On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Alan Healy]

I just want to make this clear Bill.

I was talking purely how I read what Myers has written, I have no real interest any more in discussing "what Bowers meant", I'm still reading what's being said obviously but it's not going anywhere new or positive IMO.

Just one point.

You said you "never read it that way" when I said that Myers doesn't rule out the three men on the steps.

Search for the word " conjecture " on this page

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm

Then see who Dale is talking about in the paragraph directly above it.

It's the three men on the steps, Hudson & Company.

He does not rule them out & I know why.

It's because we can't take everything Bowers said as fact.

The bike cop, the limo, the men or indeed anything else any witness says they saw happen should not be taken as gospel - like Gary reminded me the other day - "be very skeptical of eyewitness accounts".

It's sinking in gradually.

I'll say one more thing for now.

Mark Lane had a golden chance to clear this up.

I get the feeling that he was honestly not leading the witness as his professional training taught him to do.

He wanted Bowers to tell him straight rather than asking "were they behind the fence?".

It didn't work, he said something different to what he told Ball & Co & what Lane himself was already aware of & the way he edited Bowers interview in the film doesn't seem right when you read the transcript.

Now there's no way I have any right to critize Mark Lane, no way, he's still a hero to me & always will be for the bravery he showed in speaking out at that time & in the many years since.

I just think he made a mistake with Bowers & I doubt he will ever admit it.

Someone may have the balls to seriously grill him on this but it's not me, I know that.

Anyway, did you read carefully the page of transcript which Miles posted on this page?

Q. Did you know the men who were standing around or near the wooden fence...

It's so close to the specific positioning we are looking for but once again, fails.

Everyone, including Myers, thought that the two men Bowers was referring to in his WC testimony were at the west end of the fence &, he still is if you use that testimony on it's own.

That changed when we saw the Lane transcript(or part of it).

What he said to Lane puts at least one of these men moving out of sight when he goes behind part of the fence.

Dale still thinks this is the most significant part of the interview.

That puts one man on the east end of the fence, not behind but in front of it*(see note below).

Alan, could not one of the men have walked over to the area west of the fence between the steam pipe and the actual underpass and gone out of view to Bowers?

He's talking about the men on the steps just like Miles is doing & nothing anyone have said here has changed that.

I have never read it to mean what you are saying, Alan. And I am even more certain of this seeing how Bowers could not have ever seen anyone on the steps from where he sat. If Bowers could not see the steps from inside the tower, then one cannot be correct about Lee concerning the two men that he saw standing 10-15 feet apart when the caravan entered the plaza. This is exactly why I said that anyone confused about this should have called Lane because we are only seeing one page of a transcript and there have been two ways people could read what was written. Possibly other pages in that transcript could clear things up for some of you, but no one seemed interested in taking that simple step.

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

Lane and Holland were standing back from the street at the top of the incline when they stood at the top of the incline. It's all in how one wishes to read it. It seems that Bowers was jumping around a bit when talking about the things he saw. Myers believes the men Lee spoke of were the guys dressed like custodians and they were at the east end of the lot and back away from the street. I think one of them may be seen in Towner #3 on the steps of the shelter as he is looking out into the RR yard.

Last time Bill, Myers thinks the two men who Bowers told Lane about where at the east end of the fence. Not behind it but in front of it & he does not rule out Hudson & Co.

I'm sorry, but I have to smile at a simple mistake you guys keep making. Bowers said that he could see these men when the caravan entered the plaza. Bowers could tell they were standing up - Bowers could see which way they were facing - and Bowers could judge the distance between them to be between 10 to 15 feet apart. Hudson and the man who stood east of him were sitting on the steps and then stood up when the caravan came not into the plaza, but onto Elm Street and at no time while on the steps Bowers could have seen them. So one has to understand that Lee is talking about someone else ... there is no way around this.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Then see who Dale is talking about in the paragraph directly above it.

It's the three men on the steps, Hudson & Company.

He does not rule them out & I know why.

It's because we can't take everything Bowers said as fact.

I disagree, Alan. I don't believe that Dale bothered to check the LOS from the steps to the tower to know to rule them guys out and unless he has read this thread - he is still probably oblivious to that fact.

And about that "X" Lane places in his video. No one knew that Lee Bowers was going to be killed 4 months after that interview, thus I cannot see Lane marking the wrong spot only to have Bowers say he got it wrong or to have anyone else Bowers may have told where the men were to come forward and make a fool out of Lane. In fact, I have not even heard a Mark Lane critic say that they have even considered that aspect concerning this matter. So has anyone bothered to see if Bowers died before or after "Rush to Judgment" was finished? And I also want to point out that Lane Harris also interviewed Bowers and possibly one other person besides De Antonio and not Dale Myers, or any Lane critic on this forum that I know of has bothered to see if those interviewers had asked Bowers that all important question or if he marked any photos or maps to show the exact spot the two men were. It almost makes one think that no Lane critic really cared to know the answer.

