On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Alan Healy]

Oopla!

Yes, down it goes.

You got there before me Miles, I just read it.

Good spot.

Turning to his left & falling, I for one am learning more on each page.

Okay Miles while I'm here, one observation on Hudson's "last shot".

Gordon Arnold said the exact same thing,

"at least one more" he said.

That is all.

[Ken Rheberg]

Miles now advises:

"I am objectively questioning the consistency & integrity of Hudson's testimony, because it bears on Bowers' testimony, the topic of this tread.

That's all, no more, no less."

That’s right, Miles. You don’t seem to believe in anybody as it relates to shots or a shooter behind the picket fence.

I’m reminded of one of your posts in this thread.

On 10/31/07, you made the following chilling pronouncement:

“I think you may have not noticed something rather important.

Very important.

Vishnu: ‘Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.’

More to follow.

Stay tuned.”

Then the next day on another thread, the “If The Hat Don’t Fit” thread, you bragged:

“Let's see:

Gone now are:

smoke (alleged) in Wiegman

Hoffman

GI Joe

Arnie

BM

Midget Man

Bowers' Two Men behind the fence

What's left?

Oh yeah,

Now, Hudson takes an unexpected reversal. Wouldn't you know?”

And here’s what you said, Miles, the day before on this thread:

“Before proceeding further with an analysis of Hudson's testimony which will prove that it is not credible & that Myers position is consequently newly confirmed & validated. . .”

I smell a rat, Miles. A rat with an agenda. Obsessed with Dale Myers. You seem to be slowly sucking the life out of a grassy knoll shooter scenario. Or trying to. So get it over with. Drop the bomb. Your “Pinky and the Brain” approach to assassination research is getting old.

Ken

[Alan Healy]

I went over this is Hudson's son......

You went over the way Hudson's head turns in the Zfilm with his son..........#

Why?

How the heck did the topic of his hair come up?

Also,

could the topic of whether he's turning to his left or tracking the limo be of any less importance?

I don't get it.

[Bill Miller]

This does not make any sense.

I assume that you are talking about your past responses.

I am objectively questioning the consistency & integrity of Hudson's testimony, because it bears on Bowers' testimony, the topic of this tread.

That's all, no more, no less.

And How does Hudson's testimony bare on Bowers testimony whereas you wrongly kept saying that Hudson and the men with him were the two men that Bowers was telling Ball about? You even cited Dale Myers who even got it right as to who Bowers had been referring to despite your thinking that you and Myers were the only ones who had gotten it all right. Now when Ken has pointed out your flawed practice - you accuse him of being off-topic. Had Ken of posted upside down Zaprurder frames - posted pictures of candy and/or A-bombs ... would you still say he was off-topic!

The fact is that you are screwed because Hudson testified that he and the other man were sitting on the steps and didn't stand up until the caravan turned onto Elm Street which has been shown to not be a location that Bowers could have seen from the tower. So your plan now is to try and make Hudson look like a moron by posting an upside down Zapruder frame, which does make someone look confused and unreliable, but its not Hudson.

And I'd like to touch on something Ken missed ... You (Miles) did embrace a grassy knoll shooter .. it was that ridiculous claim Duncan made about a cop shooting from high above the fence. And Ken is right about your love affair with Dale Myers site, but even Dale doesn't support the nonsense you have brought to this thread. Dale says the two men Bowers saw were in the RR yard nearer the west end of the fence (or at least thats where he puts them before Lee Bowers turned his attention to the caravan entering the plaza). Dale's site speaks of his attempt in debunking the Badge Man image. This once again is what Dale Myers says about the two men Bowers saw ....

"As I noted in my report on the “Badge Man” image, Bowers places the two men in an area that was "directly in line" with his view of the "mouth of the underpass," which, of course, would have been the area on the west end of the stockade fence, opposite the end where conspiracy theorists place Kennedy’s assassin(s)"

Next Dale Myers writes ...

