On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Bill Miller]

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.

Alan, did you ever consider that at some point at a later time that a cycle officer may indeed have tried to ride his cycle up the incline? Gary Mack has told me that several witness claimed to have witnessed such a thing and if that is the case, then your assumption may not be valid.

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.

If you watch the Couch film ... it doesn't seem like Haygood ran over the curb, nor does he mention it in his testimony, unless I have missed it.

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.

No, he wouldn't have seen a cycle jump a curb, but sometimes as with other witnesses, they get their timing off when it comes to things they have recalled ... even out of order. Bowers may have recalled seeing a cycle if it came 2/3s of the way up an incline, but it wasn't Haygood.

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.

At some point before climbing the wall, it is possible that Bowers saw his white helmet beyond the fence.

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

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.

What did Bowers mean by the word "immediately"? As I recall, Holland used that word as well and "immediately" to Holland obviously meant within the first minute. If that is the case with Bowers, then he could have seen the limo after it passed through the underpass and was heading towards Stemmons. After all - that distance was covered after the final shot in what - 15 to 20 seconds or so? It's not always good to assume that what we think we would have meant by saying something is what someone else meant. We should have learned that when discussing Holland and his "immediate" rush off the underpass.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

What did Bowers mean by the word "immediately"?

Bill Miller

Immediately also applies to a closer look at Bowers WC tesimony.

Testimony Of Lee E. Bowers, Jr.

The testimony of Lee E. Bowers, Jr. was taken at 2 p.m., on April 2, 1964, In the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex. by Mr. Joseph A. Bail, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Mr. BALL - Did you say that it is built on higher ground, the base of the tower on higher ground than around Houston and Elm?

Mr. BOWERS - Approximately the same.

Mr. BALL - Same? It is higher ground than Elm as it recedes down under the triple underpass?

Mr. BOWERS - Yes, sir; considerably.

Mr. BALL - And the base of your tower is about the same height as the triple underpass, isn't it?

Mr. BOWERS - Approximately.

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

"... between your tower and where Elm Street goes down..."

This means: between Bowers' tower & Elm. Since the ground begins to rise from Elm toward Bowers' tower, anyone standing at any point north of Elm & between Elm & the tower would be standing on the "high side" or on the "high ground" in relation to the low ground bottom which is the declining plane of the Elm St. pavement.

Mr. BOWERS - Directly in line,

Bowers, having this conceptional image in mind, means "directly in line" from his tower, straight at a 90 degree angle from the plane of the south wall of his tower, to Elm. That is, Bowers' LOS is a line directly to Elm such that the line is also perpendicular to Elm. The only LOS that fits this description is, of course, the line that passes between the west of the decorative wall & east of the short leg of the fence.

towards the mouth of the underpass,

Bowers is speaking in abbreviated phrasing. What he means is: "Directly in line (from my tower), to Elm St., which is going down towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. Bowers sees Elm in front of him in a plane which is parallel to the plane of the south wall of his tower. The direct LOS line is the shortest line from him to ELM.

there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket.

Mr. BALL - Were they standing together or standing separately?

Mr. BOWERS - They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew.

Mr. BALL - In what direction were they facing?

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

Mr. BALL - Did you see anyone standing on the triple underpass?

Now, the scene switches over to the west to the underpass.

Mr. BOWERS - On the triple underpass, there were two policemen. One facing each direction, both east and west. There was one railroad employee, a signal man there with the Union Terminal Co., and two welders that worked for the Fort Worth Welding firm, and there was also a laborer's assistant furnished by the railroad to these welders.

Mr. BALL - You saw those before the President came by, you saw those people?

Mr. BOWERS - Yes; they were there before 'and after.

Mr. BALL - And were they standing on the triple underpass?

Mr. BOWERS - Yes; they were standing on top of it facing towards Houston Street, all except, of course, the one policeman on the west side.

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

"Did you see any other people up on T H I S high ground?"

Other than the two men already placed by Bowers as directly in line to Elm & other than the men on the underpass, were there any other individuals on the high ground?

Mr. BOWERS - There were one or two people in the area.

There were.

Not in this same vicinity.

But not in this vicinity. What vicinity? Well, not in the vicinity of two men directly in line to Elm & not in the vicinity of the underpass.

One of them was a parking lot attendant that operates a parking lot there. One or two. Each had uniforms similar to those custodians at the courthouse. But they were some distance back, just a slight distance back.

