On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Bill Miller]

To all,

Unless someone is willing to come forward at this time and state that the colonnade, the RR tower, the walkway and steps have been moved since 11/22/63, then the now overwhelming evidence is that Lee Bowers DID NOT see the two men he testified about on the walkway or steps leading down to the street. It is my opinion that this should have been clear merely by reading the testimony of Lee Bowers and cross referencing it with the testimony of Emmett Hudson. As stated in the past, Bowers said that the two men he was talking about were standing on the "High Ground" between 10 to 15 feet apart and looking towards Main and Houston as the caravan entered the plaza.

Mr. BALL - Now, were there any people standing on the high side---high ground between your tower and where Elm Street goes down under the underpass toward the mouth of the underpass?

Mr. BOWERS - Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket.

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.

Emmett Hudson on the other hand said that he and the man next to him were sitting on the steps and that they didn't stand up until caravan/motorcade had turned off of Houston and onto Elm Street.

Mr. HUDSON - Well there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age about in his late twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to park and he walked up there and he said he finally just taken a place over there in one of them parking lots, and he come on down there and said he worked over there on Industrial and me and him both just sat there first on those steps. When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and stood up, me and him both.

Miles Scull somehow believed that Bowers talking about two men standing on the 'High Ground' was equivalent to two men sitting on the steps which would be on what Bowers said was the 'Incline'.

Mr. BOWERS - A large number of people came, more than one direction. One group converged from the corner of Elm and Houston, and came down the extension of Elm and came into the high ground, and another line another large group went across the triangular area between Houston and Elm and then across Elm and then up the incline. Some of them all the way up. Many of them did, as well as, of course, between 50 and a hundred policemen within a maximum of 5 minutes.

Earlier in this thread, the Thompson photo was introduced as if to suggest that Bowers could see the three men on the steps. At that time I questioned the elevation that Josiah had taken that photograph. If one compares the gap between the single southern-most set of RR tracks in both images, then Groden's photo shows a higher elevation than Josiah's photo shows.

The gap seen between a single set of tracks in Josiah's photo ...

The gap seen between a single set of tracks in Robert's photo ...

Anyone standing on the steps looking north cannot see the Bowers window in the tower

Anyone under the Bowers window looking south cannot see the walkway. (Note that the small rod-iron fencing running the length of the walkway is not visible from under Bowers window)

As the evidence overwhelming demonstrates, No matter who or where the two men were that Bowers testified to Mr. Ball about - the three men on the steps could not have been them. We were told in the beginning of this thread that Myers and Scull had gotten it right and that everyone else had been wrong for the past four plus decades. The real world evidence shows that it was the other way around.

My special thanks to Gary Mack and Robert Groden in their independent contributions that were done in keeping the facts straight so that the truth could be known concerning this particular matter.

Bill Miller

Edited October 22, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

My special thanks to Gary Mack and Robert Groden in their independent contributions that were done in keeping the facts straight so that the truth could be known concerning this particular matter.

Bill Miller

I'd also like to join Miller in thanking Gary & Bob.

Many thanks to Bob Groden for providing these many excellent photos!

They prove the case.

These photos confirm & validate Myers' presentation of the revolution in understanding of Bowers' testimony.

The mistaken conception that Bowers said that he observed two men "behind the picket fence" is now corrected.

In fact, Bowers said the two men he saw were in the area of the stairs.

This is explained here: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm

It is not proved that Bowers could not have seen Hudson as he stood on the stairs as seen in Moorman. That can be proved by a photo taken at the edge of the stairs at Hudson's stair.

But, as I said in post # 531 of this thread to Alan Healy:

" First of all, you do understand that whether Bowers could or could not have seen Hudson standing on the stairs (as, for example, in Moorman) does not change or lessen the import of Bowers' testimony to Lane, that the two men were seen by Bowers in the vicinity of the stairs, do you not?"

