upon my own first hand knowledge. This would cover my telling you that I saw someone with my own eyes. But if you try to tell the court something that I said another person had told me that he or she saw and you were not privy to that conversation as it occurred, then that is hearsay and inadmissible. This simply means that if Bowers told Lane what someone else had told him that they saw during the assassination, then Lane could not testify to it because of the hearsay rule. But Lane could testify what Bowers said that he saw because it was said directly to Lane.

Now if you have any court shows over there, then sit down and watch a few of them and you'll soon see that what I have said here is spot-on. Of course, in-as-much as you don't like to make phone calls in the name of research ... do it anyway and call a local attorney's office and ask someone to explain what hearsay is. Read them my response to you and simply ask them if I am right or not.

hearsay

adj : heard through another rather than directly; "hearsay

information"

Simply put - Lane trying to say what Bowers said about what someone else witnessed and told him is hearsay. Lane saying what Bowers told him directly that Lee Bowers witnessed himself is not hearsay.

An even yet simpler example: If I said to the Judge that Alan told me that Duncan told him that he saw a shooter behind the fence during the assassination, then it is inadmissible due to the hearsay rule. That's because the first party cannot talk about what a third party said to a second party unless the first party was also there and heard it first hand.

But if I told the Judge that Alan said to me directly that he saw a shooter behind the fence, then this is admissible and the hearsay rule would not apply because it came directly to me from the witness and not from what some third party had told Alan.

Bill Miller

Edited October 16, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

No, you do not understand hearsay.

You seem to think that Lane or Jones are witnesses because they spoke to Bowers & what they would tell us could be used in court..

You are wrong.

Whatever Lane, Jones or even Golz tells us a witness told them is hearsay.

If Lane walks into court & says "Bowers told me the men were behind the fence", that is hearsay.

Same goes for Jones or anyone else.

Alan, it gets very tiresome hearing someone like yourself talk about things that you know nothing about and can easily be proven wrong. Over here we have court shows out the ying-yang and almost every other day someone like Judge Judy or Judge Joe Brown has to stop a witness and explain the hearsay rule. I am going to give it to you one more time.

If you and I had a discussion, then you can tell the court what I said directly to you based upon my own first hand knowledge. This would cover my telling you that I saw someone with my own eyes. But if you try to tell the court something that I said another person had told me that he or she saw and you were not privy to that conversation as it occurred, then that is hearsay and inadmissible. This simply means that if Bowers told Lane what someone else had told him that they saw during the assassination, then Lane could not testify to it because of the hearsay rule. But Lane could testify what Bowers said that he saw because it was said directly to Lane.

Now if you have any court shows over there, then sit down and watch a few of them and you'll soon see that what I have said here is spot-on. Of course, in-as-much as you don't like to make phone calls in the name of research ... do it anyway and call a local attorney's office and ask someone to explain what hearsay is. Read them my response to you and simply ask them if I am right or not.

hearsay

adj : heard through another rather than directly; "hearsay

information"

Simply put - Lane trying to say what Bowers said about what someone else witnessed and told him is hearsay. Lane saying what Bowers told him directly that Lee Bowers witnessed himself is not hearsay.

An even yet simpler example: If I said to the Judge that Alan told me that Duncan told him that he saw a shooter behind the fence during the assassination, then it is inadmissible due to the hearsay rule. That's because the first party cannot talk about what a third party said to a second party unless the first party was also there and heard it first hand.

But if I told the Judge that Alan said to me directly that he saw a shooter behind the fence, then this is admissible and the hearsay rule would not apply because it came directly to me from the witness and not from what some third party had told Alan.

Bill Miller

So there you go, you just said it yourself(again!), anything that Lane or Jones tells us over the phone regarding what Bowers told them, is next to useless as evidence.

Good job.

As for seeing Lane in court saying the same thing.

If the witness is not there to speak for himself & there is no other evidence to back this claim up(& in this case we have evidence & nowhere does Bowers say "behind the fence"), it will not be taken too seriously by any half decent judge & thus treated as hearsay!

When the judge finds out Lane edited footage of what Bowers really said regarding the position of these two men, Lane will be held in contempt & treated as a xxxx.

[Alan Healy]

Anyone, who can capture the sharp limo frame & the frame 56 frames after that & try to line up the tree will know what I'm talking about.

You can't get that many points on the tree to line up because the camera is at a different angle to it.

Alan, I spoke to Gary Mack about this a long time ago and again today and Wiegman is running towards the knoll. The fact that he appears to be cutting across the middle of the street to the curb on an angle is because the street curves and is running diagonally away from the knoll. The point being is that in realty - Wiegman is running towards the knoll - not on an angle away from it.

Wiegman was not running toward the tree in question, he ran to the Hesters.

Thus the same tree in those two frames I showed you will not match branch for branch because he was at a different angle to them.

If you are claiming Wiegman ran straight at the tree, you are wrong & I'm telling you again the tree outline does not match.

Why are you arguing with me over this unless you used the same frame?

No matter what you do, the overlay looks off & it should do because of the reason I stated above.

