On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Bill Miller]

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.

This is what I was talking about before. Bowers didn't see Haygood there. If anything, Bowers assumed that Haygood jumped the curb just as he assumed the motorcycle was driven most of the way up the incline. And how to I know this ... because that box you drew in shows a field of view that is too high to even see any of the south pasture, but also Main Street. Haygood drove the north curb - I think it was the Couch film that shows him cut in front of a car and slip into that northbound lane.

Here is another reason why I know that Bowers only assumed Haygood had jumped the curb - Haygood stopped - dropped his bike and then lifted it so to put the stand up. If Bowers could have seen him, then he would have known Haygood dismounted his bike, but as I said ... by the time Bowers seen the officer - he merely assumed he had driven his bike over the curb and up the incline. Think about this more and see if you can come up with a different reason as why Bowers didn't see Haygood stop his bike and dismount it. Lee attributed something to Haygood that he simply didn't do, thus Lee really didn't see what had happened.

Bill

Edited October 24, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

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?

If you are talking about the photo showing the black man in the tower - why do you think he is standing on a desk? He looks to me to have one foot on the floor and the other on the window sill. Email Gary Mack who has been in the tower and see how high the bottom of the windows is off the ground ... that might give you a better idea if he is on a desk or on the floor.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

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?

If you are talking about the photo showing the black man in the tower - why do you think he is standing on a desk? He looks to me to have one foot on the floor and the other on the window sill. Email Gary Mack who has been in the tower and see how high the bottom of the windows is off the ground ... that might give you a better idea if he is on a desk or on the floor.

Bill

Alan,

No need to bother the too generous & too long suffering Gary M. He's pestered enough by the rank & file with questions answered easily enough by hands-on research grease.

Go to the source !

LINK: --- Image of the Source

[Bill Miller]

No need to bother the too generous & too long suffering Gary M. He's pestered enough by the rank & file with questions answered easily enough by hands-on research grease.

I think Gary has told me that he'd rather answer someone's questions than to read post after post of sloppy research that could have been avoided by asking the right questions. Also, FWIW to Alan ...... If someone is close to a hillside and rises up from a sitting to a standing position, then the angle at which they see over the embankment will be noticeable. But from 100 years away as Miles has stated - no notable change would occur. Even in the standing photo with Groden nothing but half of Commerce street was seen. Sitting down - it would be much of the same from that distance away.

Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

.....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.

*Edited out the normal bs you get when you ask Bill a question.

Can't you describe the individual?

Clothing, height, you see an arm or a glimse at a face or indeed anything that told you it was a person?

Or did you just see something move & assume it was a person because it could be nothing else?

[Alan Healy]

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?

If you are talking about the photo showing the black man in the tower - why do you think he is standing on a desk?

Because his waist is level with the camera.

[Alan Healy]

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.

This is what I was talking about before. Bowers didn't see Haygood there. If anything, Bowers assumed that Haygood jumped the curb just as he assumed the motorcycle was driven most of the way up the incline. And how to I know this ... because that box you drew in shows a field of view that is too high to even see any of the south pasture,

[Robin Unger]

Images showing the "mouth of the underpass" and picket fence.

I assume that all of the Car park area on the north side of the fence would be considered as " High ground " as apposed to the grassy embankment area on the south side of the fence.

Also where Bowers says he saw the men between the pergola and the fence, i assume this covers the carpark area as well between the pergola and the start of the fence, including the carpark area in between the tower and the start of the fence.

How far along the picket fence would we consider as being Bowers view of the mouth of the underpass. ?

Edited October 24, 2007 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Dissapearing ELM st.

[Miles Scull]

Dissapearing ELM st.

I think Gary has told me that he'd rather answer someone's questions than to read post after post of sloppy research that could have been avoided by asking the right questions. Also, FWIW to Alan ...... If someone is close to a hillside and rises up from a sitting to a standing position, then the angle at which they see over the embankment will be noticeable. But from 100 years away as Miles has stated - no notable change would occur. Even in the standing photo with Groden nothing but half of Commerce street was seen. Sitting down - it would be much of the same from that distance away.

Bill Miller

And so the point is proven, Alan. You do not need to ask Gary. The answer is obvious. Why, you might ask, if Miller knew the answer, did he suggest asking Gary?

Robin,

If the two men are north of the fence, then they cannot see the motorcade as it turns on to Elm & moves west. But Bowers said that the two men were looking East & following the motorcade's progress.

Therefore, the two men were in the area of the stairs as Boowers said, near the top of the incline.