The critical passage in Bowers' testimony to Lane is quoted by Myers:

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 (the curved decorative wall of the pergola). Uh - these two men to the best of my knowledge were standing there - uh - at the time - of the shooting..."

"... - these two men to the best of my knowledge were standing there - ..."

TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE

Whether Bowers saw or did not see Hudson or anyone else of specific identity is wholly & completely irrelevant & wholly & completely immaterial to the import of Bowers' statement.

Why?

Because Bowers, at intervals, had been observing the area of the embankment to the west of the stairs from at least a dozen minutes before the actual shooting to a dozen minutes after the shooting.

This explains Bowers' words: TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE

Bowers is saying that his observation of 20 or more minutes of the embankment caused him to understand that at the time of the shooting the two men were placed on the embankment as he describes.

Whether or not there were two men actually visible in Bowers view of the embankment at exactly the time of the 7 second shooting is relevant. Bowers may have seen individuals before or after the 7 seconds & understood to the best of his knowledge that they were there at the time of the shooting. That's exactly what Bowers says. No more, no less. (And, of course, there may very well have been individuals there at the 7 seconds which are not seen in the photographic record. But that too is irrelevant.)

On the embankment in the stairs area & not behind the picket fence.

Thus, the delusion & mistake of decades is finally corrected.

On the embankment & NOT behind the picket fence.

Edited October 22, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Alan Healy]

Pictures that Groden took from inside the tower in 1991. These two images are for research purposes and Groden has them copyrighted.

Bill Miller

Excellent.

[Bill Miller]

I'd also like to join Miller in thanking Gary & Bob.

Just so you know ... Groden doesn't like to be called "Bob". He prefers the name Robert. I know this because I thought that calling him Bob would be more personal because by then we had become friends. Then one day I asked him something about why he doesn't have "Bob Groden' on his books and videos and he told me that he doesn't like to be called "Bob".

It is not proved that Bowers could not have seen Hudson as he stood on the stairs as seen in Moorman. That can be proved by a photo taken at the edge of the stairs at Hudson's stair.

Well, don't go into the plaza and tell Groden that garbage because he isn't limited on what to say back to you like I am because of the forum rules. Robert would tell you to go down to the step that Hudson was on and look back towards the tower as he and Mack have done so you'd see that the shelter blocks you from being able to see Bowers window. To say otherwise is just trolling for a response and today you are out of luck.

" First of all, you do understand that whether Bowers could or could not have seen Hudson standing on the stairs (as, for example, in Moorman) does not change or lessen the import of Bowers' testimony to Lane, that the two men were seen by Bowers in the vicinity of the stairs, do you not?"

The critical passage in Bowers' testimony to Lane is quoted by Myers:

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..."

"... - these two men to the best of my knowledge were standing there - ..."

Moorman's photo shows no one between the concrete wall and the fence other than possibly Gordon Arnold and the men on the steps. The two me Bowers described were standing and looking towards Main and Houston Street when the motorcade came into the plaza. Hudson said that he was sitting down on the landing (midway down the incline) when the motorcade entered the plaza and that he and the man next to him didn't stand up until thew motorcade turned onto Elm Street.

For the longest time you (Miles) represented the men on the steps as being the two men Bowers was talking about. Now you say that it doesn't matter if Bowers could see Hudson and the men on the steps or not and I say that it does because if Bowers could not see Hudson and the other two guys on the steps, then who else is left??? Go to Moorman's photo and take out the men on the steps and you only have Arnold and depending on where he stood, he may have been hidden by the large oak tree above the walkway. That Moorman photograph screws your claim when presented with the hard facts that Bowers could not have seen any of those men as they stood on the steps so to know what they were looking at when JFK's motorcade entered Dealey Plaza.