So in order to size these frames accurately you need a professional, who will use more than just their eyes to resize the frames correctly.

You say that your frame came around six frames before the limo frame, so no doubt the tree was easier to line up, I'm talking about 56 frames afterwards, different story.

Alan, when you say 56 frames ... have you figured the number of frame difference between actual film and the transfer to TV? Have you considered the conversion from American to your country's?? And as I said before ... I took the two best frames I could find and overlaid them so to see if there was any movement. The Groden frame and a frame before that point.

I'm using Groden's DVD on my PC to watch the film.

From the limo frame I forward it one frame at a time, 56 times, to get the second scene.

So it's +56 on a DVD on your PC , if you are really interested in finding it.

On tape, on the unedited film it is 29 frames apart.

That is, I press pause twenty nine times to get the second scene.

Same film & more frames but it forwards the film faster & not one true frame at a time like the DVD.

FWIW.

You used a scan from a book for one frame of your wee gif & probably something you found on the net for the second, you have no idea from what part of the film it came from, your just guessing.

I'm telling you it's close to two seconds after the limo frame, not before.

Answer me one question.

Do you recall resizing the frame you say came before the limo frame when you made the gif?

The only thing that I can say is that if the two frames were overlaid onto each other and I found that the reference points were not exactly lined up ... I would have made sure they were, but I honestly do not recall doing it. Even 9 frames and Wiegman running at the knoll would only be slightly over 1/3 of a second, and because Wiegman's camera is always moving - his LOS pertaining to his total field of view is not the same in any two film frames.

The only reference points in those two frames you used are on the tree itself & no one can see them or if they are lined up because of it's poor quality.

Your gif is useless.

[Bill Miller]

So there you go, you just said it yourself(again!), anything that Lane or Jones tells us over the phone regarding what Bowers told them, is next to useless as evidence.

Good job.

As for seeing Lane in court saying the same thing.

If the witness is not there to speak for himself & there is no other evidence to back this claim up(& in this case we have evidence & nowhere does Bowers say "behind the fence"), it will not be taken too seriously by any half decent judge & thus treated as hearsay!

When the judge finds out Lane edited footage of what Bowers really said regarding the position of these two men, Lane will be held in contempt & treated as a xxxx.

Alan,

You must purposely try not to get it. Like with the contact number you were given regarding contacting Lane, you haven't bothered to check with one person in the legal field to see if what I told you is true. Lane and Harris had both interviewed Lee Bowers. Anything that Bowers told them that he witnesses is not hearsay. If you somehow think that by trying to pretend not to get it makes your position on hearsay look correct - it doesn't. What it does is show people who do understand what has been written that you are either unable to follow such a simple thing that is being said or you are so blinded by bias that you refuse to accept it.

As far as the edited footnote, Lane would have the chance to show the entire transcript whereas it may have several places where Bowers made it crystal clear what he meant. If before De Antonio's death and presently with Harris ... they could have be called as independent witnesses to testify as to what Bowers had said to them as well. Sometime soon I am going to share a piece of information with you and Miles that is going to leave egg on your face ... although for Miles it probably won't be a bad thing for he will most likely consider it breakfast.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

duplicate post deleted

Edited October 16, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Tim Gratz]

Bill wrote:

As far as the edited footnote, Lane would have the chance to show the entire transcript whereas it may have several places where Bowers made it crystal clear what he meant. If before De Antonio's death and presently with Harris ... they could have be called as independent witnesses to testify as to what Bowers had said to them as well.

Bill, I hate to differ with you but this is HEARSAY.

In order for Bowers' statements to be used in a court proceeding he must appear in person and subject himself to hearsay.

If an attorney offers 101 witnesses to say that Joe Blow made an out-of-court statement and it is known that all 101 heard the same statement in the exact same words so there is no question Joe said it, it is still hearsay and not 1 of the 101 get to testify.

[Bill Miller]

FWIW.

You used a scan from a book for one frame of your wee gif & probably something you found on the net for the second, you have no idea from what part of the film it came from, your just guessing.

I'm telling you it's close to two seconds after the limo frame, not before.

I took nothing off the Internet, thus as usual you don't know what you are talking about. And I have yet to see where you have posted the exact same frame that I used in conjunction with the limo frame.

The only reference points in those two frames you used are on the tree itself & no one can see them or if they are lined up because of it's poor quality.

Your gif is useless.

I aligned the outer leaves of the trees seen against the background and then asked for anyone to place their cursor on their outer edges to see if they did not come in over the top of one another. I also asked that they consider the direction that the street was pointed when Wiegman got off the car and started heading diagonally towards the curb and in the direction of the knoll in that .3 seconds between the frames I used. I then asked that one apply that information to the distance Wiegman was from the knoll.

And you are right - my gif. is useless to anyone who hasn't a clue as to how to examine it.

Bill Miller

Edited October 16, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

And you are right - my gif. is useless to anyone ...Bill Miller[/b]

The only reference points in those two frames you used are on the tree itself & no one can see them or if they are lined up because of it's poor quality.

