On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Bill Miller]

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.

Sure it's been proven! It's proven by those who have stood on site and said that when they stood where Emmett Hudson was standing that they could not see the window Bowers sat behind while in the tower. Groden provided such a view in the photo he took, thus you merely saying it has not been proved is a fallacy that you wish to hang on to and nothing more. Both Groden and Mack said that one has to move off the step to the west and into the grass to bring the Bowers window into view. Moorman's photo DOES NOT show Hudson standing west of the step and in the grass. This does not however prevent you (Miles) from saying that Moorman's photo does show Hudson standing west of the step and in the grass.

The same can be said when you stated that no one could stand on the north side of the fence and see up to the corner of Houston and Elm Street. Here is a response Gary Mack gave me from his personal knowledge ...

"Bill,

This post, #600 below, on the Ed Forum by Miles, is false. Anyone along the north side of the fence could see the motorcade turn off Houston onto Elm and on down toward the underpass.

Gary"

So not only do I know this is true from my own personal time at the fence, but I know that anyone else who has actually stood there would be forced to say the same thing, unless of course they backed off into the RR yard and lowered their visual height below the top of the fence as what was done in the photograph that you provided in a past response.

Bill Miller

Edited October 26, 2007 by Bill Miller

[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 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.

A white painted wall has many times more illuminosity that a small half full coke bottle.

You can't see the clear shape of a bottle in Nix but you can see the distinct & ever constant light of something which I've concluded must be on the wall after cross-reference all the other photographic evidence.

Didn't viewing a clearer copy of Nix make that clear to you whilst witnessing all that movement going on behind it?

The white blob in Nix is there the whole time, uneffected by anything.

The light reflecting off it is being diffused somehow, either the shape of the bottle, the way the glass was manufactured, or the fact it's half full of pop.

Bond4 would be the picture to study IMO going by what they both look like in LIFE '67, not sure if Gary has the Bond slides up there yet though.

Bond4 & Towner2 where taken less than two seconds apart.

Anything on the wall in one, would be there in the other.

Much like Nix Muchmore & Moorman, kinda.

One of the theorys you invented for how this bottle found it's way onto the wall, was that someone walking up the steps & onto the pathway may of placed it there & I agreed at that time.

I don't need to fish that out of the archives do I? You remember it well correct?

The thing is, with the way the dog-leg was angled to Towner when he took his third photo & chamfered at its crown, it is possible to pin-point this bottle to within an inch.

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

It's on the east end of it, nowhere near the pathway.

Whoever put the bottle on the wall was behind the wall & near the corner like BDM was.

[Alan Healy]

"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

I know what you did, I just read it.

Just don't use Holland to figure out what Bowers meant & tell others not to.

As you already said;

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

Do as I say not as I do

.

[Alan Healy]

A & C are too far apart to be from just one persons movement.

Also note how the light hitting the bottle on the wall is constant.

Can anyone not see any one of the three items above the wall in the gif btw?

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B.../GrodensNix.gif

[Alan Healy]

I don't know how anyone will believe me if they've seen this but,

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_5.htm

I assure you, I had not seen it until I did a web search just now looking for another researchers work on the pop bottle.

I always take Myers work with a pinch of salt anyway, I'm not that big a fan but my thoughts do echo his work no doubt.

He is really stretching the point by pointing to "a bottle" in the Staunton photo though.

If the theory is correct then the bottle must be there somewhere but Dale is way out with his placement.

It should be where my green arrow is but, we simply can not see it.

[Bill Miller]

The thing is, with the way the dog-leg was angled to Towner when he took his third photo & chamfered at its crown, it is possible to pin-point this bottle to within an inch.

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

It's on the east end of it, nowhere near the pathway.

Whoever put the bottle on the wall was behind the wall & near the corner like BDM was.

To start with, the Betzner and Willis photos show two different angles to the corner of the wall in relation to the Black Dog Man(BDM) and in neither photograpgh I DO NOT see a bottle sitting on the wall. The same applies to Moorman's photograph IMO.

Now I am going to go along with something that you have contended in the past and see how it plays out and please correct me if I have misstated something. It has been your contention that the BDM was an assassin - that the white area that I say is the sunlight shining down upon his right shoulder is a flash from a gun or smoke. Because that white spot is seen in both the Betzner and Willis photos, and in Betzner there is no bottle seen on the wall, then are we to assume that after firing a shot at the President that the BDM then took the time to pick up a bottle and set it on the wall?

And if it is found that there is no bottle on the wall in Towner #2, is it your contention that while hiding behind the wall ... the BDM then reaches up with his hand so to sit a bottle on the wall?

One other point - if the bottle is supposed to be the white area over the corner of the wall and not the flash of Badge Man shooting a rifle ... is not Badge Man's alleged flash directly over the corner of the wall in Moorman's photo?

