On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Bill Miller]

Alan,

Miller suggests that I did not know the street was Commerce. Why?

Why this sudden triumphal revelation at this late date?

I put it to you, Alan, that Miller just now discovered this fundamental.

This does not affect Bowers testimony, mind you.

Sure you didn't know it was Commerce Street for had you of known it - then you would have corrected Alan instead of posting 'exacto-mundo' crap over his saying that Bowers could have seen Haygood jump the curb. Alan even drew a line down the street showing Haygoods alleged path and you said nothing and why? You said nothing because you didn't know any better.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

If you think Bowers was lieing when he said the limo came into view you have either totally lost it or your correct & we can throw everything Bowers said into the John.

I believe that further up the street where Elm Street was more on the "High Ground" still - Bowers could see through the colonnade windows. However, that is still Commerce seen through the opening between the shelter and the trees.

I wouldn't through everything out the window - just the stuff that you cannot understand. I mean, we didn't to throw everything out the window when it was shown that Haygood didn't ride his motorcycle half way up the incline as Bowers thought he had seen, now did we.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

If you think Bowers was lieing when he said the limo came into view you have either totally lost it or your correct & we can throw everything Bowers said into the John.

I believe that further up the street where Elm Street was more on the "High Ground" still - Bowers could see through the colonnade windows. However, that is still Commerce seen through the opening between the shelter and the trees.

I wouldn't through everything out the window - just the stuff that you cannot understand. I mean, we didn't to throw everything out the window when it was shown that Haygood didn't ride his motorcycle half way up the incline as Bowers thought he had seen, now did we.

Bill Miller

Alan,

With regard to prematurely throwing things out the window:

Note this post # 576:

Alan,

Miller suggests that I did not know the street was Commerce. Why?

Why this sudden triumphal revelation at this late date?

I put it to you, Alan, that Miller just now discovered this fundamental.

This does not affect Bowers testimony, mind you.

Sure you didn't know it was Commerce Street for had you of known it - then you would have corrected Alan instead of posting 'exacto-mundo' crap over his saying that Bowers could have seen Haygood jump the curb. Alan even drew a line down the street showing Haygoods alleged path and you said nothing and why? You said nothing because you didn't know any better.

Bill Miller

Sure you didn't know it was Commerce Street for had you of known it - then you would have corrected Alan

No, that is not correct. In my opinion, Alan was completely accurate in his interpretation of Bowers' testimony to Lane: that Bowers said that he did not see Haygood's motorcycle except for a moment. So, there was no reason for me to point out to Alan that Elm was not in view, but that Commerce was. Why would I point out to Alan what he already knew as far as I was aware? There would have been no reason to do so.

instead of posting 'exacto-mundo' crap over his saying that Bowers could have seen Haygood jump the curb.

If you carefully & conscientiously & closely examine Bowers' testimony to Lane you will know that Bowers never says that he saw Haygood jump the curb. Bowers says that he only assumed this happened.

Alan even drew a line down the street

NO. NOT down to the street. But, instead, DOWN to the area. YOU are falsely inserting what is NOT implied: the street. Alan was pointing to the assumed, unseen area. THIS IS MY INTERPRETATION OF ALAN'S ARROW.

showing Haygoods alleged path and you said nothing and why?

WHY? Obviously & clearly because Alan's arrow line points to the probable location that Bowers thought the jumping of the curb occurred WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE STREET IN THE BACKGROUND !!

You said nothing because you didn't know any better.

Your statement is an insult.

Your imposition of your own personal understanding, which is radically different from mine, on to other members' ideas & posts is wholly unwarranted & arrant. You are imputing your ideas to others without the slightest justification or foundation. Please avoid this in future. Thank you.

I knew the street was Commerce, you thought it was Elm.

Edited October 23, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

No, that is not correct. In my opinion, Alan was completely accurate in his interpretation of Bowers' testimony to Lane: that Bowers said that he did not see Haygood's motorcycle except for a moment. So, there was no reason for me to point out to Alan that Elm was not in view, but that Commerce was. Why would I point out to Alan what he already knew as far as I was aware? There would have been no reason to do so.