LINK: -- Image of LOS

[Bill Miller]

Can't you describe the individual?

Clothing, height, you see an arm or a glimse at a face or indeed anything that told you it was a person?

Or did you just see something move & assume it was a person because it could be nothing else?

We were all unanimous in believing beyond any doubt that someone turned and quickly moved north towards the RR yard, but as I said before we couldn't track who ever they were. This image was played over and over as all of us carefully studied certain aspects of the movement. It was definitely a hominid ... now whether it could have been a robot or even an escaped gorilla from the zoo or what ever else you can possibly come up with - you and Miles will have to put your creative minds together to figure that one out. I don't know how much the lab tech. guy knew about the assassination, if anything, but Beirma, Robert, and myself believed it to be the same person seen over the wall in the Betzner, Willis, and Moorman photos. One point worth noting that you won't want to hear is that the color of this person's clothing is hit with sunlight and I believe Robert pointed it out in one of his books. That color matches the color of the uniform that Gordon Arnold was said to have worn that day.

Bill Miller

Edited October 24, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Because his waist is level with the camera.

Well it appears that you are assuming that the person taking the photo wasn't sitting down or had their camera tilted slightly downward. Let me see if I can offer you some more information that can help you better think this through.

Now considering just how high the base of the window looks above the man's knee and considering how much of the rest of his leg is below the cameras field of view .... if he was really standing on a desk as you suggest, then how well do you think someone could see the RR yard when sitting at that alleged desk???

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

And so the point is proven, Alan. You do not need to ask Gary. The answer is obvious. Why, you might ask, if Miller knew the answer, did he suggest asking Gary?

Miles, your either trolling again or you cannot remember the things you have said in the past. In the past you have said two things that applied to my response. One is that you have complimented Gary Mack for the wealth of information he possess concerning the assassination. The other thing was you and Alan's position on 'hearsay'. Because I have not been inside the tower and Gary Mack has, then I believe going directly to the source was the best avenue for Alan to take. I hope this reminder has shed a little more light on your otherwise shaded response.

If the two men are north of the fence, then they cannot see the motorcade as it turns on to Elm & moves west. But Bowers said that the two men were looking East & following the motorcade's progress.

I thought you have said that you have been to the plaza, Miles. Anyone standing up near the fence can see up the street towards Elm and Houston Street and also Main and Houston. Search the forum and you may find photos taken showing exactly that. In fact, was it not you who posted a while back some image taken from a movie with a shooter pointing a rifle over the fence near the Hat Man location? Have you not seen the Lane/Holland interview where they are seen standing on the north side of the fence ... I'm sure you have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYj3FAUHwro

And by the way, I thought the only comment Bowers made about where the men were looking was when the caravan entered the plaza from Main onto Houston Street. Am I wrong or are you still citing things as fact that are not quite accurate?

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.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

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.

Bill Miller

Well, we may have to call Gary.

and following the caravan as it came down.

Did we miss this?

DOWN ?

Down Houston?

Or, down Elm?

OR, down Houston & Elm?

This deserves close scrutiny.

Where, exactly, do you have to be located to see the motorcade as it comes DOWN Elm IF you are north of the fence? In line towards the Underpass? -

Can you see the motorcade coming down Elm from here?

LINK: -- Image: WHERE is ELM ?

[Alan Healy]

Because his waist is level with the camera.

Well it appears that you are assuming that the person taking the photo wasn't sitting down or had their camera tilted slightly downward. Let me see if I can offer you some more information that can help you better think this through.

Now considering just how high the base of the window looks above the man's knee and considering how much of the rest of his leg is below the cameras field of view .... if he was really standing on a desk as you suggest, then how well do you think someone could see the RR yard when sitting at that alleged desk???

Bill Miller

We have enough to run round in circles with, without adding more.

If you know the window sill in the tower was lower than normal for whatever reason, then simply tell me, it does not matter where the info comes from, if you know just say it.

All I was saying was that the man in that photo was obviously stretching to see Elm St.

That photo was taken on the 25th anniversary, there's obviously a few of them in the tower on a tour of the plaza most likely.

Groden was standing up when he took his photos correct?

He's taller than Bower was yes?

Can't you see the point I'm making?

Btw, I don't know how many signal operators you know but the ones I have seen rarely sit at their desk when they are working.

Not in them days they didn't, it was a physical job on your feet, not sitting at your desk touching buttons.

Sitting at a desk was the supervisors job, Bowers was the operator.