Jump to content
The Education Forum

On the two men Bowers saw ....


Bill Miller
 Share

Recommended Posts

Does anyone else have trouble reading all that bold text?

***********************************************************

"Does anyone else have trouble reading all that bold text?"

Actually, no. I happen to pen all my personal e-mails in "bold" lettering. As for the content of Bill Miller's post, I for one, am in total agreement with him, bold text, or no bold text. I think he spelled out the point quite plainly, and cleared up the relevant discrepancies involved in this post. IMHO and FWIW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 919
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The back of a picket fence is like the back of a car.

Both have front & back & they don't change.

You don't say the back of the car if your talking about the front no matter which way it's facing.

If the back was furthest from you you would say "the far side" to avoid confusion but it's still "the back of the fence" whether it's facing you or not.

Next time you see a picket type fence stop & ponder.

The fence was 5' tall on the RR side & on most of east side near the pathway.

But not on 95% of the south facing side.

Try 6'+.

He would see the top of their heads IF they were over 6' & IF the foilage allowed it but those are big ifs obviously.

I am starting to think that if the garbage being said by you guys ever got to the 'Tonight Show' writers ... Jay Leno would be making cracks about it in his monologue. Let's put to rest one of the misstatements of fact that you all are spreading. The fence is not 6'+ on one side as Alan states. United Press International did a study of the fence in 1965 or 1966. The fence was measured to be 5' tall on the Elm Street side and 4' 10" or 11" on the parking lot side. So let us at least nip that error in the bud before it goes much further.

When Bowers spoke about not seeing anyone on the south side of the fence, he was saying that from his elevated view he could not see anyone on the other side of the fence in the vicinity from where the flash of light/or smoke had come from. The impression that I got, as well as other researchers I have spoken with on this subject was that Bowers was trying to convey that if these two men were part of the conspiracy, then Lee didn't notice any accomplices on the other side of the fence. How much intelligence should it take for anyone to understand that someone facing the fence from the south side would then call the north side of the fence the back side. If someone is on the north side of the fence and looking back to the south, then the backside of the fence would be the Elm Street side or the south side. Like Mack said ... Bowers worked in the RR yard and knew his directions well enough to know which way was north and which was was south.

As expected, more silly nonsense. :lol:

You live in a house surrounded by a picket fence.

The fence gate is locked.

Suddenly, you realise that a package of expensive & fragile glassware is due any minute, but that gate is locked.

The postman suddenly arrives at the gate to deliver this delicate & fragile package.

You quickly lean out the window & yell out to the post man:

"Mr. Postman, please leave the package back of the fence." -- because you think he will then gently place the package down on the ground right outside the fence.

Unfortunately, the postman leans over the fence & drops the package to the ground inside the fence!

You see it drop to the ground & you hear the sound of shattering glass.

What happened? :rolleyes:

I couldn't agree with you more Miles but you express it far better than I.

When I asked Bill to reason that Bowers made an error & he told me that it's unlikely because Bowers said the same thing to several researchers.

I'm still waiting for the references, his opinions I can ignore until I see proof of what he said.

If he can produce even one other reference where Bowers said "there was no one on the south side of the fence" I'll be satisfied.

I guess this is a good example of not being able to not see the forest for the trees - hey Alan??? I not only posted the following information, but you also pasted it in some of your responses. It read as follows, "When discussing with Gary Mack about how anyone could confuse what Bowers was talking about, Gary replied, "I don't need others to interpret for me what Lee Bowers said vs. what Lee Bowers meant. I can read, and I have also interviewed two people who interviewed him extensively: filmmaker Emile de Antonio and researcher Jones Harris. de Antonio was the producer/director of the film Rush To Judgment. De, as he was called by his friends, told me directly that, without question, the most credible person he and Mark Lane interviewed for their documentary was Lee Bowers. De remembered vividly how Bowers described the events and what he saw before, during and after the assassination. There were two men behind the fence near the east corner. That was one of the main reasons Bowers appeared in the film." Three names are mentioned in that paragraph. Jones Harris lives in New York and spoke to Bowers in 1964/65. Look him up and ask him what Bowers said about the men he saw and what he meant by the south side of the fence. Of course, a horse can be led to water, but getting him to drink is another matter altogether.