"The area Bowers is now describing is at the east end of the stockade fence, the area opposite the place where he described two men,"

So it appears from all those silly post you made in this thread about what Bowers was supposed to be meaning - you apparently didn't even get it right about what Dale Myers was saying either. Should we expect a sudden change of heart and you start posting how unreliable Dale Myers is !!!

Bill Miller

Edited November 5, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

You went over the way Hudson's head turns in the Zfilm with his son..........#

Why?

How the heck did the topic of his hair come up?

At the time there had been some debate about Hudson being on the steps. William (Hudson's son) told me about the newpaper photo that his dad always showed people that came by as he would point himself out in the crop o Moorman's photo that the paper printed. At that time I had asked him about the type of cap that his Dad wore because I thought it was like the one in Mile's photo, which is what I call a 'Gilligan's hat'. William said the had was nothing like that and without my notes - I cannot recall the extact term he used, but it was like a ball cap. I mentioned the the way the sides flared out in the Zapruder film and he commented that his father had really thick bushy gray hair for a man his age. This is how I realized that Emmett's hair was sticking out at the side at the base of the cap. I had seen thing countless times with myself and others who I played ball and ran around with over the years. So to answer your question in a simple way ... the hair of Hudson came up when I was seeking to know about the type of cap he wore in relation to what I had seen through the pyracantha bush. That call came about the time I had done the study showing Groden down on the Hudson step and I photographed the same view Zapruder had as the limo raced away.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

At the time there had been some debate about Hudson

Bill Miller

You are forgetting or overlooking what has been repeatedly posted:

QUOTE(Bill Miller @ Oct 26 2007, 09:36 PM)

QUOTE

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.

QUOTE

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.

Edited November 5, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

At the time there had been some debate about Hudson being on the steps.

Bill Miller

I smell a rat, Miles.

Ken

You smell yourself, then, because I am not in the same room you are in.

I suspect Duncan MacRae's sniper is the real deal, as I've said a hundred times.

[Alan Healy]

Bill.

Thanks of course for the no-nonsense reply.

Last frame of him in Nix corresponds quite well with Emmett's emergence in Zapruder, I agree, it must be close.

Body turned towards the east, head at near ninety degrees to it.

Whether it's his hair or the peak/brim of his cap, it's turning left sorry & I don't need to insert an arrow in this crop of Chris's gif for everyone to see that.

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

[Bill Miller]

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.

That's not what I have ever said at all. I have maintained that Hudson and the man sat on the steps talking before standing up as the caravan came onto Elm Street. If you go back and read the post where I made the remark about them sitting down after the caravan came onto Houston Street and then getting back up after the caravan turned onto Elm Street ... it was a reference made to a silly position that you were attempting to sell - not I. So once again you have misstated the facts in an attempt to sell your propaganda, but its not working.

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.

Yes we all seen your side-stepping and dance ... and I must say that it wasn't a pretty sight! What you did and as the record will show is that once you discovered that you had a problem with the LOS to the steps where Hudson and the other two men were - you started trying to widen your range of possibilities, but Bowers was specific about the time frame when he said they were standing and watching the caravan come off of Main Street and on to Houston. For some reason you think that by trying to pull that crap again that somehow it will work, but it doesn't.

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.

The interview with Holland by Mark Lane showed them two "in the area of the embankment" ... you just don't have the desire to admit it. And the remark about no one being behind the fence came when you were trying to turn what Bowers said about "south" into him meaning 'north'. From where Bowers sat and depending on from what direction he was talking about - you tried to turn it around to support a position that you claimed that you and Dale Myers held and we now know that even that position was a fallacy on your part for Myers has written on his site just what I had been telling you all along.

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

You have been saying that crap all along and citing Dale Myers site as proof of your position. I have quoted Dale Myers in my previous post and anyone who can read and have an understanding of the English language can see what Dale Myers (himself) said about where the men were that Bowers was talking about. You blew it - you tried to use Myers to salvage such a silly notion and now even in the face of Myers saying that you are wrong, you still try and make a case that is nothing but a fallacy on your part. Gary Mack and Robert Groden have both been cited as to their findings. You make a call to Dallas or when you go there again - you take the photos you want because unless you move the steps - or the colonnade - and/or the tower - you will never make your false claim into a reality.