No matter how many moments that Bowers had to see Haygood, in post #559 ... Alan suggested that the area within the white circle that he drew on COMMERCE STREET was where Bowers had a LOS to Haygood. I merely pointed out that not only could Haygood not have been seen on Bowers LOS in Alan's selection of images, but Main Street, the South pasture, and Elm Street were not seen within that white circle that Alan had drawn. All the propaganda in the world won't allow one to try and salvage that particular response of Alan's.

If you carefully & conscientiously & closely examine Bowers' testimony to Lane you will know that Bowers never says that he saw Haygood jump the curb. Bowers says that he only assumed this happened.

I see you didn't learn anything from the time you tried telling me that Holland never used the word 'drifted' by limiting yourself to just one source. So let us 'carefully & conscientiously & closely examine' everything Bowers said pertaining to Haygood.

Bowers said to Lane that the motorcycle was driven 2/3s of the way up the incline ... how do you interpret how the bike got up over the curb ... levitation??? See the link below starting at the 1:11 mark.

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

Now add this to the mix .............

Mr. BOWERS - He came almost to the top and I believe abandoned his motorcycle for a moment and then got on it and proceeded, I don't know

Mr. BALL - How did he get up?

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

NO. NOT down to the street. But, instead, DOWN to the area. YOU are falsely inserting what is NOT implied: the street. Alan was pointing to the assumed, unseen area. THIS IS MY INTERPRETATION OF ALAN'S ARROW.

Yeah right, Miles. Everyone always places circles on the wrong street when using the circle to mean that Haygood could be seen within that circle on Bowers LOS. You just flunked interpretation 101, IMO.

WHY? Obviously & clearly because Alan's arrow line points to the probable location that Bowers thought the jumping of the curb occurred WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE STREET IN THE BACKGROUND

Oh, I see ... the white circle was just a reference to where Bowers could have seen Haygood in the event Haygood had come down Commerce Street. Thanks for clearing that up!

Your statement is an insult.

Your not knowing any better and then trying to pretend that you did was an insult to me, so we are even!

Your imposition of your own personal understanding, which is radically different from mine, on to other members' ideas & posts is wholly unwarranted & arrant. You are imputing your ideas to others without the slightest justification or foundation. Please avoid this in future. Thank you.

I knew the street was Commerce, you thought it was Elm.

Right, Miles ... and you were going to allow Alan to think it was Elm Street ... even give him an 'exact-o-mundo' just to throw him a bone because you were being considerate of Alan's feelings. Now why do I think that isn't the truth!!! Our opinions are different because you don't know the plaza well enough and fail to carefully read and cross reference the witnesses testimony. The use of Holland saying "drifted" was one such example. Then of course there is your trolling just like when you had previously said the same thing concerning the smoke Holland had talked about. The only difference was I used the word "drifted" and you had used the word "drift". So even when we agreed, you attempted to make it look as though we didn't agree.

More disagreements came when you kept saying that Holland ran immediately off the underpass and into the RR yard. It appears that my pointing out Dillard #3 was unjustified and without foundation for not agreeing with you. Or maybe my posting the information pertaining to the tower clip or the HSCA test firings seemed unjustified and without foundation when you were selling the idea that modern rifles don't smoke. More unjustified input without foundation came when I had two well known researchers go out to the steps to see if Bowers could see Hudson and the two men with him on the incline during the shooting because you had been claiming that two of them were the men Bowers had described to Mr. Ball. Maybe instead of worrying about me, why not explain how justified and with good foundation that you should be allowed to constantly misstate the facts of the case. Sorry Miles ... expect more of the same when you do these things.

Bill Miller

Edited October 23, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Your not knowing any better was an insult to me, so we are even!

This statement by Miller proves my point that Miller has zero reasonable response to Myers.

This why I'm not going to reply in future to such nonsense.

Bill Miller

Equivocation & misdirection are prime indicators that there is no logical response to the now conclusive demonstration that Bowers said he saw the two men in the area of the embankment & NOT behind the fence.