Since Bowers stated that he saw the two men by Hudson in the stairs area, then those of his interview statements had to be cut from RTJ.

They were. Then Lane could put his "X" marks the stop for the two men in a bogus location behind the fence. A deception.

Lucky Myers noticed the ruse.

Bill

*************************************************************

"You live in a house surrounded by a picket fence.

The fence gate is locked.

Suddenly, you realise that a package of expensive & fragile glassware is due any minute, but that gate is locked.

The postman suddenly arrives at the gate to deliver this delicate & fragile package.

You quickly lean out the window & yell out to the post man:

"Mr. Postman, please leave the package back of the fence." -- because you think he will then gently place the package down on the ground right outside the fence.

Unfortunately, the postman leans over the fence & drops the package to the ground inside the fence!

You see it drop to the ground & you hear the sound of shattering glass."

What kind of skewed logic is that? You'd ask the postman to leave the package in front of the fence, outside the gate.

But, aside from all your attempts at anything remotely resembling analogy, you're still coming up lame, as far as I can denote. :pop

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of skewed logic is that? You'd ask the postman to leave the package in front of the fence, outside the gate.

But, aside from all your attempts at anything remotely resembling analogy, you're still coming up lame, as far as I can denote. :rolleyes:

Terry, Miles reputation concerning his trying to show logic by being illogical has become well documented. Miles plays to a limited audience of whom ever will show him any attention. A few post ago it was Miles, I believe who felt that because he and Alan were the only ones responding in a negative light to what I had said about Bowers testimony - that this somehow validated his position. I mentioned then that this was an illogical assumption. Now after your post, combined with what Mack has said and by what Conway posted and added to my posting ... I guess that I can now say that Miles must have been wrong because 4 to 2 wins out on who is right or wrong. After all, these are the rules Miles wanted to play by when he thought that only he and Alan were the only ones posting in rebuttal to what I had written. Of course, I expect that Miles will now change his 'illogical logic' method of thinking now that it is leaning away from his favor. But its OK, because just like he did with the "plaid" means "red" nonsense to continue on with his claim - the forum is archived and his method of alleged research cannot escape the things he has written. God bless the forum archives!!!

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of skewed logic is that? You'd ask the postman to leave the package in front of the fence, outside the gate.

But, aside from all your attempts at anything remotely resembling analogy, you're still coming up lame, as far as I can denote. :rolleyes:

Terry, Miles reputation concerning his trying to show logic by being illogical has become well documented. Miles plays to a limited audience of whom ever will show him any attention. A few post ago it was Miles, I believe who felt that because he and Alan were the only ones responding in a negative light to what I had said about Bowers testimony - that this somehow validated his position. I mentioned then that this was an illogical assumption. Now after your post, combined with what Mack has said and by what Conway posted and added to my posting ... I guess that I can now say that Miles must have been wrong because 4 to 2 wins out on who is right or wrong. After all, these are the rules Miles wanted to play by when he thought that only he and Alan were the only ones posting in rebuttal to what I had written. Of course, I expect that Miles will now change his 'illogical logic' method of thinking now that it is leaning away from his favor. But its OK, because just like he did with the "plaid" means "red" nonsense to continue on with his claim - the forum is archived and his method of alleged research cannot escape the things he has written. God bless the forum archives!!!

Bill

**************************************************************

I couldn't agree with you more, Bill. I'm nonplussed by Miles' revisionary attempts at paraphrasing testimony to suit his slant on a particular aspect of the case, such as Bowers, that has more than stood the test of time, with respect to its literal validity, over the years as it is.

You've done an excellent job in debating this issue. I'm quite proud to see the community coming together and putting forth the work and the effort on such a scholarly level. This how it's supposed to be done. Good job!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The young man in the pathway footage is around 5.6'.

He can barely see over the fence.

Interesting statement, Alan. Please tell me the name of this person so we can look up any information concerning his height? I am betting that you do not know the man's name and are just making it up about his height being around 5'6".