" 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..."

How pathetic! You are telling us what Dale Myers has on his cite and even Dale Myers doesn't agree with your interpretation of the evidence. Maybe if you see what Myer's said enough times, then it may sink in ....

"In the last few weeks, several frequent posters on two assassination newsgroups – Debra Conway’s JFK/Lancer Forum and John Simkin’s U.K. Educational Forum – have been having a war of words over what Lee Bowers said and what he meant."

"As I noted in my report on the “Badge Man” image, Bowers places the two men in an area that was "directly in line" with his view of the "mouth of the underpass," which, of course, would have been the area on the west end of the stockade fence,"

"Bowers also described one or two uniformed custodians (one whom he knew) standing in the parking lot a slight distance back from the fence area.

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.

The area Bowers is now describing is at the east end of the stockade fence, the area opposite the place where he described two men,"

You totally blew it Miles! You even went as far as to start saying that when Bowers said things you didn't want to hear, then he must have meant just the opposite. And now you are faced with Dale Myers own words and interpretation of the evidence that he presented and they are not what you have been saying on this forum. So it isn't you and Myers who have gotten it right and everyone else has been wrong - it's just you and you alone and everyone else has gotten it wrong. You just bet on a losing hand and no matter which way you line the cards up on the table - you're screwed.

Bill Miller

Edited November 5, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Last frame of him in Nix corresponds quite well with Emmett's emergence in Zapruder, I agree, it must be close.

Body turned towards the east, head at near ninety degrees to it.

You might wish to go to the overhead photo of the plaza and draw a line to the limo as you last see it in the final image of Hudson in the Nix film and then again from the lamppost on the south knoll as seen in the Zilm ... there was plenty of time for Emmett to turn and face it. But feel free to believe what ever you like. Maybe its just a coincidence that Hudson's head moves from left to right through the bush opening in conjunction with the advancement of the limo, but I don't think so.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

You might wish to go to the overhead photo of the plaza

Or to another photo.

Bill Miller

There were no men according to Bowers, as I have steadily & repeatedly said, in the blue rectangle.

I think you are ignoring an inconvenient truth which demolishes your position:

[Bill Miller]

There were no men according to Bowers, as I have steadily & repeatedly said, in the blue rectangle.

I think you are ignoring an inconvenient truth which demolishes your position

Show men where Bowers said such a thing, Miles??? Bowers spoke about the two men prior to his turning his attention to the caravan coming off of Main Street. Bowers never looked back from what I have read until the flash of light and/or smoke caught his attention. At that time he said that he saw one of the men and had lost track of the other man because he was too hard to make out because of his blending in with the trees. We know from what Holland and witnesses said as to where the smoke came through the trees. So if Bowers lost sight of one of the men - how do you know that he wasn't located at the location where Holland heard the shot and saw the smoke coming out from under the two trees from behind the fence. Mack guesses the turn of the caravan onto Houston to the point of the last shot to be around 45 seconds and that's plenty of time for one of those men to walk along the fence anywhere he wanted to. If you need to hear Holland telling what he saw again - feel free to go to this link ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYj3FAUHwro Your attempt to try and hold the two men in one place because of where Bowers last saw them doesn't work. Obviously one of them had moved to somewhere else because before Bowers turned his attention to the caravan entering the plaza - Lee was able to see both men and by the time the shooting stopped - Lee had lost track of one of those two men.

Bill Miller

Edited November 5, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

There were no men according to Bowers, as I have steadily & repeatedly said, in the blue rectangle.