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.

[Bill Miller]

This statement by Miller proves my point that Miller has zero reasonable response to Myers.

This why I'm not going to reply in future to such nonsense.

How many times have you said that you were not responding anymore to my post ... I've lost count.

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.

Well shame on ol' Lee Bowers for telling Mr. Ball that these men were on the HIGH GROUND. You know ... I bet that Bowers who must like to use code language according to several of your past answers .... that Lee must have thought when Ball asked about whether he saw any more men on the HIGH GROUND that Ball must have meant INCLINE. (Now its all starting to make sense!) And when Bowers said these men were standing 15 feet apart on the HIGH GROUND and facing the intersection of Main and Houston - Bowers must have meant they were side by side on the INCLINE and sitting down. (Hey this is really coming together nicely - don't you think, Miles???) This would explain why Dale Myers left out the Hudson tree in his illustration because everything means the opposite in the code talk world. This must have carried over to Holland and Dodd when they spoke of an officer leaving his bike in the street and running up the embankment towards that particular spot where they saw the smoke and heard the shot ... this meant that the policeman was running up the walkway between the shelter and the fence. It's just amazing how this code language stuff works - GREAT JOB MILES!!!

I hope this helps ... this is a film of Haygood lifting his fallen motorcycle up just before running up the embankment and near the vicinity of where the two men were that Bowers spoke about. (watch starting around the 15 to 17 second mark)

Bill Miller

Edited October 23, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Ken Rheberg]

It’s been proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the two men Lee Bowers saw on the “high ground” were not Emmett Hudson and the unidentified spectator next to him on the stairway. Thank you Bill Miller, Gary Mack and Robert Groden. Now we can finally move on and determine which two men Bowers was really referring to. Please, everyone, set aside all your presuppositions. And let the chips fall where they may. Here we go with how I see it.

First, attorney Joseph Ball’s WC questioning of Bowers with regard to the shots was never about anything other than the TSBD and the Triple Underpass. This was dictated by Bowers, himself, who indicated early on that the sound of the shots came from one of two places:

1. “from up against the School Depository Building.”

2. “near the mouth of the triple underpass.”

So we can forget the stairway right from the start.

Next, Ball is the one who came up with the term “high ground.” It’s the level of ground that Bowers’ tower was on – the same level as the corner of Elm & Houston as well as the Triple Underpass. This was confirmed by Bowers. Anything lower than this level was not on the “high ground.”

Ball went on to ask Bowers if there were “any people on the high side – high ground between your tower and where Elm Street goes down under the underpass toward the mouth of the underpass.” Asking Bowers if he remembered spectators on the “high ground” eliminates spectators lower than the “high ground” which is where the men on the stairway were. And Ball then lays out the area for Bowers to comment on: it begins with the tower and ends with the Triple Underpass. Did he see anyone on the “high ground” between those two points?

Bowers’ responded that he saw two men. Since they were on the “high ground,” they could not have been lower, i.e. not on the steps. He then placed these two men in line with the mouth of the Triple Underpass which also rules out the stairway. The two men were distinguishable from people on the Triple Underpass whom Bowers described as two policemen, two Union Terminal employees, and two welders from Fort Worth Welding. Bowers also described the two men on the “high ground”:

One was middle-aged or slightly older, fairly heavy set in a white shirt and fairly dark trousers.

The other was younger, mid-twenties, dressed in either a plaid coat, jacket or shirt.

These two men were in a line from the tower to the mouth of the Triple Underpass. But where were they along that line?

A motorcycle officer Bowers referred to was, without question, Clyde Haygood. Bowers told Ball that Haygood 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.” Bowers wasn’t sure if the “man in plaid” was still there at this time. So Haygood came up to where, at least, the “man in white” was.

The “man in white” can be seen in the Mark Bell film. He’s behind the concrete railing at the end of the Triple Underpass that connects to the west leg of the picket fence overlooking the grassy incline coming up from the north Elm sidewalk. The “man in white” can also be seen in “Fort Worth Star-Telegram” photographer Harry Cabluck’s last photo taken in Dealey Plaza. It’s found in Trask’s POTP on p. 334. Haygood is shown standing up by the west leg of the picket fence, looking to his left in the direction of the “man in white.” It’s now probably 1 ½ to 2 minutes after the assassination, and other spectators have moved over from the part of the Triple Underpass that was above Elm.