Lokk up the average height of an American 17 year old.

That might help you.

Put him around the south side where it is a few inches lower, even a foot away from the fence & he is totally out of sight from this position.

Now head up to the tower & try looking through the foilage, IF you could see someone, you'd have to have near perfect vision.

Know go back & ponder what Bowers could see through his "bottle neck" spectacles as you called them.

I appreciate what the view looked like from the tower using the very blurred photo in Josiah's photo ... do you have any sharper images that might replicate how it looked in real life???

Thompson's photo wasn't taken from the tower according to you.

No word from Tink yet I take it.

Any mistake was at your end.

I've already told you, the back of the fence(the north side), is the back of the fence no matter were you stand.

Back & front.

Miles tried to help you with a great analogy that even a child could follow butt it went over your stubborn head as usual.

Alan, this child saw where you used the wrong words when writing "know" for now and 'butt" for but. As far as the rest of it goes ... it matters little what term you'd use for the south side of the fence ... it only matters what Bowers meant. His meaning was clarified when he used the word "SOUTH" for the side of the fence he was referencing. You can say that Bowers meant to say east if you like, but several people have interviewed him and no one has ever taken the nutty position that you have.

You don't know if Bowers made a mistake. You claim you do only "because he made the same south side reference to several people over the years".

I'm still waiting for evidence of this & if you really do have something, anything then post it, if not then stop wasting my time.

So I take it it's okay for you to refer to interviews you have never seen?

You can't quote me one other instance that Bowers refered to seeing the south side of the fence?

I thought so.

Why do you think this is exceptable?

You misspelled two words in the above quote. Also, the other day you asked for a name ... now you want me to quote him, which in the past you called that 'hearsay'. Just call Harris and see what he says or do you find it better to just keep dodging him?

You obviously have nothing, so why say things that you can't back up?

If you did not lie to me then show me the evidence that made you say "Bowers made the same south side reference to several people over the years".

You don't have a scanner or photocopier near you?

What's the book & page number?

It was online? Wheres the link?

LMAO

FYI my spelling hasn't got worse over the last three years, it's always been the same, it's very good but far from perfect.

You haven't commented on it for years, not since I first started arguing with you on Lancer & that was probably just the once.

The only reason it is now an issue is because your on the defensive & you have nothing of substance to add.

I can see right through your petty attempts at diversion.

Back up what you said or apologise for misleading us.

Then I'll share all that I know about Jones early research.

What ... now you want to make a game out of all this? Just post what you know on Harris and we'll take it from there. BTW, "apologize is spelled with a 'Z' - not an 'S'.

You said "He told several researchers the same thing" but you have nothing. Nothing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else have trouble reading all that bold text?

***********************************************************

"Does anyone else have trouble reading all that bold text?"

Actually, no. I happen to pen all my personal e-mails in "bold" lettering. As for the content of Bill Miller's post, I for one, am in total agreement with him, bold text, or no bold text. I think he spelled out the point quite plainly, and cleared up the relevant discrepancies involved in this post. IMHO and FWIW

Maybe you could be a little more specific to what Bill has actually cleared up?

You weren't talking for the whole forum on the subject of the bold text where you?

No. So that's one who doesn't & one who does so far.

I have trouble reading large blocks of bold text if they are more than about 10 lines deep with no break.

It would be easier for me to motivate myself to read, analysize & comment on his thoughts if he broke these thick paragraphs up a little more.

But thanks for the input on it anyway, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Mr. Postman, please leave the package back of the fence." -- because you think he will then gently place the package down on the ground right outside the fence.

Unfortunately, the postman leans over the fence & drops the package to the ground inside the fence!

You see it drop to the ground & you hear the sound of shattering glass."

What kind of skewed logic is that? You'd ask the postman to leave the package in front of the fence, outside the gate.

But, aside from all your attempts at anything remotely resembling analogy, you're still coming up lame, as far as I can denote. :pop

You totally missed the point.

It wasn't about where you'd normally ask a postman to drop a package.

It was about illustrating how most people know which is the back & front of a fence.