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

One other point -

Bill Miller[/b]

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.

No, you are incorrect.

You see, for the longest time you were saying the two men Bowers spoke about were the guys on the steps

No, again, you are incorrect. I repeatedly said that the two men were in the vicinity of the steps.

- not around the steps - not somewhere in the vicinity of the steps - but on the steps and how do I know this

Since you do NOT know this, yes, how DO you know?

... because Bowers said that at the time of the shots that at least one of them was still at the same spot,

OOPS! No. No that is completely incorrect. Bowers never said this, that at the time of the shots that at least one of them was still at the same spot.

Bowers said only that white shirted man "remained in sight practically the whole time."

Obviously, the White shirted man could have moved about the area, while remaining in sight. The white shirted man was not routed to the same spot as you say & your saying so is specious & totally without valid foundation.

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

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

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

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

The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The white shirt, yes; I think he was.[/b]

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??

"...what trees were on the steps...?" what are you talking about? Your use of pronouns ("on") seems to shade meaning into misinformation. There were trees in the vicinity of the stairs, not any ON the stairs.

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.

I will concede that this is true, although absolute proof is lacking. HOWEVER, as I have pointed out many times, that fact does NOT change or lessen the import of Bowers testimony: that Bowers saw the two men in the area of the stairs.

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.

I said he COULD have been. And he could have been, as I said. He might very easily have bee seen by Bowers at a time before or after the shooting & outside of the time frame inferred from Hudson's testimony, which testimony, by the way (!), is entirely & completely open to question.

Bowers said that the man in plaid was still seen at the same spot

NO ! The man in plaid? What are you talking about? Bowers never said that. You have introduced a false concept: "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.

Must be ? No, not necessarily. You are making an unwarranted & forced assumption. Bowers said that:

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

But just as Bowers said the TWO men that he saw were standing and looking at the caravan coming onto Houston from Main Street

If your assumption is wrong, then your argument is also.

- 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.

Who says the men Bowers saw were Hudson or anyone Hudson referred to? Only you. Not me. I said only that they could have been, if you take in to consideration that Bowers observed over a long period of time & NOT just a restricted period.

You see, this is where you are screwed, pal!

What I see is silly nonsense.

Bowers gave precise moments in time when he could see these two guys

No, he did not.

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.

Silly & aberrant nonsense.

Now before you come back with another ridiculous response - address how Bowers saw the two men standing 10 to 15 feet apart

Easy. They were moving & at the time Bowers TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE assumed from his remove that this was the case.

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???

You keep forcing the false assumption that Bowers is talking about Hudson & friend.

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

That you are incorrect, yes?

- 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.

True.

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.

True. You prove my very point & case, thank you.

Now you can 'Baghdad Bob' us and spin things however you like,

As has been clearly shown from your own words: you are the only 'Baghdad Bob' who spins things.

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.

If you need medical help, I can suggest a podiatrist on the 1st floor of the TBSD building.

Bill Miller

Edited October 26, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

I don't know how anyone will believe me if they've seen this but,

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_5.htm

I assure you, I had not seen it until I did a web search just now looking for another researchers work on the pop bottle.

I always take Myers work with a pinch of salt anyway, I'm not that big a fan but my thoughts do echo his work no doubt.

I would like to point out something that Myers failed to see. If there is a bottle sitting on a wall that is little more than 12" wide and its seen right on the corner of the wall (if that is what it really is in three of the images that Myers shows on his web page, then the bottle must be seen at the corner of the wall in every photo taken from the south side of the street no matter at what angle variance the photographers were from one another.

Myers pushes the idea that the flash and part of the Badge Man is a Coke bottle. But as you pointed out in Towner #3, the bottle appears to be a few inches west of the middle of the wall where the two sides connect. The Badge Man and his alleged flash are to our right of the corner of the wall when the bottle should be about a foot to our left of the corner of the wall. Below is the Badge Man image. The upward angle to the wall shows the south dog leg angling one way (west) from the corner and the other eastern side of the wall is angling the other way (north).

Below is a larger view of the Towner #2 photo (I hope) and just beyond the corner and dog leg running west is a tree trunk leaning out towards Elm Street. If there is a bottle on the wall, it would seem to be that with the sunlight shining down on the wall like it is and with the dark background of the tree trunk behind it, then we should see some hint of the bottle, but I don't.

I have asked Gary Mack to look at the Towner #2 images as well to get his opinion. If it is found that no bottle is on the wall in that picture, then Myers is wrong and if the bottle can be seen in a better print, then the question as to when it got there is still a mystery to me.

Bill

Edited October 26, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

I would like to point out something ...

Bill

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.

No, you are incorrect.