The other thing that you avoid like the plague is Bowers answering a direct question from Ball concerning seeing these men on the "High Ground". To accept your position is to assume then that the two men Bowers spoke of were vampires. The reason is quite simple ... The shelter blocks Hudson and the men on the steps with him from Bowers view. Moorman's photo doesn't show anyone else between the concrete wall and the fence other than possibly what looks like a service man in uniform, thus to buy your ridiculous fallacy is to assume Bowers saw vampires or some entity that didn't show up on Moorman's photo.

Whether Bowers saw or did not see Hudson or anyone else of specific identity is wholly & completely irrelevant & wholly & completely immaterial to the import of Bowers' statement.

Why?

Because Bowers, at intervals, had been observing the area of the embankment to the west of the stairs from at least a dozen minutes before the actual shooting to a dozen minutes after the shooting.

But you leave out the important part ... Bowers saw these men at the moment JFK entered the plaza and right through to the instant that he described seeing the flash of light and/or smoke. The Nix film, the Muchmore film, and Moorman's photo show that no one else was on the embankment/incline other than the men who were on the steps and because they were blocked from Bowers view, then he could not have been describing these men, so his not being able to see them is relevant to anyone applying a logical approach to the facts of the evidence. At times you have painted with a pretty wide brush. You tried to blame the smoke Bowers saw on a motorcycle that was alleged to climb half way up the incline - that was proven to be false. It was also proven that Haygood hadn't parked his bike and dismounted it well after the shots had been fired which is relevant because Bowers said he saw the flash of light and/or smoke at the time of the shots.

Bowers is saying that his observation of 20 or more minutes of the embankment caused him to understand that at the time of the shooting the two men were placed on the embankment as he describes.

Whether or not there were two men actually visible in Bowers view of the embankment at exactly the time of the 7 second shooting is relevant. Bowers may have seen individuals before or after the 7 seconds & understood to the best of his knowledge that they were there at the time of the shooting. That's exactly what Bowers says. No more, no less. (And, of course, there may very well have been individuals there at the 7 seconds which are not seen in the photographic record. But that too is irrelevant.)

So now is it your new position that Bowers may not have been able to see the men on the steps during the shooting (and obviously even as JFK entered the plaza), but because he may have seen them 20 minutes before the shooting that he just assumed they were on the other side of the concrete shelter and looking towards Main and Houston when the caravan entered the plaza ... that is a fallacy within a fallacy! Nope - not buying it. Bowers told Ball that he saw these men at the time of the shots and it is now a proven fact that Bowers could not have seen Hudson or the other two men on the steps at the time of the shooting and even before that time when the caravan entered the plaza as they sat on the landing.

The embankment as I recall was when Bowers said that he couldn't see anyone on it when talking about who may have been on the south side of the fence. The other references to the embankment were over seeing the smoke. Other witnesses also mentioned seeing smoke drift out over the embankment from the stockade fence.

One word of advice when you go to the plaza and you see Groden ... If Robert tells you to just go down to the step Hudson was on and see if you can see Bowers tower window ... don't tell him that you won't do it because it would be 'hearsay'. LOL!!!

Bill Miller

Edited October 22, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

So please make me clear on this, are you satisified that Bowers could not see the pathway & any part of the stairs or not?

Alan,

First of all, you do understand that whether Bowers could or could not have seen Hudson standing on the stairs (as, for example, in Moorman) does not change or lessen the import of Bowers' testimony to Lane, that the two men were seen by Bowers in the vicinity of the stairs, do you not?

I assume you say, yes.

OK

Yes, despite the excellent & very helpful snaps from Groden (thanks!), I maintain what I said before, that Bowers could have & did see the west edge of the stairs/sidewalk.

Groden's photos suggest to me that the stairs' edge was visible to Bowers. I think some analysis can demonstrate this. But, leaving that aside for the moment, here's an overlay, Alan, which has Superman X-ray vision for your consideration:

LINK: -- Image of Bowers' LOS to stairs

Miles,

I think you should make your own trip to the plaza & check it out for yourself, that's the best way & until then, I wouldn't trust these aerial views too much for accuracy if I were you.