Whatever. The only thing that's important here is our own interpretation of what Bowers said & if it is possible he could have made an error when he said he could see the back/south side of the fence.

Bill is the only one who knows for a fact Bowers didn't because he has read where he said the same thing to several researchers.

Regardless of the fact that Bowers could not see the south side of the fence, if he said the same thing to someone other than Lane it is important that we see it & stop all this back & forth BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't Myers who butchered what Bowers said it was Bowers himself but that's what happens when you ask witnesses for more details.

Well keep in mind, Alan - that according to Miles - Bowers spoke in code language. 'South' means 'North' and 'plaid' means 'red'.

Bill

And according to you, when Sitzman said "they(the bench couple) were just getting up off the bench when I looked over there"(twice!) she actually meant, they were already up & running away(just one example from you, you want more?).

Anyway.

Bill you sound retarded keep going over the same things that have already been explained.

Just because you don't agree with them means very little. Unless you have evidence that disproves the reasoning!

To keep repeating it over & over like a child makes only a negative impression.

Towner's camera simply would not pick up a thin plaid pattern from that distance, not like the shirt that Miles used in his example, okay?

How many times have you reminded us that things look different to the naked eye?

Have I made that clear?

What other evidence did I miss?

Is the example shirt that Miles chose plaid? Good okay then.

Did you prove that Bowers couldn't make out, over time, a thin plaid shirt like this from that distance?

I must of missed it, like a missed the evidence you gave us that proved he could see the south side of the fence, which you know damn well is impossible.

More importantly(& related to my response to your Myers critique which you quoted).

Ask Gary if there are two other men in the RTJ transcripts.

Your analysis of Myers work seems to suggest that there were four men Bowers saw.

The two that were in direct line to the mouth of underpass(re: WC) &

the two that were described to Lane here;

MARK LANE: "Mr. Bowers, did you see any pedestrians at any time between your tower and Elm Street that day?"

LEE BOWERS: "Directly in line - uh - there - of course is - uh - there leading toward the Triple Underpass there is a curved decorative wall - I guess you'd call it - it's not a solid wall but it is part of the - uh - park.... And to the west of that there were - uh - at the time of the shooting in my vision only two men. Uh - these two men were - uh - standing back from the street somewhat at the top of the incline and were very near - er - two trees which were in the area..."

(Make a mental note of that unleading question by Lane btw Bill.)

Now if Myers has deliberately left out a reference to the "two men in direct line to the mouth of the underpass" in the extracts from the RTJ transcripts he showed us, then I think we should all be informed.

On the other hand, if there were only two men mentioned to Lane, then everyone should now that when Myers connected these two men as being the same people Bowers mention to the WC.....

he was spot on.

Make sure to tell ell us something we don't already know Bill & please don't expect us to believe that Lane himself never asked Bowers about the two men refered to in his WC testimony. We've already had Gary say that was the only reason Bowers was there.

So are there two men in the transcripts or four like you seem to be suggesting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have trouble reading large blocks of bold text if they are more than about 10 lines deep with no break.

It would be easier for me to motivate myself to read, analysize & comment on his thoughts if he broke these thick paragraphs up a little more.

But thanks for the input on it anyway, I think.

Alan, I have seen you respond to plain text before and it didn't seem that it helped you understand what was written any better. I know for a fact that Gary Mack has emailed you in the past with plain text and you still didn't understand the information that he provided you either. The WC Volumes also used plain text in Bowers testimony about which side of the fence he was talking about and that seemed to confuse you, so if it is all the same .... I'll keep using the bold text.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't Myers who butchered what Bowers said it was Bowers himself but that's what happens when you ask witnesses for more details.

Well keep in mind, Alan - that according to Miles - Bowers spoke in code language. 'South' means 'North' and 'plaid' means 'red'.

Bill

And according to you, when Sitzman said "they(the bench couple) were just getting up off the bench when I looked over there"(twice!) she actually meant, they were already up & running away(just one example from you, you want more?).

Anyway.

Bill you sound retarded keep going over the same things that have already been explained.

