On the two men Bowers saw ....

[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.

Lower than normal ... you are starting to post like Miles. I'm sitting in a house as I type this response and if I wanted to tie my shoes - I can place my foot on the window sill just like the man is doing in the photo, so does that make my window sills all lower than normal. The tower was made up of two floors. The bottom floor had no windows, so go back to the photo of the tower where someone drew 20ft as the height from the ground to the eaves - divide it in half while considering some degree of space between one floor to the next and see if the windows look too high to you still. (All I am trying to do is show you a way to reasonably deduce these things and if you are not interested in sensibly figuring these things out on your own, then the answer you seek is 'yes, the sills were of normal height' according to Groden when I called him in the middle of this response.)

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.

And all I am saying is that is only an assumption on your part. He could have just finished tying his shoes for all we know. And so you know this .... no amount of stretching is going to allow anyone in that tower to see Elm Street. And I want to add that Groden did not take the photo of the black man in the tower.

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?

I have no idea how tall Bowers was - do you? And let us assume the two men were 4 inches different in height .... just how do you figure that it would make any difference in what could be seen out the window??

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.

I don't know any signal operators, but I know that Groden told me that there was a desk in that tower on Bowers floor and that is the only tower I am interested in at the moment.

Bill Miller

Edited October 24, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

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

Well then, if I want clearer details I'll just have to wait & hope I get a look at it too I guess.

You won't put any of the three items I highlighted together with this movement you saw then?

As I've said, only one of them is a flash, I don't know where the "three flashes" you referred to earlier came from, I've clearly seperated & labeled them in that capture, flash, movement & bottle..

This one flash just above the wall to our eyes, is highly unlikely to be someone moving past a "sunspot" as you call them, for a few reasons.

Firstly, this light source does not come back into view at all in the whole sequence & the area is in full view for like, five seconds.

If someone passed a light source like you suggest(at the moment of the head shot), then they stayed there blocking it.

This "flash" of light also occurs right at the point of the impact to JFK'S head as Groden told us.

Highly suspicious to a CT I would have thought & who else but an expert in photography can tell for sure whether it's "bright enough" to be from a weapon firing?

Of course it was possible for it to be a muzzle blast by certain people, that is, before it was realised it was well below the fence.

You can ignore what I said above if you just help me figure out one thing.

How can you have someone falling to the ground & someone running back to into the car lot & then claim it's only one person & it's Arnold?

There is still something falling or dropping behind the wall in Nix is there not?

[Bill Miller]

As I've said, only one of them is a flash, I don't know where the "three flashes" you referred to earlier came from, I've clearly seperated & labeled them in that capture, flash, movement & bottle..

Moorman's photograph was the last image taken of the wall before Towner #2 as far as I know. In my Moorman prints I do not see a bottle on the wall. In my print of Towner #2 - I don't see a bottle on the wall.

By towner #3, there is a bottle on the wall, thus I tend to believe that if you think you see a bottle on the wall in the Nix film at the time of the kill shot to JFK, then I believe you to be mistaken. If anyone who has a good clear print of Towner #2 and would like to focus on the wall where the bottle is seen in Towner #3, I would like to see what they come up with.

This one flash just above the wall to our eyes, is highly unlikely to be someone moving past a "sunspot" as you call them, for a few reasons.

I do not follow your reasoning for the BDM/Arnold had a sunspot on his right shoulder and when he moved away it was gone because the suns rays would then go on to hit the ground.

This "flash" of light also occurs right at the point of the impact to JFK'S head as Groden told us.

Highly suspicious to a CT I would have thought & who else but an expert in photography can tell for sure whether it's "bright enough" to be from a weapon firing?

As much as I like and respect Robert, he also told us the man seen through the pyracantha bush looked to be holding a rifle. If you want to see how bright a muzzle flash looks, then go to the footage of Ruby shooting Oswald. Feel free to compare the brilliance of the white flash to that of the light illuminating parts of the mens clothing - do you not see a considerable difference?

You can ignore what I said above if you just help me figure out one thing.