If you still think Bowers could of seen the westest most edge of a small section of the steps, you have to be on site to test that theory.

I am now happy that Bowers couldn't see any of the three men on the stairs "looking east" like I had thought before due to that low res' Thompson photo.

Although yes, the "real" Lane interview is still more important than the WC testimony for pin-pointing these two men IMO.

One should not ignore what is said here;

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....

And to the west of that there were - uh - at the time of the shooting in my vision only two men. Uh - these two men were - uh - standing back from the street somewhat at the top of the incline and were very near - er - two trees which were in the area...and one of them, from time to time as he walked back and forth, uh - disappeared behind a wooden fence which is also slightly to the west of that. Uh - these two men to the best of my knowledge were standing there - uh - at the time - of the shooting

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

I'm still seeing the area between the pergola & the fence when I read that & now that Hudson & Co are, IMO ruled out, I can imagine more possiblities.

Edited October 22, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Bill Miller]

I'm still seeing the area between the pergola & the fence when I read that & now that Hudson & Co are, IMO ruled out, I can imagine more possiblities.

If you see them in Moorman's photo, then feel free to point them out to us all. That disjointed description that Bowers gave isn't very clear to me and is why seeing the rest of the interview would be interesting. I say this because it was to the best of Bowers knowledge that a motorcycle climbed most of the way up the knoll as well and Lee was dead wrong on that one. And with Moorman's photo being clear enough to do nothing else - it shows no one else but the men on the steps and maybe a serviceman beyond the wall ... no one else between the fence and the concrete wall. So the choice is quite simple ... either Bowers description is so vague that it is being misinterpreted or Lee Bowers was in error as to what he said about seeing two men there according to Mary Moorman's photograph.

This is how I read what Bowers said ... he referenced the curve of the colonnade and said the men were west of that. Even the underpass is west of that. But Bowers mentioned the two trees. The Hudson tree and the next tree west is from where the shot was said to have come from. Witnesses mentioned smoke drifting out from under the trees there. So the Hudson tree and the next tree west from it are the two trees Bowers was talking about. This would place the two men west of the colonnade. It would also account for the only smoke seen by witnesses. It would also explain why Bowers could describe the color of one man's pants. And it also could explain why no one is seen between the shelter and the fence in Moorman's photo.

It's also worth noting that Myers cite that Miles likes to refer to ... had somehow managed to leave the Hudson tree out of the illustration - why??? The answer may lay in the fact that if one inserts the missing tree back into Myer's illustration, then there is the second set of two trees west of the curved wall and they just so happen to be the same two trees that shots were said to have been fired from and they are also the same two trees where smoke was seen coming from the fence, thus if the source of the smoke was a gunshot, then the two men Bowers spoke about could account for this.

Bill Miller

Edited October 22, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

In fact, Bowers said the two men he saw were in the area of the stairs.

This is explained here: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm

" First of all, you do understand that whether Bowers could or could not have seen Hudson standing on the stairs (as, for example, in Moorman) does not change or lessen the import of Bowers' testimony to Lane, that the two men were seen by Bowers in the vicinity of the stairs, do you not?"

The critical passage in Bowers' testimony to Lane is quoted by Myers:

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 (the curved decorative wall of the pergola). Uh - these two men to the best of my knowledge were standing there - uh - at the time - of the shooting..."

Bowers is saying that his observation of 20 or more minutes of the embankment caused him to understand that at the time of the shooting the two men were placed on the embankment as he describes.

On the embankment in the stairs area & not behind the picket fence

Miles, forgive me for editing your last post,

I only did so just to highlight the relevant point I want to ask you about.

Why do both these guys have to be " on the embankment" or "the stairs "area""?

Why can't they be further back?

Like here for example.

Is it because of that one phrase from Bowers were one man "disappeared behind a wooden fence"?

Was there anything else?

Also, please bare in mind that was just one the one fidgety guy, the other was "15'" away from him.