Bill

Edited November 7, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

Thanks Ken but it's okay, honestly,

I see the bias don't worry & I've also seen "Beyond Conspiracy" I know who Dale Myers is.

However, how can you know for a fact that Lane didn't ask Bowers to mark something unless you've read the full transcript?

Also,

I personally think what Bowers told Lane is different & I'm not being led by anyone, I'm just going by the snippets of the transcript I have read.

In the transcript he is talking about the east end of the fence in my opinion & this opinion is shared by everyone who's spoke about it thus far(that's only a handful granted) but if you see something different please explain when you get time.

"This happened only one way"....... I agree Dale....... just..... not your way.

Miles,

Ken brought up a great point so I have to ask you.

Did Lane ever ask Bowers to mark a map or photo for where the two men he was talking about were?

Is it in the transcript Miles?

Alan,

Lane never did ask Bowers to mark anything. If it could have helped Lane's case, you can bet he would have had Bowers mark where the two men were standing. Like he had James Simmons mark where he saw the smoke appear by the picket fence. Instead, while Bowers is talking, a photo of the picket fence area fills the screen with a large white "X" marking the spot where I'm sure Lane wanted us to believe the two men were standing. It coincides with Simmons' mark.

Dale Myers was right on this. Lane was leading us along by the nose. Bowers never said or indicated any such thing.

Myers was correct in his conclusions about Bowers' WC testimony with regards to the location of the two men. But with the exception of the above assessment of Lane, when Myers gets to the Lane interview, he lets his bias get in the way.

Obvious bias usually is evident when analysis of an opposing argument is coupled with a scornful, derisive, almost loathing reference to not just one person on the other side but the entire group no matter how large. It's always a red flag for me when I see this kind of treatment. Posner and Bugliosi come quickly to mind. Myers does the same thing once he gets to the Lane interview.

Inspite of what Myers tries to prove, the Lane interview AGREES with Bowers' WC testimony. Myers is so eager to prove that no one was behind the picket fence that his objectivity goes out the window.

When I get a chance, I'll revisit my prior post on this subject. And, if I have the time, I'll break down Myers' initially honest but ultimately biased analysis.

Ken

[Alan Healy]

Then see who Dale is talking about in the paragraph directly above it.

It's the three men on the steps, Hudson & Company.

He does not rule them out & I know why.

It's because we can't take everything Bowers said as fact.

I disagree, Alan. I don't believe that Dale bothered to check the LOS from the steps to the tower to know to rule them guys out and unless he has read this thread - he is still probably oblivious to that fact.

Bill

You can dissagree with Myer's opinion sure but you can't dissagree with who I'm saying Dale is referring to or what he means.

It is written on that web page for Christ's sake.

He & Miles are talking of the same position & the same men(in Myers case they are still candidates).

[Miles Scull]

You can dissagree with Myer's opinion sure but you can't dissagree with who I'm saying Dale is referring to or what he means.

It is written on that web page for Christ's sake.

He & Miles are talking of the same position & the same men(in Myers case they are still candidates).

Right, Alan.

Since Bowers knew the individuals north of the fence & those over by the steam pipe or in line with the mouth of the underpass,

then the two men, whom he did NOT know but whom he saw, must have been located in the area of the stairs, just as Bowers says they were.

There is no getting around that, just as if you smell an animal & wonder what it is, then you must check to see if there is anyone else in the room.

If you are alone, then you are smelling yourself, to your great surprise & enlightenment! -

See:

[Bill Miller]

You can dissagree with Myer's opinion sure but you can't dissagree with who I'm saying Dale is referring to or what he means.

It is written on that web page for Christ's sake.

He & Miles are talking of the same position & the same men(in Myers case they are still candidates).

So what you are saying is that Dale Myers says the two men Bowers saw in direct line with the underpass who Dale says were at the west end of the fence - were also on the stairs at the same time - is that right? And if Myers says they were on or in the area of the stairs, then how could Bowers have seen them facing the corner of Main and Houston when the caravan entered the plaza? Hudson clearly says that he and the other man was sitting on the steps and then got up and stood on the steps as the caravan came onto Elm Street. It makes absolutely no sense what you are attributing to Dale and I don't believe that Dale is as stupid as you guys are making him out to be.

So lets look at what Dale Myers writes and I will insert bold text on what I believe Myers is saying and about whom and someone can tell if I am wrong and why I am wrong. I will underline the key descriptions.