Just because you don't agree with them means very little. Unless you have evidence that disproves the reasoning!

To keep repeating it over & over like a child makes only a negative impression.

Towner's camera simply would not pick up a thin plaid pattern from that distance, not like the shirt that Miles used in his example, okay?

How many times have you reminded us that things look different to the naked eye?

Have I made that clear?

What other evidence did I miss?

Is the example shirt that Miles chose plaid? Good okay then.

Did you prove that Bowers couldn't make out, over time, a thin plaid shirt like this from that distance?

I must of missed it, like a missed the evidence you gave us that proved he could see the south side of the fence, which you know damn well is impossible.

More importantly(& related to my response to your Myers critique which you quoted).

Ask Gary if there are two other men in the RTJ transcripts.

Your analysis of Myers work seems to suggest that there were four men Bowers saw.

The two that were in direct line to the mouth of underpass(re: WC) &

the two that were described to Lane here;

MARK LANE: "Mr. Bowers, did you see any pedestrians at any time between your tower and Elm Street that day?"

LEE BOWERS: "Directly in line - uh - there - of course is - uh - there leading toward the Triple Underpass there is a curved decorative wall - I guess you'd call it - it's not a solid wall but it is part of the - uh - park.... And to the west of that there were - uh - at the time of the shooting in my vision only two men. Uh - these two men were - uh - standing back from the street somewhat at the top of the incline and were very near - er - two trees which were in the area..."

(Make a mental note of that unleading question by Lane btw Bill.)

Now if Myers has deliberately left out a reference to the "two men in direct line to the mouth of the underpass" in the extracts from the RTJ transcripts he showed us, then I think we should all be informed.

On the other hand, if there were only two men mentioned to Lane, then everyone should now that when Myers connected these two men as being the same people Bowers mention to the WC.....

he was spot on.

Make sure to tell ell us something we don't already know Bill & please don't expect us to believe that Lane himself never asked Bowers about the two men refered to in his WC testimony. We've already had Gary say that was the only reason Bowers was there.

So are there two men in the transcripts or four like you seem to be suggesting?

Alan,

Well said.

BTW, the points of agreement between Bowers' two men & the two men photographed & described by Hudson are not limited to red plaid shirt = red shirt.

For example, both Hudson & Bowers described the younger man as in his "twenties."

Just a note:

HudsonOnFeet-3-1.jpg

NixStairs.gif

Your point about Miller repeating post after post the same nonsense that plaid is not red plaid is very telling.

Miller gambles that if he repeats & repeats the same nonsense, then he will eventually succeed in having the last word.

Apparently Miller is happy with such an absurd outcome, which he counts as a towering triumph. :pop

I congratulate you in exposing Miller's ridiculous tactics for what they are: silly.

It seems that Miller has been reduced to quibbling over spelling & bold face type. His master stroke in countering Myers? :ice

desperation-2.jpg

:up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And according to you, when Sitzman said "they(the bench couple) were just getting up off the bench when I looked over there"(twice!) she actually meant, they were already up & running away(just one example from you, you want more?

Alan, you cited a man's height in relation to the fence and I asked you how you knew it to be so. I went as far as to ask who that man was so to see if you really had your facts straight or were just making things up as you went along. You never answered that question. So in the future, please go get my past comments and quote them so I can be sure you didn't make them up, as well.

Anyway.

Bill you sound retarded keep going over the same things that have already been explained.

Just because you don't agree with them means very little. Unless you have evidence that disproves the reasoning!

To keep repeating it over & over like a child makes only a negative impression.

Alan, I received several messages today saying things like what was written below, so if you don't mind - it sounds like I better keep sounding retarded ....

"And, THANK YOU, Bill for being the detail-oriented, dedicated, professional you really are. We represent some of the oldest, and longest-running forums, that have taken the pains to stick their necks out against some of the worst, xxxxx-inhabited venues to come down the pike concerning the research community over the past 15 years. I hold Deb in the highest of esteem for the work, collateral, and effort she has put forth in presenting hers, as well as, Mary Ferrell's database at the research community's fingertips. And, of course I always will remain staunchly loyal to Len Osanic of Prouty's due to my undying gratitude to the late Colonel for his tremendous contribution in shedding the light on the dark and sordid underpinnings of our government.