These uniformed men were in a different vicinity, they were somewhere else, somewhere slightly back.

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

The area? Yes, the area directly to Elm, which is Bowers only spy portal to Elm.

---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.

Yes, the decorative masonry wall! Yes, that IS in that very same area. The very area where the two men are, in direct line to Elm.

Couple this with the Bowers Lane transcript & all becomes clear.

Edited October 25, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

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 would like to point out that the top of the wall is brightly illuminated in the Nix film and I cannot see a bottle sitting on the white area anywhere. I find it a little odd that the direct sunlight could illuminate the top of the concrete wall and not the glass bottle. And seeing how I believe that Towner #2 does not show the bottle, the bond photos are irrelevant if they came after Towner #2. When Gary Mack gets back to the office - I will see if their high resolution scan of Towner #2 shows the bottle.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

"... between your tower and where Elm Street goes down..."

This means: between Bowers' tower & Elm. Since the ground begins to rise from Elm toward Bowers' tower, anyone standing at any point north of Elm & between Elm & the tower would be standing on the "high side" or on the "high ground" in relation to the low ground bottom which is the declining plane of the Elm St. pavement. [/color]

For someone who claims they don't like going over old ground again and again ... you certainly do it a lot. I couldn't help but notice in all that posting that you did - you left out the initial question that Bowers was answering, of course I am sure that was just an honest mistake. Below is that question ....

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

Now any fool would know that Ball isn't asking Bowers to tell him who on a direct line between the tower and the mouth of the underpass is standing down the hill and out of sight. No, instead Ball is simply asking who else was on the "HIGH GROUND" in Bowers line of sight between the tower and the mouth of the underpass. Below is part of Bowers testimony where he clarifies the difference between the 'High Ground' and Elm Street down by the underpass ....

Mr. BALL - Where is that located with reference to the corner of Elm and Houston?

Mr. BOWERS - It is west and north of this corner, and as to distances, I really don't know. It is within 50 yards of the back of the School Depository Building, or less.

Mr. BALL - Did you say that it is built on higher ground, the base of the tower on higher ground than around Houston and Elm?

Mr. BOWERS - Approximately the same.

Mr. BALL - Same? It is higher ground than Elm as it recedes down under the triple underpass?

Mr. BOWERS - Yes, sir; considerably.

And while you say that what Bowers has said is clear to you, let me remind you that it wasn't so clear when you wasted a ridiculous amount of forum space telling us that the men on the steps was the two men Bowers claimed to have seen. As I recall, you also said that those men with Hudson fit perfectly with what Dales Myers had said and once we realized this, then all would come together and make perfect sense.

Bill Miller

Edited October 25, 2007 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

"... between your tower and where Elm Street goes down..."

This means: between Bowers' tower & Elm. Since the ground begins to rise from Elm toward Bowers' tower, anyone standing at any point north of Elm & between Elm & the tower would be standing on the "high side" or on the "high ground" in relation to the low ground bottom which is the declining plane of the Elm St. pavement. [/color]

For someone who claims they don't like going over old ground again and again ... you certainly do it a lot. I couldn't help but notice in all that posting that you did - you left out the initial question that Bowers was answering, of course I am sure that was just an honest mistake. Below is that question ....

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

Now any fool would know that Ball isn't asking Bowers to tell him who on a direct line between the tower and the mouth of the underpass is standing down the hill and out of sight. No, instead Ball is simply asking who else was on the "HIGH GROUND" in Bowers line of sight between the tower and the mouth of the underpass. And while you say that what Bowers has said is clear to you, let me remind you that it wasn't so clear when you wasted a ridiculous amount of forum space telling us that the men on the steps was the two men Bowers claimed to have seen. As I recall, you also said that those men with Hudson fit perfectly with what Dales Myers had said and once we realized this, then all would come together and make perfect sense.

Bill Miller

Hi Gary! I see you there.....

David G. Healy

[Miles Scull]

"... between your tower and where Elm Street goes down..."

This means: between Bowers' tower & Elm. Since the ground begins to rise from Elm toward Bowers' tower, anyone standing at any point north of Elm & between Elm & the tower would be standing on the "high side" or on the "high ground" in relation to the low ground bottom which is the declining plane of the Elm St. pavement. [/color]

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

Now any fool would know that Ball isn't asking Bowers to tell him who on a direct line between the tower and the mouth of the underpass is standing down the hill and out of sight. No, instead Ball is simply asking who else was on the "HIGH GROUND" in Bowers line of sight between the tower and the mouth of the underpass. And while you say that what Bowers has said is clear to you, let me remind you that it wasn't so clear when you wasted a ridiculous amount of forum space telling us that the men on the steps was the two men Bowers claimed to have seen. As I recall, you also said that those men with Hudson fit perfectly with what Dales Myers had said and once we realized this, then all would come together and make perfect sense.