This all corresponds to what Bowers told Mark Lane. The first focus of interest by Haygood was “directly to the south” and “slightly to the east” of the Triple Underpass. This is where Haygood was heading, on his way to where Bowers told Ball that the two men on the “high ground” were.

A few more notes on the Bowers/Lane interview. First, Bowers began to refer to the incline side of the picket fence as “back,” then quickly changed it to “south.” South is south. And north is north, the true backside of the fence. Bowers did not mistake north for south. And it was on the true south side, where Haygood was running, that Bowers indicated there was “obviously” no one there. He was not referencing this to the north side.

Second, Bowers told Lane that the two men were very near two trees in the area. He went on immediately to say that one of the men disappeared from time to time as he walked back and forth behind a wooden fence which is “slightly to the West of that.” The two trees on the grassy incline very near the “high ground” where the “man in white” stood behind the railing can be seen in many photos as well as the Hughes, Bell and Nix films. The wooden fence, adjacent to that area where the “man in plaid” disappeared from time to time and possibly disappeared for good by the time of the shots or just after, was truly “slightly West of that,” meaning slightly west of the two trees nearest the Triple Underpass.

All of this does not negate the “commotion” and “milling around” on the “high ground” at the time of the shots which was referred to by Bowers.

Ken

[Alan Healy]

Ken,

Mr. Belin.

And were you able to form an opinion as to the source of the sound or what direction it came from, I mean?

Mr. Bowers.

The sounds came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass.

that statement on it's own does indeed read exactly like you say, he is talking about the spot where vehicles enter the tunnel, the bridge, underpass whatever.

Bowers could of also seen Haygood on the railing there agreed, it makes perfect sense & that is the way it's always been for forty odd years.

This all corresponds to what Bowers told Mark Lane.

Sorry but, no it doesn't, this is actually were the confusion starts, the real Lane interview.

Lane put's a big white "X" at the corner of the fence, nowhere near the mouth of the underpass(& this is the same area that Gary tells us De Antonio & Jones Harris both got from speaking to Bowers personally, the east end of the fence).

Why did Lane do that in your opinion?

I know what I think.

For starters, he got a different answer to Ball.

Bowers mentioned the pergola wall, which has nothing to do with the area I've scored in the above photo.

"west of that there were two men" & "west of that there was a fence".

If we ignore the RTJ transcript it is straightforward but the two do not tally up very well at all.

A few more notes on the Bowers/Lane interview. First, Bowers began to refer to the incline side of the picket fence as “back,” then quickly changed it to “south.” South is south. And north is north, the true backside of the fence. Bowers did not mistake north for south. And it was on the true south side, where Haygood was running, that Bowers indicated there was “obviously” no one there. He was not referencing this to the north side.

Well we kind of let that issue lie Ken but if you can, help me make sense of this statement when he's talking about the same embankment to Lane.

Q. Where would you say the search was concentrated after the shots...?

A. .... the embankment, which lies directly to the south & east of the triple underpass

Surely he meant "north" no?

Second, Bowers told Lane that the two men were very near two trees in the area. He went on immediately to say that one of the men disappeared from time to time as he walked back and forth behind a wooden fence which is “slightly to the West of that.” The two trees on the grassy incline very near the “high ground” where the “man in white” stood behind the railing can be seen in many photos as well as the Hughes, Bell and Nix films. The wooden fence, adjacent to that area where the “man in plaid” disappeared from time to time and possibly disappeared for good by the time of the shots or just after, was truly “slightly West of that,” meaning slightly west of the two trees nearest the Triple Underpass.

LEE BOWERS: "...And to the west of that there were - uh - at the time of the shooting in my vision only two men. Uh - these two men were - uh - standing back from the street somewhat at the top of the incline and were very near - er - two trees which were in the area..."