I am most pleased with your rational and undaunted persistence in attempting to keep the record straight, and at all times, providing reference, and links to documented evidence."

Towner's camera simply would not pick up a thin plaid pattern from that distance, not like the shirt that Miles used in his example, okay?

How many times have you reminded us that things look different to the naked eye?

Have I made that clear?

I think you should probably email Gary Mack and see what he says about the original high resolution scans that he viewed over this matter. Then take about three seconds and tell him all you know about Towner's camera and its capabilities.

Did you prove that Bowers couldn't make out, over time, a thin plaid shirt like this from that distance?

I must of missed it, like a missed the evidence you gave us that proved he could see the south side of the fence, which you know damn well is impossible.

Yes, it was proven when Mack viewed other far superior images of the red shirted man and found there were no plaid designs on it. And I think part of your problem is that you do not pay close enough attention to what is being said. For instance, Bowers DID NOT say that he could see the south side of the fence ... Bowers said that he could see that no one was standing on the south side of the fence, which was correct because the assassination films prove that he was correct on that point.

(Make a mental note of that unleading question by Lane btw Bill.)

I think the word you meant to use was "non-leading"

Make sure to tell ell us something we don't already know Bill & please don't expect us to believe that Lane himself never asked Bowers about the two men refered to in his WC testimony. We've already had Gary say that was the only reason Bowers was there.

You misspelled "referred".

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, the points of agreement between Bowers' two men & the two men photographed & described by Hudson are not limited to red plaid shirt = red shirt.

For example, both Hudson & Bowers described the younger man as in his "twenties."

Miles, I really enjoy reading your post ... almost as much as I enjoy showing why the things you say are plain silly. Your lack of logic in the things you say remind me of the Barney Fife, the FBI guy, and the over-anxious Mayor - all seen on an episode of the 'Andy Griffith Show'. Andy Griffith (playing the role of Sheriff Andy Taylor) listened to the deputy, the FBI guy, and the over-anxious Mayor go on about three men stealing a cow because of the three sets of shoe prints left in the mud at the scene. Andy looked things over and remarked "Where are the prints that should have been left by the cow?" It seems that all three men hadn't addressed the most basic of observations ... but Andy did.

Bowers said there were only two men in the area he was talking about. Are you going to now say that when Bowers says there were only two men - he meant that there were three men? Do you want to the members of this forum to think that Bowers was an eagle eye who saw a plaid shirt from (I believe you said '100 yards away') but never saw Hudson's wide butt standing shoulder to shoulder to the man you said was 'heavy set' compared to the man in the red shirt. I will give you this much - you seemingly have no shame! So I guess we can add to the list pertaining to Lee Bowers code language - Two men = three men.

xxxxx on Miles ... xxxxx on.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lokk up the average height of an American 17 year old.

That might help you.

So you know the guy was 17 now! Do you care to tell us who he is so we can check your alleged facts? And BTW, the word is "look" - not 'lokk'.

Thompson's photo wasn't taken from the tower according to you.

No word from Tink yet I take it.

I didn't say that ... you seem to have a habit of misstating the facts. I have reservations about Josiah having taken that photo from inside the tower where Bowers was positioned. The photo looks to have possibly been taken from the steps leading up to where Bowers would enter the tower. I have not heard from Josiah yet.

Miles tried to help you with a great analogy that even a child could follow butt it went over your stubborn head as usual.

Maybe Miles can help you with your use of the English language. The word is "but" - not 'butt'.

You don't know if Bowers made a mistake. You claim you do only "because he made the same south side reference to several people over the years".

I'm still waiting for evidence of this & if you really do have something, anything then post it, if not then stop wasting my time.

So now I take it that your position now is that Bowers could have misstated the same thing to several researchers independent of one another. About wasting your time ... I personally think trying to learn JFK's case is a waste of your time, but you still do it anyway.

You obviously have nothing, so why say things that you can't back up?