[Bill Miller]

Why do both these guys have to be " on the embankment" or "the stairs "area""?

Why can't they be further back?

Like here for example.

Does not the Nix film show the gap between the fence and the colonnade shelter wall? I don't recall seeing anyone there, nor does it explain the flash of light and/or smoke Bowers claimed to have caught his attention. No, the smoke came from only one part of the fence and from between two trees. Bowers called it the "IMMEDIATE" area on the embankment. So stop and go back to his testimony to Mr. Ball. The two men were on the "High Ground". The smoke was said to have come from the fence from under those trees according to Holland. The south side of the fence is the "immediate" embankment. It certainly doesn't take a super sleuth to follow that train of thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3neVe8Nlw...20911Revolution

Edited October 22, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

I'm still seeing the area between the pergola & the fence when I read that & now that Hudson & Co are, IMO ruled out, I can imagine more possiblities.

If you see them in Moorman's photo, then feel free to point them out to us all.

If they were near where I said & next to the fence, you would not see them in M5.

That disjointed description that Bowers gave isn't very clear to me and is why seeing the rest of the interview would be interesting. I say this because it was to the best of Bowers knowledge that a motorcycle climbed most of the way up the knoll as well and Lee was dead wrong on that one.

The motorcycle reference is in the WC testimony as well & Bowers was very relaxed in his interview with Lane.

Gary quoted De Antonio as saying, "Bowers was the most credible, honest man".

It only reads "disjointed" because of all the "uh"'s the transcriber left in.

Does he sound disjointed in the film? Of course he doesn't, he was very clear, smart & articulate.

He's just recollecting something that happened a few years back, that takes time, he's thinking.

And with Moorman's photo being clear enough to do nothing else - it shows no one else but the men on the steps and maybe a serviceman beyond the wall ... no one else between the fence and the concrete wall. So the choice is quite simple ... either Bowers description is so vague that it is being misinterpreted or Lee Bowers was in error as to what he said about seeing two men there according to Mary Moorman's photograph.

Your free to your own opinion but I doubt anyone else would rule it out based on the Moorman photo alone.

We can't see the the fence at all in M5, does that mean it was not there at the time of the shooting too?

This is how I read what Bowers said ... he referenced the curve of the colonnade and said the men were west of that. Even the underpass is west of that. But Bowers mentioned the two trees. The Hudson tree and the next tree west is from where the shot was said to have come from. Witnesses mentioned smoke drifting out from under the trees there. So the Hudson tree and the next tree west from it are the two trees Bowers was talking about. This would place the two men west of the colonnade. It would also account for the only smoke seen by witnesses. It would also explain why Bowers could describe the color of one man's pants. And it also could explain why no one is seen between the shelter and the fence in Moorman's photo.

Well, I've told you what I think about the description already & you are wrong to use Moorman5 to rule it out.

Think about Badgeman's elavation & what he did to get his face on film, now think about someone further away & further back, behind a higher part of the wall(6" higher"), standing on the ground.

[Alan Healy]

Why do both these guys have to be " on the embankment" or "the stairs "area""?

Why can't they be further back?

Like here for example.

Does not the Nix film show the gap between the fence and the colonnade shelter wall? I don't recall seeing anyone there, nor does it explain the flash of light and/or smoke Bowers claimed to have caught his attention. No, the smoke came from only one part of the fence and from between two trees. Bowers called it the "IMMEDIATE" area on the embankment. So stop and go back to his testimony to Mr. Ball. The two men were on the "High Ground". The smoke was said to have come from the fence from under those trees according to Holland. The south side of the fence is the "immediate" embankment. It certainly doesn't take a super sleuth to follow that train of thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3neVe8Nlw...20911Revolution

I was actually after Miles' thoughts but anyway..

Go ask Groden if there is a flash of light between the wall & fence in the Nix film.

This should be interesting...