How can you have someone falling to the ground & someone running back to into the car lot & then claim it's only one person & it's Arnold?

Yarborough said that the man above the wall who looked to have already had his "INFANTRY" training had dove to the ground. If it is your position that Arnold dropped straight down to the ground like someone who faints, then we will not agree on that. To dive to the left, one must turn and spring in that direction. We were unable to tell if that person was doing just that or continuing on in a northern direction.

Bill Miller

Edited October 24, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

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.

And all I am saying is that is only an assumption on your part. He could have just finished tying his shoes for all we know. And so you know this .... no amount of stretching is going to allow anyone in that tower to see Elm Street. And I want to add that Groden did not take the photo of the black man in the tower.

That 25th anniversary photo's source is detailed on Corbis.

"no amount of stretching is going to allow anyone in that tower to see Elm Street", or indeed a limo moving down it.

But since you have not been in the tower yourself, at least source that above "fact" of yours.

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?

I have no idea how tall Bowers was - do you? And let us assume the two men were 4 inches different in height .... just how do you figure that it would make any difference in what could be seen out the window??

You can't help yourself.

You argue with me even when you agree.

Neither Groden or Bowers could see the limo.

That was my one & only point.

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.

I don't know any signal operators, but I know that Groden told me that there was a desk in that tower on Bowers floor and that is the only tower I am interested in at the momen

Why do you want Bowers sitting at his desk I wonder?

Maybe we'lll find out in due course.

[Alan Healy]

This one flash just above the wall to our eyes, is highly unlikely to be someone moving past a "sunspot" as you call them, for a few reasons.

I do not follow your reasoning for the BDM/Arnold had a sunspot on his right shoulder and when he moved away it was gone because the suns rays would then go on to hit the ground.

You must realise, movement of a person above the wall in Nix is important whatever your point of view.

I couldn't care less if it's slightly off topic from Bowers, it far more important evidence IMO & hardly ever mentioned on forums in my experience.

It is also a bit tricky when you won't put this movement you saw with any of the items I labeled in the DVD capture.

I'll have to get back to it I don't have time tonight.

This "flash" of light also occurs right at the point of the impact to JFK'S head as Groden told us.

Highly suspicious to a CT I would have thought & who else but an expert in photography can tell for sure whether it's "bright enough" to be from a weapon firing?

As much as I like and respect Robert, he also told us the man seen through the pyracantha bush looked to be holding a rifle. If you want to see how bright a muzzle flash looks, then go to the footage of Ruby shooting Oswald. Feel free to compare the brilliance of the white flash to that of the light illuminating parts of the mens clothing - do you not see a considerable difference?

*Ruby_shoots_Oswald.gif*

I think Robert would immeadiately tell you that the two film sources are miles apart in quality & thus uncomparable.

You can ignore what I said above if you just help me figure out one thing.

How can you have someone falling to the ground & someone running back to into the car lot & then claim it's only one person & it's Arnold?

Yarborough said that the man above the wall who looked to have already had his "INFANTRY" training had dove to the ground. If it is your position that Arnold dropped straight down to the ground like someone who faints, then we will not agree on that. To dive to the left, one must turn and spring in that direction. We were unable to tell if that person was doing just that or continuing on in a northern direction.

There is something in Nix that drops down fast & hard, you can see it in the gif I posted earlier & even if you turn the brightness way up whilst watching Nix on Robert's "Assassination Films".

The light that is being reflected off it & into the camera is magnified when it reaches the bottle & yes...

I'm saying it's the bottle seen later in Towner3, that is the conclusion I reached with the help of a researcher on Lancer a while back, from studying the rest of the photographic evidence that shows a light source at the same height & same spot in each of these sources;

Muchmore, Nix, the Bond photos & of course Towner3.

It's not an original idea but I at least came by it without predudice, with the help of someone else with a keen eye of course.

The Willis6 you posted is not good enough to see it & Towner2 not as sharp as T3.

It's in Nix so it must be in Moorman sorry.