You see, for the longest time you were saying the two men Bowers spoke about were the guys on the steps

No, again, you are incorrect. I repeatedly said that the two men were in the vicinity of the steps.

- not around the steps - not somewhere in the vicinity of the steps - but on the steps and how do I know this

Since you do NOT know this, yes, how DO you know?

... because Bowers said that at the time of the shots that at least one of them was still at the same spot,

OOPS! No. No that is completely incorrect. Bowers never said this, that at the time of the shots that at least one of them was still at the same spot.

Bowers said only that white shirted man "remained in sight practically the whole time."

Obviously, the White shirted man could have moved about the area, while remaining in sight. The white shirted man was not routed to the same spot as you say & your saying so is specious & totally without valid foundation.

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

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

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

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

The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The white shirt, yes; I think he was.[/b]

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??

"...what trees were on the steps...?" what are you talking about? Your use of pronouns ("on") seems to shade meaning into misinformation. There were trees in the vicinity of the stairs, not any ON the stairs.

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.

I will concede that this is true, although absolute proof is lacking. HOWEVER, as I have pointed out many times, that fact does NOT change or lessen the import of Bowers testimony: that Bowers saw the two men in the area of the stairs.

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.

I said he COULD have been. And he could have been, as I said. He might very easily have bee seen by Bowers at a time before or after the shooting & outside of the time frame inferred from Hudson's testimony, which testimony, by the way (!), is entirely & completely open to question.

Bowers said that the man in plaid was still seen at the same spot

NO ! The man in plaid? What are you talking about? Bowers never said that. You have introduced a false concept: "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.

Must be ? No, not necessarily. You are making an unwarranted & forced assumption. Bowers said that:

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

But just as Bowers said the TWO men that he saw were standing and looking at the caravan coming onto Houston from Main Street

If your assumption is wrong, then your argument is also.

- 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.

Who says the men Bowers saw were Hudson or anyone Hudson referred to? Only you. Not me. I said only that they could have been, if you take in to consideration that Bowers observed over a long period of time & NOT just a restricted period.

You see, this is where you are screwed, pal!

What I see is silly nonsense.

Bowers gave precise moments in time when he could see these two guys

No, he did not.

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.

Silly & aberrant nonsense.

Now before you come back with another ridiculous response - address how Bowers saw the two men standing 10 to 15 feet apart

Easy. They were moving & at the time Bowers TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE assumed from his remove that this was the case.

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???

You keep forcing the false assumption that Bowers is talking about Hudson & friend.

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

That you are incorrect, yes?

- 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.

True.

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.

True. You prove my very point & case, thank you.

Now you can 'Baghdad Bob' us and spin things however you like,

As has been clearly shown from your own words: you are the only 'Baghdad Bob' who spins things.

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.

If you need medical help, I can suggest a podiatrist on the 1st floor of the TBSD building.

Bill Miller

Edited October 26, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Miles,

I have stated the case as I see it. Hudson said that he and the man were standing about 10 to 15 feet from one another when the caravan entered the plaza. Hudson said he and the man next to him were sitting on the landing and didn't get up until the caravan came onto Elm Street. Now is it your contention to assume that Hudson and the man next to him decided upon seeing the caravan come into the plaza to sit down until the caravan made that 10 second or so trip down Houston and then they'd stand up again ... if so. I'm not buying that nonsense. What you are suggesting is a fallacy IMO.

Fallacy: a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning

Synonyms: false belief

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Miles,

I have stated the case as I see it. Hudson said that he and the man were standing about 10 to 15 feet from one another when the caravan entered the plaza. Hudson said he and the man next to him were sitting on the landing and didn't get up until the caravan came onto Elm Street. Now is it your contention to assume that Hudson and the man next to him decided upon seeing the caravan come into the plaza to sit down until the caravan made that 10 second or so trip down Houston and then they'd stand up again ... if so.

Correct. I am N O T making that contention or assumption.

I'm not buying that nonsense.

Yeah, me too. Baloney, huh? Looks like an effort to divert the focus.

What you are suggesting is a fallacy IMO.

Nnaaagh. Never happened. Just your imagination. Neat idea, though.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Miller: I have stated the case as I see it. Hudson said that he and the man were standing about 10 to 15 feet from one another when the caravan entered the plaza. Hudson said he and the man next to him were sitting on the landing and didn't get up until the caravan came onto Elm Street. Now is it your contention to assume that Hudson and the man next to him decided upon seeing the caravan come into the plaza to sit down until the caravan made that 10 second or so trip down Houston and then they'd stand up again ... if so.

Miles: Correct. I am N O T making that contention or assumption.

Well Miles, if you are not contending that Hudson and the man next to him were standing when the caravan entered the plaza only to sit down and then stand up again after the caravan started down Elm Street some 15 seconds or so between intersection turns, then enlighten the forum as to where you are on this nagging point?