[Miles Scull]

Why do both these guys have to be " on the embankment" or "the stairs "area""?

Why can't they be further back?

Like here for example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3neVe8Nlw...20911Revolution

I was actually after Miles' thoughts but anyway..

Go ask Groden if there is a flash of light between the wall & fence in the Nix film.

This should be interesting...

Alan,

I take it that you are suggesting that the man could have disappeared from Bowers' view behind the short leg of the fence.

That's very interesting.

Please confirm that you have this in mind.

(I have some additional thoughts.)

[Bill Miller]

Well, I've told you what I think about the description already & you are wrong to use Moorman5 to rule it out.

Think about Badgeman's elavation & what he did to get his face on film, now think about someone further away & further back, behind a higher part of the wall(6" higher"), standing on the ground.

All I can say is there is no one seen between the shelter and the fence in that general area in the Betzner photo, The Willis photo, nor in the Moorman photo. The top of the fence in Moorman's photo is running just under the top edge of the wall and because they are both parallel to one another ... there is no reason to think that changed much. The Nix film is dark, but the area you circled in your previous response falls within the opening and the only thing there that could be construed as someone was the figure they called "The Classic Gunman" and he was nothing more than a few light spots cast upon the shelter wall.

The entire premise of believing Bowers was talking about that area was his mentioning the two trees and someone like Dale Myers who understands the importance of detail had managed to remove the Hudson tree in his illustration found on his site. I believe that Dale did this on purpose so to make it appear that the only two trees to consider were the ones near the colonnade. Had I or someone on this forum pulled such a stunt, then you and Miles would have crying like scalded dogs. Put that tree back into the equation and the smoke Bowers mentioned becomes much easier to understand.

By the way, the flash Groden speaks of was at the fence where the Badge Man is alleged to be, not up where you placed the circle. As you might now know, Dale in all his sense of fairness took an obese individual and placed him on a ladder behind the fence about 33 feet so to try and match the body size of the Badge Man. The idea of doing so was to make it appear that Badge Man didn't exist or else he would have been too highly elevated back into the RR yard where Bowers couldn't have missed him.

How does that saying go ... 'I was born at night - not last night!'

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Something else that I have touched on that possibly could have been explained better so to have a clearer idea where the two men were located that Bowers was talking about ... I want to go over it again, but this time with the Hudson tree in mind. The following is what Bowers said about the officer that came running up the embankment and how that relates to the men Bowers saw. Let us break it down ................

Mr. BALL - Did you see any other people up on this high ground?

Once again the high ground is mentioned and not the incline leading down to the street.

Mr. BOWERS - There were one or two people in the area. Not in this same vicinity. One of them was a parking lot attendant that operates a parking lot there. One or two. Each had uniforms similar to those custodians at the courthouse. But they were some distance back, just a slight distance back.

'Not in the same vicinity ....... and just a slight distance back'. Maybe someone can help out here, but was there not somewhere that it was said that these men were just up near the colonnade - the east end of the parking lot? I believe one of those men can be seen later on the shelter steps in Towner #3.

Mr. BALL - When you heard the sound, which way were you looking?

Mr. BOWERS - At the moment I heard the sound, I was looking directly towards the area---at the moment of the first shot, as close as my recollection serves, the car was out of sight behind this decorative masonry wall in the area.

Bowers is saying that he was looking towards the colonnade at the time of the first shot. Bowers said what we now already know and that is that he could not see through a concrete structure.

Mr. BOWERS - At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline.

Mr. BOWERS - He was part of the motorcade and had left it for some reason, which I did not know.

Mr. BALL - He came up---

Mr. BOWERS - He just shot up over the curb and up.

Mr. BALL - He didn't come then by way of Ell, which dead ends there?

Mr. BOWERS - No; he left the motorcade and came up the incline on the motorcycle.

The statement that the cop came up the incline is important. It shows once again that Bowers differentiates between the 'High Ground' and the 'Incline'.