[Bill Miller]

That 25th anniversary photo's source is detailed on Corbis.

"no amount of stretching is going to allow anyone in that tower to see Elm Street", or indeed a limo moving down it.

But since you have not been in the tower yourself, at least source that above "fact" of yours.

I based my statement on two facts. One is that Groden was in the tower, as well as Mack. Both could not see any more of the plaza other than Commerce street through the opening between the shelter and the fence that you have been talking about.

The second fact is that anyone can move back from any incline 300 feet (as Miles put it) and you can sit down in a chair or stand up and from that great of a distance your view over the brink of a hill will not change. It's nonsense! From a few feet away, yes it would make a difference, but not from where Bowers was located - it would not of done a damned thing. If you think I'm kidding you, then go test it and report what changes took place.

You can't help yourself. You argue with me even when you agree.

Neither Groden or Bowers could see the limo.

That was my one & only point.

Ok, lets back up because I thought we were talking about Haywood. If Bowers was looking east as the limo came around the corner of Elm and Houston, then yes - he may have been able to see the limo because both as he said were on the "HIGH GROUND". If Bowers said that he could see the limo between the shelter wall and the fence, then he was wrong. I was not aware that Bowers said this, but if he did, then I have no explanation for him saying such a thing.

Why do you want Bowers sitting at his desk I wonder?

Maybe we'lll find out in due course.

I thought that I was clear that it wouldn't matter if Bowers was sitting or standing - neither would have allowed him to see Haygood down over the hill at the north curb of Elm Street. If there is somewhere that I responded by saying that Bowers was sitting at his desk, then please point it out to me. If you cannot do this, then your response is much like that of what Miles post whereas he changes what has been said so to promote a totally new response and I'd like to believe that you are above that type of nonsense.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Did someone mention Cokebottleman?

Duncan

Duncan,

I would like to think that we have seen enough of what happens when people produce such poor degraded images so to make erroneous claims that we as a research group have moved beyond that point. If you would like to use Jack's best print that he has produced and point out a coke bottle, then by all means please do. Better yet, let's look at the Betzner and Willis photos - do you see a Coke bottle? In the Towner #2 photo - do you see a coke bottle? If 'no' to each of these questions, is it then your attempt to use such a poor degraded Moorman print like the one you posted to assert that there is a bottle on the wall or were you just mentioning it because others in the past like Dale Myers made such a silly claim about the Badge Man flash being nothing but light shining off a coke bottle?

The equation is simple - if there is no Coke bottle on the wall in Betzner or Willis's photos ... and there isn't one in Towner's #2 photo, then its doubtful that there is a bottle on the wall in Moorman's photo no matter how poor of a print one looks at. If there is a bottle on the wall in Moorman's print and not in Towner #2, then someone has to wonder who keeps taking it up and down from the wall so it could be seen again in Towner #3. Unless someone can show such a bottle on the wall in a good clear Towner #2 print, then considering Jack's best print and the other evidence, there was no bottle placed on the wall until after Towner #2 was taken and before Towner #3 was taken.

Bill

Edited October 24, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Ken Rheberg]

Alan,

I'm going along first with what Bowers told the Warren Commission, and then I'm looking to the Lane interview as a clarification of his Warren testimony. Wherever that leads, so be it.

The starting place for identifying the location of the two men Bowers saw is Clyde Haygood. Bowers told Ball that a motorcycle policeman (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." So the trees were in the vicinity of these two men. Bowers later made a point to narrow it down with Lane to "two trees." Dale Myers then assumes that it was the two trees by the stairway and places Bowers' two men on the stairs.

But Bowers had told Ball that the two men were on the "high ground" which is the level area above descending Elm and upon which the Triple Underpass, tower, and Elm/Houston corner sit. The stairway would place them below the "high ground." This is a fundamental weaknes in Myers' argument. And now we know that they couldn't have been seen anyway from Bowers' tower.

The two trees are the ones over by the Triple Underpass. Haygood ran right past them on his way up the incline to the area where the west end of the picket fence meets the north extension of the Triple Underpass on the "high ground" and where Haygood would have reappeared to Bowers.