Bill Miller

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

Now any fool would know that Ball isn't asking Bowers to tell him who on a direct line between the tower and the mouth of the underpass is standing down the hill and out of sight. No, instead Ball is simply asking who else was on the "HIGH GROUND" in Bowers line of sight between the tower and the mouth of the underpass.

Wrong.

You are forgetting or overlooking very important testimony:

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.

This establishes that Bowers saw the limo when it was on Elm.

So, did Bowers see any pedestrians, anywhere between Elm & his tower, who just might have been assassins? A reasonable question, indeed.

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

(Meaning: between the tower & ELM ST., which street goes down ["recedes" - Ball] under the underpass toward the mouth of the underpass. --> Mr. BALL - Same? It is higher ground than Elm as it recedes down under the triple underpass?)

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

Note very carefully the important "comma" that is placed between "Directly in line" & "towards the mouth of the underpass,..."

Directly in line , towards the mouth of the underpass,...

This comma disallows a reading of:

"Directly in line towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men."

The comma posits & demands this reading:

"Directly in line to Elm, which is going towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men."

This is what Bowers says & means.

And while you say that what Bowers has said is clear to you, let me remind you that it wasn't so clear when you wasted a ridiculous amount of forum space telling us that the men on the steps was the two men Bowers claimed to have seen.

Wrong again, I said they might have been seen by Bowers before or after the shooting.

As I recall, you also said that those men with Hudson fit perfectly with what Dales Myers had said and once we realized this, then all would come together and make perfect sense.

Wrong for the third time.

[Miles Scull]

Hi Gary! I see you there.....

David G. Healy

David & Gary,

I just wanted to reiterate this analysis, just in case you missed it (above) through a delay in posting, which unfortunately does occur sometimes, but not always.

And also to ask you directly for your reaction/opinion.

Thx

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.

This establishes that Bowers saw the limo when it was on Elm.

So, did Bowers see any pedestrians, anywhere between Elm & his tower, who just might have been assassins? A reasonable question, indeed.

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

(Meaning: between the tower & ELM ST., which street goes down ["recedes" - Ball] under the underpass toward the mouth of the underpass. --> Mr. BALL - Same? It is higher ground than Elm as it recedes down under the triple underpass?)

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

Note very carefully the important "comma" that is placed between "Directly in line" & "towards the mouth of the underpass,..."

Directly in line , towards the mouth of the underpass,...

This comma disallows a reading of:

"Directly in line towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men."

The comma posits & demands this reading:

"Directly in line to Elm, which is going towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men."

This is what Bowers says & means.

[Miles Scull]

Addendum:

These three cars were also described in detail for the Warren Commission in 1964. BOWERS told LANE and De ANTONIO that the three cars that entered and the left the parking area were "the only things of significance to occur during this period prior to the time of the shooting," adding:

LEE BOWERS: "Most of the other people who were in the area - ah - I was - I knew, if not by name, then by seeing them day after day so that there was - uh - no one unaccounted for in the immediate area other than this -uh - the three who were in these three cars that have been mentioned."

BOWERS later reiterated that other than the two men he described "standing back from the street somewhat, at the top of the incline," which we now know to be in front of the east end of the stockade fence, there were no strangers in the area :

LEE BOWERS: "Other than these two and the people who were over on the top of the Underpass who - that were, for the most part, were railroad employees or were employees of a Fort Worth welding firm who were working on the railroad, uh - there were no strangers out in this area."

Edited October 25, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

You are forgetting or overlooking very important testimony:[/color][/b]

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.

This establishes that Bowers saw the limo when it was on Elm.

Yeah right, Miles ... when Bowers was talking about the two men being on a direct line between he and the underpass where Elm Street goes down to it ... he was using that code talk you like to assert and he meant a direct line between his tower the the Criminal Records Building. Good thinking ... simply brilliant ol'chap ... simply brilliant!!!