Dale Myers writes the following:

Five months later, on April 2, 1964, Bowers testified before the Warren Commission, and gave essentially the same testimony he gave police on November 22 – all about three suspicious cars that circled the railroad parking shortly before the shooting. In addition, Bowers provided information about several people standing in the vicinity of the stockade fence. Here is the relevant exchange:

Mr. BALL - Now, were there any people standing on the high side---high ground between your tower and where Elm Street goes down under the underpass toward the mouth of the underpass? (Here Bowers is asked about people that he can see between he and where Elm Street goes DOWN UNDER THE UNDERPASS. Bowers isn't being asked about who is ON THE UNDERPASS - that is a separate matter altogether. Now - we know that Bowers could not describe people down by the curb leading DOWN UNDER THE UNDERPASS ... now don't we! That means that we are only talking about the HIGH GROUND before going onto the underpass. Bowers will get to the people ON THE UNDERPASS shortly)

Mr. BOWERS - Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket. (So here Bowers gives a description of the two men between he and where Elm Street goes DOWN UNDER THE UNDERPASS. Not ON TOP OF THE UNDERPASS, but rather DOWN UNDER THE UNDERPASS. This is the first clue that the men must be on the RR yard side of the fence)

Dale Myers continues on: 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). (Dale Myers clearly says that the two men Bowers described to Mr. Ball were at the west end of the stockade fence. The assassination images show us that clearly no one was on the south side of the fence down by the underpass and Bowers wasn't referring to anyone on the underpass at that time. And I am sure that some of you would like to say that Bowers was talking about the two men who stood at the little concrete banister that ran between the west end of the fence and the underpass, but there are two things wrong with that notion. One is that the banister is not between Bowers and where Elm Street runs DOWN UNDER THE UNDERPASS. No, the banister is between Bowers and the underpass itself. But More importantly, the two men who stood at that Banister were dressed nothing like the two men that Lee Bowers described, so they are not even in the running. So if Bowers isn't describing people on the south side of the fence - and not at the banister - and not on the underpass itself, then what's left??? Answer: THE RR YARD at the west end of the fence between Bowers and where Elm Street goes DOWN UNDER THE UNDERPASS!)

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

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

Dale Myers then writes: It would appear that the two men Bowers was referring to were not accomplices but were simply eyewitnesses who happened to be in close proximity to each other. In fact, over the next few moments, Bowers told Warren Commission counsel Joseph A. Ball that there were a number of eyewitnesses, including police officers, standing on the Triple Overpass nearby. 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. (The underlined text here shows when Bowers went on to describe witnesses ON THE UNDERPASS, which was separate from two men in direct line with Elm Street where it goes DOWN UNDER THE UNDERPASS)

Now ... is anyone lost so far or are you keeping up!

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. (Remember that Bowers had told Mr. Ball that he saw the President's car after it turned the corner of Houston and Elm Street until he lost sight of the limo behind the masonry wall. This is why Bowers was looking in the direction of the east end of the fence)

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, but the very area that some conspiracy theorists claim shots were fired from behind the fence.

Mr. BALL - And when you heard the second and third shot, could you see the car?

Mr. BOWERS - No; at the moment of the shots, I could---I do not think that it was in sight. It came in sight immediately following the last shot.

Mr. BALL - Did you see any activity in this high ground above Elm after the shot?

Mr. BOWERS - At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline.

Mr. BALL - On his motorcycle?

Mr. BOWERS - Yes.

Dale Myers continues by saying: Bowers was under the impression that the motorcycle officer, Clyde A. Haygood, shot all the way up the incline on his motorbike, however, Bowers could not see the south side (or front side) of the fence. Had he been able to see the south side of the fence he would have reported what numerous films and photographs show [see: Trask, Richard B., “Picture of the Pain,” pp.175, 210-11, 333-34, 405, 427] – the motorcycle officer dumped his bike at the foot of Elm street and ran up the incline toward the west end of the fence where photographs show him standing. Bowers described his arrival at the west end of the stockade fence:

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. (The area was described as where the two men were before Bowers started watching the caravan coming into the plaza some 40 - 45 seconds before the shooting ended)

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. (Bowers admits that he had lost track as to where one of the men who was at the west end of the fence had gone to. One must at leaqst contemplate whether or not the lost man was the source for the flash of light and/or the smoke seen on the embankment)

Mr. BALL - When you said there was a commotion, what do you mean by that? What did it look like to you when you were looking at the commotion?

Mr. BOWERS - I just am unable to describe rather than it was something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify. (This is precisely what Bowers was telling Lane when he said that a flash of light and/or smoke was seen on the embankment)

Mr. BALL - You couldn't describe it?

Mr. BOWERS - Nothing that I could pinpoint as having happened that--- (And this was where Lane said to Bowers that he appeared to have been cut off at that moment, so Lane allowed Bowers the chance to finish what he was going to say to the Commission had he gotten the chance. On a personal note I find it hard to swallow that Bowers was immediately drawn to the flash of light and smoke, but didn't the the source for it. I truly believe that if Bowers saw those two things, then he saw the person(s) responsible for it.)