Another fundamental weakness of Myers is that he seems to ignore this question by Ball:

"Was his motorcycle directed toward any particular people?"

Bowers' response was the quote I indicated above: "He (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." But Haygood passed by the two men on the stairs, parked his motorcycle, then continued running not toward the two men on the stairs but up the incline on his way to the "high ground" at the west end of the picket fence. It's clear to me that he wasn't heading for the men on the stairs.

One problem in all of this was attorney Mark Lane himself. He was trying to prove his case which was that there was someone also shooting from behind the picket fence. So he set up his witnesses one by one. James Simmons indicated that smoke came from behind the picket fence near its southeast corner and even drew an "X" with a ballpoint pen at Lane's request on Commission Exhibit #2215, a drawing of that area. Sam Holland indicated in person where this was behind the fence. Charles Brehm mentioned the direction of President Kennedy's skull flying left and to the back. J. C. Price saw someone running behind the fence. But Bowers was the only one who saw two people in that general area before the shots.

Yet Lane never asked Bowers to mark where he saw the two men. He could easily have done this. It would have made his case more convincing and more dramatic. Unfortunately he didn't. Instead we later see a photograph of Dealey Plaza with a large white "X" marked by someone else and supposedly indicating where the two men were while Bowers continued talking. The reason Lane never asked Bowers to mark where he saw the two men? I can't believe he forgot or that he felt it wasn't important. Of course it was important. That's not where the two men were. And because of that, the issue is still being debated. But placing the two men at the west end of the picket fence, to me, clears up all the confusion.

I'd be glad to go over any and all of this with you, if we could just do that one question at a time. Thanks.

Ken

[Miles Scull]

But Bowers had told Ball that the two men were on the "high ground" which is the level area above descending Elm and upon which the Triple Underpass, tower, and Elm/Houston corner sit. The stairway would place them below the "high ground." This is a fundamental weaknes in Myers' argument. And now we know that they couldn't have been seen anyway from Bowers' tower.

The two trees are the ones over by the Triple Underpass. Haygood ran right past them on his way up the incline to the area where the west end of the picket fence meets the north extension of the Triple Underpass on the "high ground" and where Haygood would have reappeared to Bowers.

Ken

There is a major problem here.

QUOTE(Bill Miller @ Oct 24 2007, 06:18 PM)

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 are Bowers' TWO MEN ?

[Bill Miller]

Yet Lane never asked Bowers to mark where he saw the two men. He could easily have done this. It would have made his case more convincing and more dramatic. Unfortunately he didn't. Instead we later see a photograph of Dealey Plaza with a large white "X" marked by someone else and supposedly indicating where the two men were while Bowers continued talking. The reason Lane never asked Bowers to mark where he saw the two men? I can't believe he forgot or that he felt it wasn't important. Of course it was important. That's not where the two men were. And because of that, the issue is still being debated. But placing the two men at the west end of the picket fence, to me, clears up all the confusion.

I'd be glad to go over any and all of this with you, if we could just do that one question at a time. Thanks.

Ken

Ken,

Bowers used terms like 'towards the mouth of the underpass' and only did that when talking about seeing the two men at the time when they were watching the caravan coming onto Houston from Main Street. I am still not sure if the Caravan means the lead cycles or the President, himself. It wasn't until after the third shot did Bowers mention that he remembered one of the men still being in the area he had earlier described. I believe he said that the other man was too hard to distinguish from the trees and didn't know where he was at the time.

The most interesting thing to me is Bowers mentioning how the flash of light and/or smoke had caught his eye on the embankment. Regardless of where the two men were when the caravan came into the plaza ... the only smoke that was described by witnesses who saw it come from under the trees along the fence was placed between the Hudson tree and the next tree west of it. Unless there was two puffs of smoke seen at different places on the embankment, then while Bowers wasn't specific ... the other witnesses were.