Mr. BALL - Was his motorcycle directed toward any particular people?

Mr. BOWERS - He came up into this area where there are some trees, and where I had described the two men were in the general vicinity of this.

Mr. BALL - Were the two men there at the time?

Mr. BOWERS - I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not say.

The officer was Clyde Haygood and the direction up the incline and what trees he passed by can be validated from the photographic record as seen later in this post.

Mr. HAYGOOD. When I first got to the location there, I was still on Houston Street, and in the process of making a left turn onto Elm Street I could see all these people laying on the ground there on Elm. Some of them were pointing back up to the railroad yard, and a couple of people were headed back up that way, and I immediately tried to jump the north curb there in the 400 block, which was too high for me to get over.

Mr. BELIN. You mean with your motorcycle?

Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes.

Haygood says he was still on Houston Street and that people were already on the ground when he turned onto Elm Street. This will give one an idea as to how long after the shooting occurred before Haygood even got close to the point he dismounted his cycle.

Mr. HAYGOOD. And I left my motor on the street and ran to the railroad yard.

Now someone correct me if I am wrong, but is that not Haygood seen in in several assassination photos and film. Haygood didn't run up the steps or anywhere leading into the RR yard by that route. Instead, according to the photographic record, Haygood ran up the INCLINE almost parallel to the trees where the witnesses said the smoke came out from under.

Towner #2 - Haygood can be seen running up the incline just between the camera and the letter "K" on the Fort Worth Turnpike sign.

Bond #6 - Haygood has run just below the area where Bowers said he saw the two men and is now seen climbing the wall of the underpass.

Mr. BOWERS - He came up into this area where there are some trees, and where I had described the two men were in the general vicinity of this.

Mr. BALL - Were the two men there at the time?

Mr. BOWERS - I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not say.

Now that it has been shown that Haygood never even came close to where the west-most shelter was, but rather ran up the incline towards the underpass and just below the area where the smoke came through the trees - What else can there be left for anyone to act confused about pertaining to what Lee Bowers said??? To see how far west Haygood parked his cycle in relation to the steps leading up the incline (See the Mark Bell Film at the 53 to 57 second mark).

Bill Miller

Edited October 22, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

Now that it has been shown that Haygood never even came close to where the west-most shelter was....

If you look at it from Bowers POV(& why wouldn't you?) the only time Haygood could of been seen from the tower was when the man attempted to mount the curb on his bike & fell on his arse in the process.

Where did this happen?

From Bowers' POV,

right where he saw the two men &

right where there are two trees like Bowers said.

Where is the "confusion"?

[Miles Scull]

Now that it has been shown that Haygood never even came close to where the west-most shelter was....

If you look at it from Bowers POV(& why wouldn't you?) the only time Haygood could of been seen from the tower was when the man attempted to mount the curb on his bike & fell on his arse in the process.

Where did this happen?

From Bowers' POV,

right where he saw the two men &

right where there are two trees like Bowers said.

Where is the "confusion"?

Alan,

Exactamundo!

Bowers uses the word "embankment'' & describes the motorcycle & the two men in an area nearly at the top of the incline.

Bowers states that the two men were looking in the direction of the motorcade.

Bowers mentions that one of the men had fairly dark trousers.

From this I conclude that it is possible that the men were near the top of the embankment.

Bowers says that he couldn't be sure that one of the men was in view at the time of the shooting, because that man was in & out of sight & disappeared behind a wooden fence which was west of the pergola shelter.

The two men were very near the two trees which were in that area.

There is a logical possibility that Bowers saw an individual or individuals north of the plane of the long arm of fence & east of the short arm of the fence at some point during his at least 20 min. period of observation, ante post the shooting.

But what is clear is that Bowers observed the two men to the east of the short arm of the fence.

Bowers also states that he saw no one on the north side of the fence at the time of the shooting.

Also, Haygood's actions comport with Bowers' description.

Where is the confusion here?