I appreciate you trying to make sense of it all Ken but there is no way he is describing two men, behind the fence where I marked in Groden's photo in that above statement.

Behind the west end of the fence may be literally "back from the street somewhat on top of the incline" but that is no way to describe it, just no way.

Your trying to put the Ball & Lane interviews together & have them support one another, that's what we have been doing too & that's why there's confusion.

Lane did not get "near the mouth of the underpass" from Bowers, not literally or in general, what he got was "west of the pergola".

As for "disappearing behind a fence" we have to be careful.

You have the man "walking back & forth behind the fence & disappearing", that is not what Bowers said.

He said the man disappeared as he went behind the fence, the two points are connected & you'll note that this was the one & only time the word "fence" was ever mentioned by Bowers.

[Alan Healy]

Erm, just to confirm.

Of course I thought that was Elm St & always had since I first saw it Tink's view in "SSID", I have at least twice pointed the slope of the street out to others & said it was Elm.

I guess I just trusted Bowers was telling the truth when he said he could see both Haygood & the limo.

The fact that Bower exadderated the actions of this bike cop was always put down to him reading about it after the murder & putting that description together with the part he saw when relating his story.

It's been seen from other witnesses, it's not an uncommon occurence.

I had no way of knowing Bowers saw nothing at all of Haygood while he was still on his bike & now I know & I know that this too is made up;

Mr. Ball.

And when you heard the second and third shot, could you see the car?

Mr. Bowers.

No; at the moment of the shots, I could---I do not think that it was in sight. It came in sight immediately following the last shot.

I think I'm done.

I always wondered what the guy in this photo was up to.

Now I know.

[Miles Scull]

Erm, just to confirm.

Of course I thought that was Elm St & always had since I first saw it Tink's view in "SSID", I have at least twice pointed the slope of the street out to others & said it was Elm.

I guess I just trusted Bowers was telling the truth when he said he could see both Haygood & the limo.

The fact that Bower exaggerated the actions of this bike cop was always put down to him reading about it after the murder & putting that description together with the part he saw when relating his story.

It's been seen from other witnesses, it's not an uncommon occurence.

I had no way of knowing Bowers saw nothing at all of Haygood while he was still on his bike & now I know & I know that this too is made up;

Mr. Ball.

And when you heard the second and third shot, could you see the car?

Mr. Bowers.

No; at the moment of the shots, I could---I do not think that it was in sight. It came in sight immediately following the last shot.

I think I'm done.

I always wondered what the guy in this photo was up to.

Now I know.

Alan,

Nice corrective dissection above, showing your mastery of Bowers' actual testimony.

Are you sure Bowers could not have seen the limo?

You have the patience of Job, unlike me, who wearies of going over the same ground over & over again.

Here is a quote that bears recalling:

QUOTE(Bill Miller @ Sep 14 2007, 03:05 AM)

Josiah's photo is of such poor quality as seen on the forum that I can't tell much of anything from it. What is important however, is that in real life - Bowers obviously felt that he could have seen if someone was up near the fence when standing on the south side of it. To argue if that is possible is one thing, but there can be no argument IMO as to what Bowers said whether you agree with him or not.

Bill

QUOTE

...there can be no argument IMO as to what Bowers said whether you agree with him or not.

If this is the only argument put forward, that Bowers said "south" so he MAY have really meant "south," then there it is.

This is clutching at illusory straws now raised to new heights of sophistry & is tantamount to a confession of having nothing LOGICAL left to say.

Or, to be fair, is this an attempt at researcher's humour? If so, then jolly good:

QUOTE

LEE BOWERS: "Now I could see back or the South side [bOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence] of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired."

LEE BOWERS: "Now I could see back or the South side [bOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence]..."

Of course, Bowers is speaking of what he can see.

If Bowers means what he sees between the north side of the fence & his position in the tower, then he saying that he saw no one there in that area at the moment that the shots were fired.

If, for purpose of argument, we allow that Bowers is saying that what he sees is instead the area beyond the fence from him, i.e., from the fence to points south of the fence, then Bowers is saying that he saw no one in that area at the moment that the shots were fired.