So now it appears that when Bowers said "south" - he meant 'north'. When Bowers said "plaid" - he meant 'red'. And when Bowers said he saw two men 10 to 15 feet apart - meant three men side by side and out of his view because of the shelter. And now when Bowers said to Ball the men were in a direct line from his tower towards the underpass where Elm goes down to it - he meant the other way in a direct line with the Criminal Records Building. That is some mighty fine deducing, Miles ... mighty fine indeed!

Bill Miller: And while you say that what Bowers has said is clear to you, let me remind you that it wasn't so clear when you wasted a ridiculous amount of forum space telling us that the men on the steps was the two men Bowers claimed to have seen.

Miles Scull: Wrong again, I said they might have been seen by Bowers before or after the shooting.

Really, Miles? 35 plus references to the man down on the steps being one of the men Bowers was talking about seeing and over a dozen references to Myers site. How wrong can I be! When you said that that the flash and/or smoke that Bowers spoke of seeing ... are you saying that you was not referencing it in conjunction with seeing the men on the steps ... is that what you are saying? This isn't even counting the thread called "Three men on the steps".

In the "three men on the steps" thread you posted the De Antonio transcript and in that transcript you reference the smoke / flash of light being seen in the vicinity of where Bowers saw the two men. It had also been referenced to you that Bowers had said that one of the men was still visible where he had seen him before at the time of the shooting, yet none of the men on the steps could be seen by Bowers during the shooting, but that didn't stop you from claiming they were the same men Bowers had been talking about. Now do you wish to deny this?

Post #77 of the "Three men on the steps" thread you said and I quote, "You seem to be saying that it is MY fault that Bowers said that the two men were at the stairs & NOT behind the fence." Then you went on to say, "That's where you make a BIG error. It's not my "position" at all. The fact is that Bowers' newly revealed testimony demonstrates that he said that the two men he saw were at the stairs." You are not saying that Bowers said he saw the men wondering aimlessly around the plaza before and after the shooting, but rather you are saying Bowers saw them on the steps and now you want to pretend that was never your position even though you stood by the DeAntonio transcript. Maybe what you said was 'code talk' for Bowers seeing them everywhere but on the steps. You see, Miles ... that's what happens when you xxxxx in the moment for you say things that you don't remember saying, but it doesn't men that you didn't say them.

Post #179 you wrote the following, "Alan, Myers' paper ( http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm ) proves that Bowers saw the two men at the stairs' locus & not behind the fence." I supposed this was code talk as well. What you were saying is that Bowers said he saw the men everywhere else but on the steps.

Post #124 you wrote the following, "Alan, I thought you might be interested in this little Atom Bomb excerpt from the Bowers - Lane interview.

"...in the vicinity of where the two men I've described were,..." = THE STAIRS"

I am not the only person to spot your tactics. In a following response, Kathy Beckett said, "Miles, ....... It would be amazing to me if you could just get through one thread (you used to) w/o all of the (I don't know if this is a word or not, but ..it works) ludicrosity. You try to to create some sort of diversionary manuever,and all it does is just contibute to these threads becoming a mess. One can't even really follow the train of thought."

Bill Miller

Edited October 26, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Post #77 of the "Three men on the steps" thread you said and I quote, "You seem to be saying that it is MY fault that Bowers said that the two men were at the stairs & NOT behind the fence." Then you went on to say, "That's where you make a BIG error. It's not my "position" at all. The fact is that Bowers' newly revealed testimony demonstrates that he said that the two men he saw were at the stairs." You are not saying that Bowers said he saw the men wondering aimlessly around the plaza before and after the shooting, but rather you are saying Bowers saw them on the steps and now you want to pretend that was never your position even though you stood by the DeAntonio transcript. Maybe what you said was 'code talk' for Bowers seeing them everywhere but on the steps. You see, Miles ... that's what happens when you xxxxx in the moment for you say things that you don't remember saying, but it doesn't men that you didn't say them.

I am not the only person to spot your tactics. In a following response, Kathy Beckett said, "Miles, ....... It would be amazing to me if you could just get through one thread (you used to) w/o all of the (I don't know if this is a word or not, but ..it works) ludicrosity. You try to to create some sort of diversionary manuever,and all it does is just contibute to these threads becoming a mess. One can't even really follow the train of thought."

Bill Miller

Post #77 of the "Three men on the steps" thread you said and I quote, "You seem to be saying that it is MY fault that Bowers said that the two men were at the stairs & NOT behind the fence."

It must be Halloween because the ad hominen spooks are out in force.

"You seem to be saying that it is MY fault that Bowers said that the two men were AT the stairs & NOT behind the fence."

