On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Tim Gratz]

Miles wrote:

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

Miles a bit of clarifcation on the "hearsay" rule.

There is no exception to the hearsay rule because there is "no other evidence of a fact", as you put it. What you wrote comes close, however, to Federal Rule 807, the so-called "residual exception". (A lawyer will rely upon the residual exception if he cannot squeeze the desired testimony into any other exception.)

Rule 807. Residual Exception

A statement not specifically covered by Rule 803 or 804 but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by the hearsay rule, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; ( the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and © the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of it makes known to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent's intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant.

Rules 803 and 804 contain specific exceptions to the hearsay rule, depending on whether or not the declarant (the person who allegedly made the out-of-court statement sought to be admitted) is "available".

Note that for Rule 807 to apply the statement must have "circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness" (to be determined by the court).

Edited October 18, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Bill Miller]

Finally, who is the bizarre hatted man in the photo in the yellow "?" circle who is smaller than the adjacent car? This shows the absolute need for clear & EXAMINED photographic evidence.

Miles,

Where in the hell was your desire and need for clear photographic evidence when you applauded Duncan's floating cop torso or when you tried making the guys on the steps out to have on plaid shirts and/or coats by way of a multi-generational Nix film? I mean, its nice and all that you have seen the light finally, but what caused the awakening all of a sudden?

And that aerial photo on the Hoffman link - it sure offers a nice perspective of where the tower sits in relation to the shelter. To think that all this time you have been bending and misstating evidence to lay claim that Hudson and the other two men on the steps were the two men Lee told Ball about and now the information is out letting everyone who visit the plaza to take special note in seeing that the tower cannot even be seen from the Hudson location because of the shelter being in the way. Do you know what all this means ... it means that you spent a considerable amount of time posting things as fact that in the end they were not fact. It also means that anyone who would continue trying to say otherwise at this point is only going to hurt their own credibility as someone who is only interested in the truth.

Now where is that laughing smiley that you have posted so many times in the past because isn't there a saying that goes something like this ... "He who laughs last - laughs best!"

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Miles,

Where in the hell was your desire and need for clear photographic evidence when you applauded Duncan's floating cop torso

Bill Miller

I don't believe that what you call the floating torso cop is in Moorman is relevant to this discussion, any more than the floating Minime Arnold which you vehemently applaud in a poor Moorman image is relevant to this discussion.

Duncan

Completely right , Duncan,

Also, cursing & inappropriate forum language is a sign of a lack of concrete evidence.

Here is concrete evidence that Bowers saw what he said he did, nice view, what?

Link to image

(Large image changed to link - Moderator)

Edited October 19, 2007 by Evan Burton

[Bill Miller]

I don't believe that what you call the floating torso cop in Moorman is relevant to this discussion, any more than the floating Minime Arnold which you vehemently applaud in a poor Moorman image is relevant to this discussion.

Duncan

Duncan,

With all due respect, it was relevant as far as going to Miles's new revelation whereas he is only now wanting the better images when before he pushed such things as the Towner originals aside so to embrace the far poorer images of the NIx film. And FWIW, the Arnold image was from the good Moorman print and not from the more faded print. That particular image of Arnold may have been overlaid onto the poor quality print, but the Arnold image itself came from a far superior print.

Bill

[Alan Healy]

...when Josiah Thompson's photo was first posted onto the forum as being represented as Lee Bowers tower view by the poster, I had a strong suspicion that the photo had not been taken inside Bower's tower, but rather outside of it.

In a early conversation to Gary Mack about this particular photo, I had said that while it showed an example of what Lee Bowers view would have been like when seeing the north side of the stockade fence ... I felt the photo was taken at a shorter elevation than the what Bowers would have had and was probably taken from a car bumper or truck bed that was parked along side of the tower.

I had asked Gary that if he ever got the chance to do it - I wanted him to go out to the tower under Bowers window and look to see if he could see down the walkway as the Thompson pictured had appeared to do. Gary Mack eventually got around to doing this.........

So then, according to this observation of Gary's, that picture from "SSID" has been misleading us all this time because, it does indeed appear to show part of the south end of the walkway & thus Hudson & Co would of been clearly seen(or part of them) too from where the photographer was standing.

That's the impression we all got.

You remarked on how the elevation seemed low to you & how you contacted Thompson in the hope of getting more info on the photo.

You only said it appeared low.

You had no idea it was out of line too, or did you?

Look at the photo again & think about how far west of the tower this photgrapher had to be in order to get this shot if Gary's observation is correct.

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/5478.jpg

[Alan Healy]

I just want to comment that I too believe that Gary's observation should be verified but then as was said, anyone is free to go to DP & do that for themselves. I would just hope that if they do they would take photos so that people unable to make the trip can see it too.

I had to go find this photo which was the closest thing I have on file.

It looks like one of Ken's, if it is yours Ken do you remember taking it & what you were trying to capture?

Looks remarkably close to the spot we are talking about, just a coincidence maybe.

FWIW, there is no overhaead photo that gives us an accurate impression of Bowers LOS to these men.

The SSID photo was the best we had, now that's in doubt & we appear to have nothing.

[Bill Miller]

So then, according to this observation of Gary's, that picture from "SSID" has been misleading us all this time because, it does indeed appear to show part of the south end of the walkway & thus Hudson & Co would of been clearly seen(or part of them) too from where the photographer was standing.

That's the impression we all got.