There were two other people (possibly three) who interviewed Bowers besides Lane. I guess we are to only assume Lane never had Bowers show him on any photo or map where the two men were and more importantly where the smoke was located that he saw over the embankment, but that doesn't mean that Bowers didn't specify in some way where that occurred. It would be most interesting to hear what Harris had to say about what Bowers told him. Things have been hectic for me over the past 6 weeks, but now that they have calmed down ... I may try writing Mark Lane and inquire more about his interview with Lee Bowers.

Bill

Edited October 25, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

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 ?

Simply brilliant, Miles!!! They were looking towards the corner of Main and Houston street and following the caravan as it came down ... maybe they were watching it as it came down Main Street so to turn onto Houston, as well.

And showing a photo that was taken back away from the fence and about 4ft off the ground is a fantastic example for why someone could not see Elm Street from that location. Simply brilliant indeed! It was so brilliant that from that distance from the fence and from that height off the ground - they couldn't see the corner of Main and Houston either. Like I said ... simply brilliant!

But what if the two guys Bowers saw were taller than the fence and what if they were close enough to see over the fence ... would they be able to look up the street to the corner of Elm and Houston - what do you think a sensible and rational thinker would say???

Below is the Willis photo. If one looks over the concrete wall they will see the sunlit side of the fence as it is slightly angling to the west from the Willis location. Now if Willis can see the sunlit side of the fence - is it not reasonable to believe that someone standing at the fence could see Willis.

Bill Miller

Edited October 25, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

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 ?

Simply brilliant, Miles!!!

True.

Below is the Willis photo. If one looks over the concrete wall they will see the sunlit side of the fence as it is slightly angling to the southwest. Now if Willis can see the sunlit side of the fence - is it not reasonable to believe that someone standing at the fence could see Willis.

Bill Miller

Here is the key line of demarcation:

LINK: -- Image of LOS

Remember the Stemmons sign?

There are some very big problems with the location of Bowers' two men IF they are located to the North of the fence.

Where would they be? Notice the dense vegetation.

Are they in line towards to underpass? I think not.

LINK: -- Image of dense foliage

Where are Bowers' two men IF they are North of the fence?

LINK: -- Image of fence

Please indicate or show, if you know or have any idea, where are Bowers' two men IF North of the fence?

LINK: -- Image of possible locations for Bowers' two men, WHERE?

[Bill Miller]

Remember the Stemmons sign?

Hey ... good to see you re-thought your position about not ever responding to my post again.

Now why would the Stemmons sign be a factor in being able to track the caravan coming onto Elm Street ... is it because it looks too high from where Willis was standing? How about if Elm Street was a higher elevation where Betzner stood, thus causing the sign to fall below the top of the fence ... would that make a difference?

Do you think that if someone could see Betzner, then they might at least see the limo over the top of the sign as it came through the turn at Houston and Elm Street. Do you think that possibly while someone may have had the limo go behind the road sign for approximately one second that they could track it by seeing the SS agents standing on the follow-up car? None of things were addressed in the questions you posted, did you not think of cross referencing the photographs before raising them?

There are some very big problems with the location of Bowers' two men IF they are located to the North of the fence.

Where would they be? Notice the dense vegetation.

Did you forget this image of what appears to be someone seen over the fence in the Willis photograph?

While the foliage may appear solid on a photo taken from a block away ... anyone who has been to the plaza would know that there are openings in the leaves that would allow a view of the street. After all, a wall may look completely solid from a block away, but if there is one small peep-hole in it - that's all it would take to have a view up the street. There is no way for me to tell how far back from the fence this individual is in the Willis crop, but considering that Bowers lost track of one of the men as he was watching the caravan coming down Houston Street only to lose track of it until after it had turned onto Elm Street, then maybe one of his two men that he lost track of could see through the openings in the foliage just as this individual seems to be doing.

Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not see the corner of Elm and Houston. I could see the corner of Main and Houston as they came down and turned on, then I couldn't see it for about half a block, and after they passed the corner of Elm and Houston the car came in sight again.