Well, what is the problem?

Either way, Bowers saw no one.

LEE BOWERS: "...of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired."

The point is that if Bowers saw no one south of the fence at the critical time of the firing of the shots, then he also saw no one on the north side of the fence as well.

Why?

Because the field of view to the remote south of the fence is in direct line with & incorporates & includes the view of the area to the north of the fence.

That's the logic.

If you view the south you also view the north.

No one is in either area, so says Bowers.

Thus, if you care to take Bowers literally, then fine, proceed with blessings.

The import remains the same.

At the time of the shooting there was no one behind the fence along its NORTH side, that Bowers saw !

Edited October 23, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

I appreciate you trying to make sense of it all Ken but there is no way he is describing two men, behind the fence where I marked in Groden's photo in that above statement.

Behind the west end of the fence may be literally "back from the street somewhat on top of the incline" but that is no way to describe it, just no way.

Your trying to put the Ball & Lane interviews together & have them support one another, that's what we have been doing too & that's why there's confusion.

Lane did not get "near the mouth of the underpass" from Bowers, not literally or in general, what he got was "west of the pergola".

Well why would there not be confusion, Alan ... I mean you mistook Commerce Street for Elm Street. And which story does one go with - the sworn testimony or the casual interview? If we go with the men being between the fence and the shelter, then we have a problem with the photographic evidence supporting it. If we go with what Bowers told Ball under oath ... we have numerous witnesses claiming to have heard a shot and seen smoke coming from the fence. The witnesses also said that the smoke drifted out over the embankment. Bowers mentions the embankment. So if anyone is confused - which scenario makes sense and which one doesn't? Is not the spot where Holland and others heard a shot and saw smoke drift out from under the trees in a direct line and towards the mouth of the underpass? And when Bowers described that location ... was he not talking about where these men were when the caravan first came into the plaza. Let us say one of the two men walked east a few steps as the President came onto Elm Street - would that not place him at the fence where the smoke came from???

From an earlier post:

Mr. BOWERS - Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men.

("Directly in line towards the mouth of the underpass") Here Bowers narrows down the location. Note that Bowers didn't even say 'on a direct line with the mouth of the underpass', but instead is just says "towards the mouth of the underpass". In the past, some researchers have drawn a direct straight line from the tower to the underpass which would make it appear that these two men were closer to the west end of the fence, but that is not exactly what Bowers had said.

Edited October 23, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

Who is "we"?

You always maintained the flash was up at the fence, you just said so again today.

Now it's a sunspot & you've seen evidence of "a person" running away through it??

That's one person running away & one diving/falling to the ground, two people behind the wall, is that correct?

Alan, you must purposely try and get things wrong ... Miles has set quite an example for you to follow. If you go back through the threads that covered this stuff - I have maintained that only Gordon Arnold was the guy between the wall and the fence. I have always said that Gordon went to his left upon JFK being shot and I have supported Yarborough's observation that for what ever reason, Ralph believed he was seeing an infantry man trained as what to do in combat because Gordon dove to the ground. I would think that to a reasonably intelligent person that they'd understand that Arnold would have turned to one side and then moved away from where he was standing. Whether this took one step or two before hitting the dirt - I do not know.

I can also tell you that the 35 MM film that I saw at the lab are the best images of the Nix film that Groden has. That particular print is not the copy that Groden used on his DVD. That particular copy on the DVD is inferior. If it is your opinion that after the kill shot to JFK that two/maybe three flashes from a gun went off beyond the wall and did so without anyone knowing it, then you are in la-la land IMO.

Bill Miller

Is it even possible to discuss what is seen in Nix without bringing up all this other crap about Arnold?

You know better than anyone that I don't believe him or his tall tale so why the bs?

You said you & Groden noticed evidence of a person in Nix.

Describe it.

Here's a reference.

It's the only frame on the DVD where the three items are seen together.

A = the emergence of the falling "object"

B = the pop bottle on the wall &

C = the tale end of the "flash".