''AT'' not "ON" !!

"AT" carries the meaning of "in" or "about" or "around" or "in the area of," etc. The men Bowers saw could have been 5 feet to the west of the stairs & they would be "AT" the stairs & at the stairs' area.!

Then you went on to say, "That's where you make a BIG error. It's not my "position" at all. The fact is that Bowers' newly revealed testimony demonstrates that he said that the two men he saw were at the stairs."

Right. "AT" the stairs & "AT" the area of the stairs. Check.

You are not saying that Bowers said he saw the men wondering aimlessly around the plaza before and after the shooting, but rather you are saying Bowers saw them on

WHOA NELLY ! Do you see what I see? You have used ON here. But I stated AT.

the steps and now you want to pretend that was never your position even though you stood by the DeAntonio transcript. Maybe what you said was 'code talk' for Bowers seeing them everywhere but on

ON , again.

the steps. You see, Miles ... that's what happens when you xxxxx in the moment for you say things that you don't remember saying, but it doesn't men that you didn't say them.

Sorry, but I remembered perfectly.

I am not the only person to spot your tactics. In a following response, Kathy Beckett said, "Miles, ....... It would be amazing to me if you could just get through one thread (you used to) w/o all of the (I don't know if this is a word or not, but ..it works) ludicrosity. You try to to create some sort of diversionary manuever,and all it does is just contibute to these threads becoming a mess. One can't even really follow the train of thought."

I think this when Kathy objected to my "Duncan spies Arnie through a batch of fudge pic." I am reformed now, no more candy jokes.

Anyway, my analysis of Bowers' WC testimony establishes congruence & compatibility between Bowers' WC testimony & Bowers' testimony to Lane.

No one saw smoke or a flash down by the west end of the fence. That was seen by Holland down at the east end, drifting for a few seconds out between the trees there. The smoke might have drifted east on the wind to the area at the stairs &

might have been seen there by Bowers.

There's no doubt: Bowers saw the two men near the top of the incline, west of the decorative wall, east of the fence & at the area of the stairs.

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]

There's no doubt: Bowers saw the two men near the top of the incline, west of the decorative wall, east of the fence & at the area of the stairs.

Seems like you conveniently leave two very important things out of the equation. You see, for the longest time you were saying the two men Bowers spoke about were the guys on the steps - not around the steps - not somewhere in the vicinity of the steps - but on the steps and how do I know this ... because Bowers said that at the time of the shots that at least one of them was still at the same spot, but Lee had lost track of the other one in the trees which made the guy hard to see. So please tell us all just what trees were on the steps where all three men were when the shooting occurred?? And is it not now a known fact that Bowers couldn't even see anyone on the steps because of the shelter of the colonnade being in the way. And don't tell us that you meant the vicinity of the steps such as up by the shelter and the fence because you posted response after response telling us that the man on the lower step WAS the man in plaid that Bowers spoke of. Bowers said that the man in plaid was still seen at the same spot after the shooting and again BOWERS COULDN'T SEE A MAN STANDING ON THE STEPS because of the shelter blocking his view.

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.

For Bowers to have been talking about the two men that he told Mr. all about ... they must be visible to Lee Bowers when the motorcade entered the plaza. But just as Bowers said the TWO men that he saw were standing and looking at the caravan coming onto Houston from Main Street - at least two of the men were sitting on the steps for a while before the motorcade ever got to the plaza and they didn't stand up until it started coming down Elm Street according to Emmett Hudson. You see, this is where you are screwed, pal! Bowers gave precise moments in time when he could see these two guys and none of the men on the steps (sitting or standing) could be seen when the caravan entered the plaza or when the shots were fired. And the beauty of all this is that I don't have to break any forum rules to say how way off base you were/are or insult you in doing so to make an ongoing point because when you try to salvage a mistake like this one, then you insult yourself far better than I could ever do, IMO.

Now before you come back with another ridiculous response - address how Bowers saw the two men standing 10 to 15 feet apart when the caravan entered the plaza when Hudson was sitting on the steps with the guy next to him and out of Bowers possible line of sight???

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.