If you did not lie to me then show me the evidence that made you say "Bowers made the same south side reference to several people over the years".

You don't have a scanner or photocopier near you?

What's the book & page number?

It was online? Wheres the link?

LMAO

Alan, I am not at my office and the all the scanners in the forest are being used at the moment. I am a bit puzzled however why you are asking for links and page numbers when I gave you the name 'Jones Harris' and the city in which he lives. Are you needing me to give you a dime so you can call him???

FYI my spelling hasn't got worse over the last three years, it's always been the same, it's very good but far from perfect.

You would probably be correct if you were in the first grade, but I assume that you are an adult.

You said "He told several researchers the same thing" but you have nothing. Nothing!

I have Gary Mack who knows all those people. Give Mack a call ... do you need another dime for that call, too?

Bill Miller

Gary Mack/6th Floor Museum

1-214-747-6660 ext. 6693

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of the fact that Bowers could not see the south side of the fence, if he said the same thing to someone other than Lane it is important that we see it & stop all this back & forth BS.

Maybe Jones Harris will see this thread and just let you call him collect because you're to cheap to flip for the dime.

And while we are on the subject of back and forth BS ... time for another peek at a portion of another message I have gotten concerning this thread ...

"You and your excellent abilities as a researcher are being attested to here. Often, one who speaks out represents myriads of those who cannot.

With all of the frustration and impatience you have gone through, is it not most comforting that others have seen what you have done, and have felt the same feeling you have,and hold you as the person who speaks for them?

There is an honor here, Bill---one that is only given as the result of painstaking, purposeful effort.

There are many who hold you in esteem, who expect your best, and who silently stand by when you are being opposed by those whose only wish is your demise."

Normally I wouldn't see it fit to post such messages, but thanks to you and Miles who seem to believe that my post are a waste of time ... let the private messages I get on a regular basis be my rebuttal to your remarks about me wasting everyone's time.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, the points of agreement between Bowers' two men & the two men photographed & described by Hudson are not limited to red plaid shirt = red shirt.

For example, both Hudson & Bowers described the younger man as in his "twenties."

Bowers said there were only two men in the area he was talking about. Are you going to now say that when Bowers says there were only two men - he meant that there were three men in the area he was talking about? You want to make the members of this forum think that Bowers was an eagle eye who saw a plaid shirt from (I believe you said '100 yards away') but never saw Hudson's big butt standing shoulder to shoulder to the man you said was 'heavy set' compared to the man in the red shirt. I will give you this much - you seemingly have no shame! So I guess we can add to the list pertaining to Lee Bowers code language - Two men = three men.

xxxxx on Miles ... xxxxx on.

Bill Miller

NOTE: NEW READERS OF THIS THREAD SHOULD SEE: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm

Bowers said there were only two men in the area he was talking about.

Bowers never said that saw only two men... Bowers said he saw two men. "only" is your false insertion, because you have omitted a very important qualifying phrase.

Are you going to now say that when Bowers says there were only two men

No. I am not going to repeat your false insertion. Bowers never said "only" without a very important qualifier which you omit.

- he meant that there were three men in the area he was talking about?

Are you trying to distort the record? Looks like it.

You want to make the members of this forum think

No. That's your nonsense at work, isn't it? Trying to put some one in a bad light, because your argument is cooked, by your false insertion of "only" without the qualifier.

that Bowers was an eagle eye who saw a plaid shirt from (I believe you said '100 yards away') but never saw Hudson's big butt

"big butt" ? Do you need to insult Hudson? Why?

standing shoulder to shoulder to the man you said was 'heavy set' compared to the man in the red shirt. I will give you this much - you seemingly have no shame!

You distorted the record by falsely inserting "only" without the qualifier. The shame is on YOU!

So I guess we can add to the list pertaining to Lee Bowers code language - Two men = three men.

Silly nonsense.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let's look at what Bowers actually says:

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

Haven't you glossed over something very important? Namely: "... at the time of the shooting ..."

Your argument is based on the false assumption that Bowers was continuously & unblinkingly staring at the stairs locus & the men there at all times. Nonsense.