Your gif is useless.

Alan,

Just for the record, my analysis coincides with your statements here.

On another point, Bowers says that there was no one behind OR before the fence.

That's correct.

The only time hearsay is allowed, and this is extrememly rare, is in the case that there exists NO other evidence of a probable fact such as, for example, that it was raining on that day.

But, since Bower's transcript exists, hearsay would NEVER be allowed.

[Bill Miller]

Bill wrote:

As far as the edited footnote, Lane would have the chance to show the entire transcript whereas it may have several places where Bowers made it crystal clear what he meant. If before De Antonio's death and presently with Harris ... they could have be called as independent witnesses to testify as to what Bowers had said to them as well.

Bill, I hate to differ with you but this is HEARSAY.

In order for Bowers' statements to be used in a court proceeding he must appear in person and subject himself to hearsay.

If an attorney offers 101 witnesses to say that Joe Blow made an out-of-court statement and it is known that all 101 heard the same statement in the exact same words so there is no question Joe said it, it is still hearsay and not 1 of the 101 get to testify.

Tim, if that were the case, then no one in the history of the court system could ever testify as to what another person said to them. I have worked with attorney's on several cases and I know the hearsay rule quite well. If one testifies to what a witnesses (lets say yourself) said to them about first hand knowledge you had such as something you witnessed yourself, then it is admissible. One cannot testify that Tim Gratz told them something that someone else said, then that is hearsay. You are also welcome to verify this with any attorney for it is common knowledge.

Let me give you a hypothetical scenario here concerning your misconception that the witness who said the original statement must be called to verify that they said something. In the case of an auto accident whereas the victim soon died afterwards ... the treating personnel on the scene could relay any information that the victim said directly to them pertaining to the victims first hand knowledge as to the cause of the accident. Someone like myself who may have heard what the victim said through a third party could not testify as to what was said because I was not there because of the hearsay rule.

You said, "If an attorney offers 101 witnesses to say that Joe Blow made an out-of-court statement and it is known that all 101 heard the same statement in the exact same words so there is no question Joe said it, it is still hearsay and not 1 of the 101 get to testify."

Here is another example how your statement is incorrect. There is case after case whereas witnesses were allowed to testify under such conditions. Let us say that that 101 witnesses were present and witnessed a fight between two people where one of the people fighting went immediately into a permanent coma or was even killed. The person who survived said that he or she were only acting in self-defense. Those 101 witnesses could and would be able to testify to what they saw and heard as a direct result as being there. If they witnessed first hand that the victim begged the other fighter to stop because they had had enough, then you can bet that it would be allowed because it was witnessed first hand. None of them could testify as to what someone else witnessed, but they damned sure could testify as to what they witnessed as a result of being there. This means that Lane could testify to what Bowers said directly to him that Bowers witnessed. Lane could not testify to what Bowers told him that someone else had said he saw/witnessed - that would be hearsay.

Bill

Edited October 16, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, I have a law degree.

Tim, if that were the case, then no one in the history of the court system could ever testify as to what another person said to them You are right: no one can.

Of course there are of course certain exceptions to the hearsay rule, e.g. an out of court statement made against the declarant's interest, a dying declaration, etc.

Bill, you added this since I posted:

Let me give you a hypothetical scenario here concerning your misconception that the witness who said the original statement must be called to verify that they said something. In the case of an auto accident whereas the victim soon died afterwards ... the treating personnel on the scene could relay any information that the victim said directly to them pertaining to the victims first hand knowledge as to the cause of the accident

Bill, that is EXACTLY the definition of a "dying declaration". It is an EXCEPTION to the hearsay rule, based upon the presumption that someone is not going to lie when they are about to meet their maker. But it is of course the exception that proves the normal rule.

Query: Did Bowers die within minutes after Lane filmed him? I doubt it.

Bill, you wrote:

If one testifies to what a witnesses (lets say yourself) said to them about first hand knowledge you had such as something you witnessed yourself, then it is admissible.

Wrong. Let's say I was in Dealey Plaza on that tragic day so I had personal knowledge and I told you that I saw Johnny Roselli shooting from the manhole (and Johnny's on trial). Even though I had first-hand knowledge, you can't testify what I told you because Rosselli's lawyer has the right to cross-examine me re many things: how good my eyesight is; whether I am out to "get" Rosselli because Norwegians hate Italians; any number of avenues for cross-examination.

I mean just think about the logic of it. The whole purpose of the rule is to allow defendants to confront (ie cross examine) the witneeses against them. If ytou say what I told you I saw, Roselli's lawyer cannot cross examine YOU for instance about my prejudices against Italians, when I last had my eyes examined.

Common sense says you are wrong. Just look up the definition of hearsay in the Federal Rules of Evidence or any state code of evidence.

One cannot testify that Tim Gratz told them something that someone else said, then that is hearsay. No, that is DOUBLE HEARSAY.

Edited October 16, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

I see Dawn is on the line. This may be the ONE THING we agree upon! You reading this, Dawn?