So to make it simple - Bowers describes two men standing 10 to 15 feet apart when the motorcade comes down Main Street and turns onto Elm Street. This means that the men on the steps have to be out on the grass west of the steps and up the incline enough for Bowers to see them. However, Emmett Hudson says the following, "Well there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age about in his late twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to park and he walked up there and he said he finally just taken a place over there in one of them parking lots, and he come on down there and said he worked over there on Industrial and me and him both just sat there first on those steps. When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and stood up, me and him both. He was on the left side and I was on the right". So not only was Bowers and the other man not standing when the motorcade came into the plaza like the two men were that Bowers described, but they could not even be seen because they were sitting on the steps and out of Lee's view because of the shelter.

Now you can 'Baghdad Bob' us and spin things however you like, but you cannot wiggle your way out of these facts anymore than I can slip into a size 9 shoe when my foot is 12 inches long.

Bill Miller

Edited October 26, 2007 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

[...]

Now you can 'Baghdad Bob' us and spin things however you like, but you cannot wiggle your way out of these facts anymore than I can slip into a size 9 shoe when my foot is 12 inches long.

Bill Miller [/b]

your Baghdad jokes still suck, Willie -- hey, you go to work at the 6th floor Mausoleum yet? BTW, I think Miles intimidates you.... just an opinion!

[Bill Miller]

your Baghdad jokes still suck, Willie -- hey, you go to work at the 6th floor Mausoleum yet? BTW, I think Miles intimidates you.... just an opinion!

Hi Gary! I see you there..... smile.gif

David G. Healy

Miles, like you, David uses propaganda and not fact to pretend he has support for what he says. So I am not intimidated by what Miles says any more than I was ever intimidated by you saying, 'I believe the Zapruder film is altered' in one breath and then 'I don't see any proof that the Zapruder film is altered' in the next breath. Of Course, one thing Miles does have over you is that he will actually take the time once in a while to copy and paste some actual data pertaining to the assassination whereas the above two quotes appear to be the extent of all you have to offer this forum pertaining to this matter.

The point in my previous response also goes to you, David ... feel free to address it. How could Bowers have been talking about the men on the steps when he said that the two men he saw were standing 10 to 15 feet apart from one another when the caravan entered he plaza when Hudson said that he and the man next to him were sitting on the steps and didn't stand up until the caravan turned onto Elm Street ... and knowing that the steps are not even in view to Bowers at any time because of the shelter? In that one valid point lays the nail in the coffin for the notion that the men on the steps, which were half-way down the incline, were not the two men Bowers told Mr. Ball about when referring to them being on the High Ground as the caravan entered the plaza.

Bill Miller

Edited October 26, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

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

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.

What did Bowers mean by the word "immediately"? As I recall, Holland used that word as well and "immediately" to Holland obviously meant within the first minute. If that is the case with Bowers, then he could have seen the limo after it passed through the underpass and was heading towards Stemmons. After all - that distance was covered after the final shot in what - 15 to 20 seconds or so? It's not always good to assume that what we think we would have meant by saying something is what someone else meant. We should have learned that when discussing Holland and his "immediate" rush off the underpass.

"It's not always good to assume that what we think we would have meant by saying something is what someone else meant"

You just did something similar when you referred to Holland's use of the word.

What's of most importance is that the implication is there from Bowers.

You think Ball had any idea Lee may of been talking about the Stemmons Freeway half a minute later?

Of course not.

He left thinking Lee saw the limo right after the last shot, right in this area he said he was looking.

That's where he miraculously saw the cop on the bike too immediately after that.

You can reason he meant another place but it's a waste of time, your just guessing like everyone else.

Bowers testimony is misleading & ultimately, useless.

[Bill Miller]

"It's not always good to assume that what we think we would have meant by saying something is what someone else meant"

You just did something similar when you referred to Holland's use of the word.

What's of most importance is that the implication is there from Bowers.

You think Ball had any idea Lee may of been talking about the Stemmons Freeway half a minute later?

Of course not.

He left thinking Lee saw the limo right after the last shot, right in this area he said he was looking.

That's where he miraculously saw the cop on the bike too immediately after that.

You can reason he meant another place but it's a waste of time, your just guessing like everyone else.

Bowers testimony is misleading & ultimately, useless.

Alan,

I pointed out that the word "IMMEDATELY" has a wide time frame for a window depending on each witnesses interpretation of it. And so you know, The limo would have come into view to Bowers while still on Elm Street prior to taking the on-ramp to Stemmons Freeway. That time frame as I said would be around the 15 to 20 second mark and would have occurred in a shorter length of time than Holland took in leaving the underpass when he also used the word "IMMEDIATELY".

Bill Miller

Edited October 26, 2007 by Bill Miller