Of course, Bowers did not do this.

Bowers looked at the stairs locus & then looked elsewhere. Then, Bowers looked at the stairs locus & then looked elsewhere. Then, as time passes Bowers looks here & then there. The shots have not begun. Then, at the time of the shooting Bowers focuses on the area of the stairs & ALSO, primarily, N O T E, Bowers focuses on Elm Street & the passing motorcade.

Again, what does Bowers actually say?

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 [i.e.,west of the "decorative wall"]. Uh - these two men to the best of my knowledge were standing there - uh - at the time - of the shooting..." ... "The other individual was uh - slighter build and had either a plaid jacket or a plaid shirt on and -uh - in walking back and forth was in and out of sight, so I could not state for sure whether he was standing there at the time of the shots or not. But he was in the immediate area..."

Bowers says he saw two men. Did he see Hudson & white shirt man, because red/plaid shirt man was momentarily behind the fence on its south side & thus hidden from Bowers? Was Bowers looking at the limo & not focused on the two or three or four men in his line of sight? Et cetera.

For purpose of argument, let's allow that Bowers' seeing of the two men was not perfect, although the many points of agreement between Hudson's & Bower's testimony are probative & convincing.

This is beside the point.

The massive & overwhelming point is this:

Bowers nails down the exact locus of the two men. This locus does not change. It's always the same: the area of the stairs.

Here is some analysis of Hudon's testimony as it bears on what Bowers says he saw:

Hudson says he was standing on the stairs just before the the parade when a man in his late twenties met him.

Bowers says he saw a man in his mid-twenties.

So Hudson confirms Bowers.

The Nix photos show a red shirt for this younger man. See the red PLAID shirts. Bowers took the red shirt as a RED plaid. That's consistent with the photos.

Hudson says that he & the young red shirted man sat down on the stairs.

Bowers says the red shirt man moved in & out of sight. If he sat down as Hudson says, then, he (& HUDSON) moved out of sight, just as Bowers said.

So, Hudson confirms Bowers.

Hudson says that when the motorcade turned onto Elm that he & red shirt man stood up.

Bowers says that the red shirt was in & out of sight. Right. So now RSM is back in sight, just as Bowers said!

Hudson confirms Bowers.

When Hudson stood up, so also did the young RSM. Hudson says that:

QUOTE

"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 and so the first shot rung out ..."

Since RSM man was on the left of Hudson, he was visible to Bowers.

Hudson confirms Bowers.

At the time of the shooting Hudson says that he & RSM fell down. Right. So, again, RSM (& Hudson) moved out of Bowers' sight, just as Bowers said.

Hudson confirms Bowers.

Bowers says the man in the white shirt remained in sight practically the whole time.

If Hudson was sitting down talking with RSM before the shooting, as Hudson says he was doing, then he would not necessarily have noticed the white shirt man who could have been standing to Hudson's rear on the steps.

Hudson confirms Bowers.

The evidence of Bowers seeing the white shirt man & the red shirt man on the stairs is cumulative & overwhelming.

BTW, Bowers does not report seeing a GI, Gordon Arnold.

Why?

He was not there, just as is shown by the photographic record.

Wonder why there is a panic on to alter Bowers' testimony?

1.) For decades very few knew about the Bowers/Lane full & complete interview transcript made for Rush to Judgement, until Myers obtained a copy, discovered that not all of Bowers' descriptions & comments appeared in the RTJ film which everybody DID see & published his findings. Consequently, lesser researchers were hoodwinked into a false idea that Bowers was saying that he had seen possible assassins BEHIND the fence. Researchers gave public lectures based on erroneous data. Very embarrassing.

2.) Bowers' newly revealed true testimony now overthrows Ed Hoffman's story because Ed has his alleged sniper moving all about the parking lot prior to, and after the shooting. Bowers would have seen this movement & would have reported it.

3.) Bowers' newly revealed true testimony now overthrows Badgeman because Bowers could have & would have seen BM in his alleged spot as there was no masking foliage at that spot & would have seen BM move. Bowers was looking, remember, directly into this area at the time in question!

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...