[Alan Healy]

Are you sure Bowers could not have seen the limo?

Judging by Groden's '91 view & assuming that 6'+ Robert was standing up, then I'm almost sure of it.

Not unless Bowers was standing on his desk like the man in that '87 photo I just posted.

That's obviously what the guy is doing, he's trying to see Elm St, is that what Bowers did?

Doubtful but not impossible I guess.

Maybe room for another on-site test?

[Alan Healy]

I appreciate you trying to make sense of it all Ken but there is no way he is describing two men, behind the fence where I marked in Groden's photo in that above statement.

Behind the west end of the fence may be literally "back from the street somewhat on top of the incline" but that is no way to describe it, just no way.

Your trying to put the Ball & Lane interviews together & have them support one another, that's what we have been doing too & that's why there's confusion.

Lane did not get "near the mouth of the underpass" from Bowers, not literally or in general, what he got was "west of the pergola".

Well why would there not be confusion, Alan ... I mean you mistook Commerce Street for Elm Street. And which story does one go with - the sworn testimony or the casual interview? If we go with the men being between the fence and the shelter, then we have a problem with the photographic evidence supporting it. If we go with what Bowers told Ball under oath ... we have numerous witnesses claiming to have heard a shot and seen smoke coming from the fence. The witnesses also said that the smoke drifted out over the embankment. Bowers mentions the embankment. So if anyone is confused - which scenario makes sense and which one doesn't? Is not the spot where Holland and others heard a shot and saw smoke drift out from under the trees in a direct line and towards the mouth of the underpass? And when Bowers described that location ... was he not talking about where these men were when the caravan first came into the plaza. Let us say one of the two men walked east a few steps as the President came onto Elm Street - would that not place him at the fence where the smoke came from???

From an earlier post:

Mr. BOWERS - Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men.

("Directly in line towards the mouth of the underpass") Here Bowers narrows down the location. Note that Bowers didn't even say 'on a direct line with the mouth of the underpass', but instead is just says "towards the mouth of the underpass". In the past, some researchers have drawn a direct straight line from the tower to the underpass which would make it appear that these two men were closer to the west end of the fence, but that is not exactly what Bowers had said.

I already know your opinion.

If I had to use the WC testimony on it's own, then I would agree with Ken, it's in the white box I drew on Groden's photo, right where Haygood first appeared to Bowers.

No where near Hatman & Holland's smoke.

[Bill Miller]

Is it even possible to discuss what is seen in Nix without bringing up all this other crap about Arnold?

You know better than anyone that I don't believe him or his tall tale so why the bs?

You said you & Groden noticed evidence of a person in Nix.

Describe it.

It's the only frame on the DVD where the three items are seen together.

A = the emergence of the falling "object"

B = the pop bottle on the wall &

C = the tale end of the "flash".

Alan,

I don't really care if you believe in Arnold or not. I don't know anyone who knows less about Arnold than you do. And ths silliness about the three pieces of light ... what do you want me to say other than you are using an inferior print and that I have seen a far better print and far better tools at enhancing it than you and I ever dreamed of working with. Royce Bierma, Groden, Myself, and the lab tech. all saw enough to recognize there was an individual over the wall who immediately after the president's head exploded - he suddenly and very quickly moved to his left. The film was still too dark to know whether he went to the ground or continued out the walkway and into the RR yard.

As far as understanding the three light flashes ... what are the options? I think we can rule out flashes from the cameras of the paparazzi - I don't believe that one man can cause three muzzle flashes in three different locations at the same time, nor do I believe they were bright enough to be muzzle flashes - so the final option and the one that makes the most sense to me is that someone passed through the sunlight being cast through the tree foliage. Going from memory, I believe it is the Mark Bell film that shows people moving up through the shadows of the walkway after the shooting and similar light spots come and go from their movement as well.

Because you have not seen the film I was witness to in the lab, then there is no sense in trying to tell you anymore than what I have in the past. You far to often want to debate what you see on a poor multi-generational film when you haven't yet seen the better images, thus I cannot make you understand what I already know.

Bill Miller