Alan,

When I look at that photo - I cannot see the walkway from the grass that was between the sidewalk and the fence. I, like you, had assumed that out at the very end of the 'high ground' that possibly that was where the sidewalk was, but I could not even say that with certainty. What I can say with certainty is that yo cannot go to even the first step and stand on the west-most end of it and see the tower because the shelter blocks it from view. I can say with certainty that neither the tower, nor the shelter has been moved since the time of the assassination.

It should be noted that I have since called Robert Groden who spends a great deal of time on the walkway as he vends his merchandise there. Robert also says that the tower cannot be seen from the top of the steps. Robert said that he knew this from his past observations. I then asked if I could call him tomorrow while he was on the walkway and have him on site and visually either confirm or deny the information that Gary Mack reported back to me. Robert Groden agreed to do it. Once this is done, this will validate that Bowers could never have seen Hudson or the other two men on the steps leading down to the street. It will validate that once again someone created a theory from basically nothing without checking even the basics needed to be done to have even considered this matter. I will report what Robert says tomorrow.

You remarked on how the elevation seemed low to you & how you contacted Thompson in the hope of getting more info on the photo.

You only said it appeared low.

You had no idea it was out of line too, or did you?

I had not ever recalled being able to see the tower while being on the walkway. I knew that the steps curve east as they make their way down to the street, thus putting the landing even further east and behind the shelter when viewed from the tower. It was early on that I spoke to Gary about testing the view fro the tower for me, but somehow Gary had not had the time to do this or he had gotten side-tracked and just forgotten about it.

As far as the elevation of Josiah's photo goes ... It didn't seem to be looking down on the cars and trucks enough so to be taken from a second story view IMO. When Josiah answered my email - he said that he could not recall at this late date if the photo was taken from inside the tower or from a location just west of it. But like I said, if it is so that one cannot see the tower while on the steps looking back, and Josiahs photo was actually seeing the top of the steps, then Josiah could not have been in the tower, but rather just west of it.

Look at the photo again & think about how far west of the tower this photgrapher had to be in order to get this shot if Gary's observation is correct.

Gary had said that he could move west off the steps and out into the grass and that this would allow him to see part of the tower. If Thompson's photo sees the walkway at the top of the steps, then Josiah could not have been inside the tower, but rather on the west side of it.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

It looks like one of Ken's, if it is yours Ken do you remember taking it & what you were trying to capture?

Looks remarkably close to the spot we are talking about, just a coincidence maybe.

One step below that landing is where Hudson and the man next to him stood. The photo appears to have been taken looking directly between the two. The gap between the shelter and the fence does not show anything that remotely resembles the tower.

Bill Miller

[Robin Unger]

I just want to comment that I too believe that Gary's observation should be verified but then as was said, anyone is free to go to DP & do that for themselves. I would just hope that if they do they would take photos so that people unable to make the trip can see it too.

I had to go find this photo which was the closest thing I have on file.

It looks like one of Ken's, if it is yours Ken do you remember taking it & what you were trying to capture?

Looks remarkably close to the spot we are talking about, just a coincidence maybe.

FWIW, there is no overhaead photo that gives us an accurate impression of Bowers LOS to these men.

The SSID photo was the best we had, now that's in doubt & we appear to have nothing.

Hi Alan.

That looks to be one of Lee Forman's photo's.

He sent me a CD with about 100-images of Dealey Plaza that he had taken when he was there.

[Miles Scull]

Hi Alan.

That looks to be one of Lee Forman's photo's.

He sent me a CD with about 100-images of Dealey Plaza that he had taken when he was there.

Hi Robin & Alan,

Here's a herald:

Link to image

(Image changed to link by Moderator)

Edited October 19, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

Hi Alan.

That looks to be one of Lee Forman's photo's.

He sent me a CD with about 100-images of Dealey Plaza that he had taken when he was there.

Hi Robin & Alan,

Here's a herald:

Link to image

(Image changed to link by Moderator)

Just a quick addendum:

If the Thompson photographer had shot from outside, to the west, of the tower, then he would have had to:

1.) float in air

2.) leap 20 feet off the ground

The important, key & critical fact to understand, of course, which is here overlooked, is:

THE THOMPSON SHOT IS A TELEPHOTO !!

[Robin Unger]

Hi Alan.

That looks to be one of Lee Forman's photo's.

He sent me a CD with about 100-images of Dealey Plaza that he had taken when he was there.

Hi Robin & Alan,

Here's a herald:

Link to image

(Image changed to link by Moderator)

FWIW

I don't think it is possible to see the steps from the tower position.

[Robin Unger]

Another one of Lee's pics.

[Miles Scull]

Another one of Lee's pics.

Robin,

Thx for the pics.

That is correct: the stairs are not seen from the tower. That fact is seen or verified from a look at the aerials.

Bowers never said that he saw the sidewalk stairs.

Bowers saw the two men before the shooting to the west of the stairs on the embankment, in the area of the stairs.

Remember, Bowers said the men moved.

[Miles Scull]

Another one of Lee's pics.

Robin,

Thx for the pics.

That is correct: the stairs are not seen from the tower. That fact is seen or verified from a look at the aerials.

Bowers never said that he saw the sidewalk stairs.

Bowers saw the two men before the shooting to the west of the stairs on the embankment, in the area of the stairs.

Remember, Bowers said the men moved.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Addendum:

"At the time of the shooting," in Bowers comments, is not restricted to 7 seconds.

Bowers time concept is a duration far beyond that.