Are they in line towards to underpass? I think not.

Bowers only said they were in line towards the mouth of the underpass as the caravan was coming into the plaza. I thought this was mentioned several times now and I would have thought that you would have remembered it because like you said in another response of yours, " .... unlike me, who wearies of going over the same ground over & over again."

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

This is apparently after Bowers had seen the men that he described to Ball. From that moment on he seemed to be watching for the caravan and didn't look back into the RR yard until he saw the flash of light and/or smoke drifting out over the embankment. The reason I say this is unless Bowers is like a bird and has eyes on both sides of his head so he can see in two opposite directions at the same time, then Lee's attention had been turned to the caravan and away from the two men for a brief period.

Mr. BALL - You saw the President's car coming out the Houston Street from Main, did you?

Mr. BOWERS - Yes; I saw that.

Mr. BALL - Then you lost sight of it?

Mr. BOWERS - Right. For a moment.

Mr. BALL - Then you saw it again where?

Mr. BOWERS - It came in sight after it had turned the corner of Elm and Houston.

Where are Bowers' two men IF they are North of the fence?

Unless totally uninterested in seeing the motorcade, I would guess they were up near the fence.

Please indicate or show, if you know or have any idea, where are Bowers' two men IF North of the fence?

I can only speak for the one who apparently was responsible for the gunshot and smoke seen coming from the fence. Holland and others made that location quite clear already. The other man that Bowers said that he could see after the shooting was still in the same area which he described as being in line towards the mouth of the underpass.

Bill Miller

Edited October 25, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

Mr. HOLLAND -......

Now, do you want to know about the two policemen that were riding in that motorcade and one of them throwed the motorcycle down right in the middle of the street and run up towards that location with his gun in his hand.

Mr. STERN - Toward---

Mr. HOLLAND - The location that---

Mr. STERN - Where you saw the puff of smoke?

Mr. HOLLAND - Where I saw the puff of smoke. And another one tried to ride up the hill on his motorcycle and got about halfway up there and he run up the rest of the way on foot.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/holland.htm

(right down the bottom of the page)

Bowers had obviously been speaking with Holland & Holland himself, with others.

Now doubt they came to a concensus after many conversations.

This was the way they recollected it & not the way we believe it really happened.

But did Haygood actually jump the curb, ride on the grass & accidently collide with a step or skid on the grass causing him to vere back to the street where he dismounted?

We don't know for sure do we?

Also, where he left his bike is not necessarily where he tried to mount the curb.

All we know is that he left the bike in the street & Bowers could not have seen any of it.

As as been illustrated in this thread with the help of Groden's photo, Bowers would only have seen Haygood(& any of the other cops) through the windows on the pergola coming down Elm, or like Ken said, standing tall on the overpass railing.

He would not have known the same cop who tried to mount the curb was the same he saw on the overpass on that day, this information came to him from another source, if not Holland then one of the other gentlemen on the overpass.

Ken asked to take it one point at a time & this is what I'm saying to Ken.

Bowers would not have seen half of what he said regarding this cop on the bike.

When he saw him on the overpass looking around, he would not know where he came from, you are using what he said about this cop Ken as part of your deduction, I would ask you to forget about it if you agree with me.

Sure, the cop came into the vicinity of where these two guys were, according to Bower's WC testimony but, the manner in which he ended up there was not visible from the tower.

Having spoke with other railroad men, he now(with Ball) knew where the cop came from & the "rumour" of how he got there, that is not a too bad a thing, on it's own it is quite innocent.

Where I now think it starts to stink & why I'm going to stop talking about it soon, is what came just before that.

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.

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.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/bowers.htm

(close to the end of the page)

So not only did Bower say he saw the bike cop race up the knoll, he said the limo came into view too.

That's way out of order.

I cannot find an innocent excuse for it at this time & so, as far as I'm concerned, these two men could have been anywhere, that's if he really saw them at the time of the shooting like he said & not some other time, like he did with the cop & the limo.