I think you are ignoring an inconvenient truth which demolishes your position

Show men where Bowers said such a thing, Miles??? Bowers spoke about the two men prior to his turning his attention to the caravan coming off of Main Street. Bowers never looked back from what I have read until the flash of light and/or smoke caught his attention. At that time he said that he saw one of the men and had lost track of the other man because he was too hard to make out because of his blending in with the trees. We know from what Holland and witnesses said as to where the smoke came through the trees. So if Bowers lost sight of one of the men - how do you know that he wasn't located at the location where Holland heard the shot and saw the smoke coming out from under the two trees from behind the fence. Mack guesses the turn of the caravan onto Houston to the point of the last shot to be around 45 seconds and that's plenty of time for one of those men to walk along the fence anywhere he wanted to. If you need to hear Holland telling what he saw again - feel free to go to this link ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYj3FAUHwro Your attempt to try and hold the two men in one place because of where Bowers last saw them doesn't work. Obviously one of them had moved to somewhere else because before Bowers turned his attention to the caravan entering the plaza - Lee was able to see both men and by the time the shooting stopped - Lee had lost track of one of those two men.

Bill Miller

Your attempt to try and hold the two men in one place because of where Bowers last saw them doesn't work.

My attempt? I never attempted to "hold the two men in one place."

You are setting up a "straw dog." That's a very big "no, no."

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position.[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.[3] It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.

Obviously one of them had moved to somewhere else because before Bowers turned his attention to the caravan entering the plaza - Lee was able to see both men and by the time the shooting stopped - Lee had lost track of one of those two men.

No. Bowers knew exactly where the two men were.

They were in the immediate area of the stairs, seen in LOSs between the decorative wall & the short leg of the fence.

[Bill Miller]

My attempt? I never attempted to "hold the two men in one place."

You are setting up a "straw dog." That's a very big "no, no."

You must not have went back and listened to Holland's statement to Lane. Someone caused a shot to be heard 20 to 30 feet from the corner of the fence which resulted in the smoke being seen. The best you have offered is that 45 seconds after Bowers last saw the two men near the west end of the fence - he lost track of one of them. If Bowers was such an eagle-eye as you portrayed him to be when trying to say that he could see a plaid design on the red shirted man who was blocked from Lee's view (a plaid design that never existed according to the Towner originals) from a 100 yards away, then Bowers should have seen the Duncan shooter well elevated above the fence that you embrace as a shooter. The fact is that you just merely say what ever stupid thing you can to mislead people. Just as in the case of the document that you still continue to post. I have told you all along that you are misinterpreting the wording of that Document and recently Dale Myers even makes that clear in the remarks he posted on his cite. So while you have attempted to use Dale Myers as support for your twisted views pertaining to Lee Bowers - Dale is in total disagreement with you. So now you stand alone IMO even though you claim to cast two shadows.

Bill Miller

Edited November 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

My attempt? I never attempted to "hold the two men in one place."

You are setting up a "straw dog." That's a very big "no, no."

You must not have went back and listened to Holland's statement to Lane.

Holland is irrelevant to Bowers' testimony.

The best you have offered is that 45 seconds after Bowers last saw the two men near the west end of the fence - he lost track of one of them.

Straw dog nonsense.

The fact is that you just merely say what ever stupid thing you can to mislead people.

Ad hominem attack & straw man set up.

Just as in the case of the document that you still continue to post. I have told you all along that you are misinterpreting the wording of that Document

If you could prove that you would. But, you cannot, so you fall back on the defence of last resort. Ad hominem insults & straw men & insults.

and recently Dale Myers even makes that clear in the remarks he posted on his cite. So while you have attempted to use Dale Myers as support

I stand by Bowers' quoted testimony, whether Myers flies a kite to the moon or laughs at your hissy tantrums. Forget Myers. He's your red herring, isn't he?

for your twisted views pertaining to Lee Bowers

I do not have "views" (Your straw man again. No surprise.), I simply quote Bowers & say, Hoopla!

If you haven't got anything logical to say dealing with facts, then I'm responding to Alan or Duncan as your jibberish is a waste of bandwidth, at the least.

Bill Miller

Edited November 6, 2007 by Miles Scull