Hudson said in his affidavit - I do not know who this other man was that was sitting beside me. In our conversation he talked about having a hard time finding a place to park. He also talked about working somewhere over on Industrial Blvd.

Is it your position to just ignore Hudson when he says that he and the man next to him had been sitting on the steps and stood up when the motorcade came onto Elm Street, which means that he and the man next to him are hidden from Bowers view. Please explain with some sort of rational and detailed response if at all possible, unlike your previous answer.

Photo taken by Robert Groden from the Hudson location/step. Note the man standing to Robert's right for a part of his arm is visible, as well as his shadow being cast upon the landing.

Bill Miller

Edited October 26, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Miller: I have stated the case as I see it. Hudson said that he and the man were standing about 10 to 15 feet from one another when the caravan entered the plaza. Hudson said he and the man next to him were sitting on the landing and didn't get up until the caravan came onto Elm Street. Now is it your contention to assume that Hudson and the man next to him decided upon seeing the caravan come into the plaza to sit down until the caravan made that 10 second or so trip down Houston and then they'd stand up again ... if so.

Miles: Correct. I am N O T making that contention or assumption.

Well Miles, if you are not contending that Hudson and the man next to him were standing when the caravan entered the plaza only to sit down and then stand up again after the caravan started down Elm Street, then enlighten the forum as to what you believed happened. Is it your position to just ignore Hudson that he and the man next to him had been sitting on the steps and only stood up when the motorcade came onto Elm Street, which means that he and the man next to him are hidden from Bowers view. Please explain with some sort of rational and detailed response if at all possible, unlike your previous answer.

Bill Miller

I've many times stated that Bowers may easily have seen Hudson & friend at the stairs vicinity at sometime & not necessarily at any specific time.

I've many times stated that Bowers may have seen other individuals at the stairs vicinity at sometime during his period of interval observation.

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

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

They prove the case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEE BOWERS: "...And one of them, from time to time as he walked back and forth, uh - disappeared behind a wooden fence which is also slightly to the west of that (the curved decorative wall of the pergola). Uh - these two men to the best of my knowledge were standing there - uh - at the time - of the shooting..."

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

TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the embankment & NOT behind the picket fence.

Addendum:

"Bill,

This post, #600 below, on the Ed Forum by Miles, is false. Anyone along the north side of the fence could see the motorcade turn off Houston onto Elm and on down toward the underpass.

Gary"

So not only do I know this is true from my own personal time at the fence, but I know that anyone else who has actually stood there would be forced to say the same thing, unless of course they backed off into the RR yard and lowered their visual height below the top of the fence as what was done in the photograph that you provided in a past response.

Bill Miller

I should have added:

If the two men are north of the fence, then they cannot see the motorcade as it turns on to Elm & moves west, unless they look over the short arm of the fence.

Of course, if you are very close to the fence corner, you can lean way over the long arm of the fence & lookie see.

As you step back to the west from the short leg of the fence & proceed down along the long arm of the fence, very BIG problems with available LOS begin to occur.

Just for starters gander this:

Link: -- Image of a Floater

[Bill Miller]

Of course, if you are very close to the fence corner, you can lean way over the long arm of the fence & lookie see.

As you step back to the west from the short leg of the fence & proceed down along the long arm of the fence, very BIG problems with available LOS begin to occur.

Just for starters gander this:[/color]

Link: -- Image of a Floater

Miles,

In the past you have said you have been to the plaza. If your statement is true, then you have never walked up to the alleged shooter location as depicted in the image you have provided because if you had, then you'd know that what you have said is inaccurate. No one needs to lean way over the fence as you say to see up to the corner of Houston and Eln Street. That is rubbish!

And be aware that the angle of sight that the camera has when that image you provided was taken is not the same angle of sight that the shooter has, just in case that led you to state another erroneous observation of yours as fact.

Bill Miller

Edited October 27, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I've many times stated that Bowers may easily have seen Hudson & friend at the stairs vicinity at sometime & not necessarily at any specific time.

I've many times stated that Bowers may have seen other individuals at the stairs vicinity at sometime during his period of interval observation.

You have said that the man on the lowest step in Muchmore and Nix's film, not to mention Moorman's photo, was the 'red plaid' shirt or jacket man that Bowers described. Meanwhile Bowers said that the two men he saw were looking at the caravan entering the plaza from Main onto Houston. What I have shown through Hudson's own words is that he and the men with him were on the steps - and sitting down - thus they could not possibly be the men Bowers described to Ball. The timing of all this was locked down by Bowers when he mentioned the caravan turning onto Houston. There is no way around that point.

Bill Miller

Edited October 27, 2007 by Bill Miller