Alan,

I'm going along first with what Bowers told the Warren Commission, and then I'm looking to the Lane interview as a clarification of his Warren testimony. Wherever that leads, so be it.

The starting place for identifying the location of the two men Bowers saw is Clyde Haygood. Bowers told Ball that a motorcycle policeman (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." So the trees were in the vicinity of these two men. Bowers later made a point to narrow it down with Lane to "two trees." Dale Myers then assumes that it was the two trees by the stairway and places Bowers' two men on the stairs.

But Bowers had told Ball that the two men were on the "high ground" which is the level area above descending Elm and upon which the Triple Underpass, tower, and Elm/Houston corner sit. The stairway would place them below the "high ground." This is a fundamental weaknes in Myers' argument. And now we know that they couldn't have been seen anyway from Bowers' tower.

The two trees are the ones over by the Triple Underpass. Haygood ran right past them on his way up the incline to the area where the west end of the picket fence meets the north extension of the Triple Underpass on the "high ground" and where Haygood would have reappeared to Bowers.

Another fundamental weakness of Myers is that he seems to ignore this question by Ball:

"Was his motorcycle directed toward any particular people?"

Bowers' response was the quote I indicated above: "He (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." But Haygood passed by the two men on the stairs, parked his motorcycle, then continued running not toward the two men on the stairs but up the incline on his way to the "high ground" at the west end of the picket fence. It's clear to me that he wasn't heading for the men on the stairs.

One problem in all of this was attorney Mark Lane himself. He was trying to prove his case which was that there was someone also shooting from behind the picket fence. So he set up his witnesses one by one. James Simmons indicated that smoke came from behind the picket fence near its southeast corner and even drew an "X" with a ballpoint pen at Lane's request on Commission Exhibit #2215, a drawing of that area. Sam Holland indicated in person where this was behind the fence. Charles Brehm mentioned the direction of President Kennedy's skull flying left and to the back. J. C. Price saw someone running behind the fence. But Bowers was the only one who saw two people in that general area before the shots.

Yet Lane never asked Bowers to mark where he saw the two men. He could easily have done this. It would have made his case more convincing and more dramatic. Unfortunately he didn't. Instead we later see a photograph of Dealey Plaza with a large white "X" marked by someone else and supposedly indicating where the two men were while Bowers continued talking. The reason Lane never asked Bowers to mark where he saw the two men? I can't believe he forgot or that he felt it wasn't important. Of course it was important. That's not where the two men were. And because of that, the issue is still being debated. But placing the two men at the west end of the picket fence, to me, clears up all the confusion.

I'd be glad to go over any and all of this with you, if we could just do that one question at a time. Thanks.

Ken

[Alan Healy]

I think the coke bottle issue is a bit of an old chestnut & it is off-topic again but, I'm sure the other forum members would appreciate it if I used this thread & not bump or start another.

Bond4 was the first photo of the wall taken after Moorman5 & it shows the same white blob Nix does & in the same exact spot.

No it's not great but go look at any copy of Bond4 you have & then critisize it.

If Robert Groden has better, maybe he can take a look for us?

I won't post what I have of Towner2 yet because it isn't great, I had a reasonable copy in the past but that still was not good enough.

One of the problems with that photo & Willis6 too, is that right behind where this bottle would be on the wall is the background foilage. You would need a real sharp copy to spot a glass bottle amongst it.

Towner3 does not have that problem.

Okay Muchmore,

shows the same white blob in the exact same place as Nix, Bond & Towner3

Nix of course.

(Note: Groden's arrow pointing to something else)

I used to think this white blob was back on the fence, until it was simply pointed out to me & of course I checked.

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/5446.jpg

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...tleestimate.jpg

It all lines up, why fight it?

Moorman5 is not good enough to see it IMO.

I doubt we would see a coke bottle in the vicintiny of Hudson & Co, let alone atop the wall.

Would it coincide with the Badgeman image like others have suggested?

I'm not sure but I think, traces of the bottle would be more(slightly) to the west.

I won't drag this out I just gave an opinion, others are free to dissagree, please do.