Dale Myers then writes: So here, we have confirmation that the two men Bowers described earlier were standing at the west end of the stockade fence – where Haygood ran to – and not at the east end where some conspiracy buffs claim two men were shooting at Kennedy.

Now who is lost - sure as heck isn't Myers! Someone tell me just what it is again that I didn't get about where the men were that Myers wrote concerning Bowers testimony.

Bill Miller

Edited November 7, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Don Bailey]

A 16 ounce cup of coffee poured out on the sidewalk would create that pattern but if you were to break, smash or drop a bottle of coke it would make a totally different pattern then what you see in the Couch film. Plus, it would leave glass fragments within that area and no witness spoke of stepping on glass when they were on the sidewalk.

So you want to discredit Mulkey because he tasted the blood... how lame is that excuse? Guess you've never heard the saying... "If something smells like ****, tastes like ****, then it's ****!

Coley was threatened and was forced into hiding... whenever a witness is threatened it makes me think they are telling the truth.

Don

Well you see all those people who went up the walkway - right? ....... ask yourself why there were not hoards of witnesses telling of seeing this pool of blood? Flynn took the time to photograph a sack lunch on the bench just a few feet away and yet wouldn't take a photo of a large pool of alleged blood. Why do you think that is??? And it seems to me that if someone stood there and bled that much blood, then there should have been marks of blood from everywhere their foot stepped leading away and yet no mention of it that I have seen.

Bill Miller

Bill,

I know of 4 people that thought it was blood, Coley, Mulkey, Couch and Jean Hill. Although Hill changed her mind, at first she thought it was blood.

"Mrs. HILL - Yes; and I don't think he ever did see me. I Just looked at him and dodged then because I thought his wheel was going to hit me, and I don't think he ever did see me, and I ran across through there and started up the hill. When I looked down on the ground, I mean, as I was running up the hill to catch that man, I looked down and saw some red stuff and I thought, "Oh, they got him, he's bleeding," and this is embarrassing, but it turned out to be Koolade or some sort of red drink."

What made Hill change her mind? Someone convinced her afterwards that it was Kool-Aid or some red drink. It could have been the Secret Service men she spoke with down at the courthouse that afternoon. How many drinks in 1963 looked like blood? Cherry Kool-Aid is out of the question because it's light red. There is no substitute for the look of blood except fake blood.

Were there hoards of people in Dealey Plaza who saw smoke from the GK shooter? Were there hoards of people saying there was blood on the back of the limo or in the street behind the limo? No, it was covered up like most everything that happened that day.

It's sad that no independent researcher has ever interviewed Hudson... do you think he was the person that had to clean up the blood since he was the groundskeeper?

Don

[Miles Scull]

It's sad that no independent researcher has ever interviewed Hudson... do you think he was the person that had to clean up the blood since he was the groundskeeper?

Don

So what you are saying is that Dale Myers says the two men Bowers saw in direct line with the underpass who Dale says were at the west end of the fence - were also on the stairs at the same time - is that right?

Wrong! (But, understandably so.)

Remember what I quoted for you before about "straw man" arguments!

QUOTE

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.

And if Myers says they were on or in the area of the stairs, then how could Bowers have seen them facing the corner of Main and Houston when the caravan entered the plaza? Hudson clearly says that he and the other man was sitting on the steps and then got up and stood on the steps as the caravan came onto Elm Street. It makes absolutely no sense what you are attributing to Dale and I don't believe that Dale is as stupid as you guys are making him out to be.

We are not making out that Dale is lacking, but that someone else is. Who?

So lets look at what Dale Myers writes and I will insert bold text on what I believe Myers is saying and about whom and someone can tell if I am wrong and why I am wrong.

There's a winner.

I will underline the key descriptions.

Dale Myers writes the following:

Five months later, on April 2, 1964, Bowers testified before the Warren Commission, and gave essentially the same testimony he gave police on November 22 – all about three suspicious cars that circled the railroad parking shortly before the shooting. In addition, Bowers provided information about several people standing in the vicinity of the stockade fence. Here is the relevant exchange:

Mr. BALL - Now, were there any people standing on the high side---high ground between your tower and where Elm Street goes down under the underpass toward the mouth of the underpass? (Here Bowers is asked about people that he can see between he and where Elm Street goes DOWN UNDER THE UNDERPASS. Bowers isn't being asked about who is ON THE UNDERPASS - that is a separate matter altogether. Now - we know that Bowers could not describe people down by the curb leading DOWN UNDER THE UNDERPASS ... now don't we! That means that we are only talking about the HIGH GROUND before going onto the underpass. Bowers will get to the people ON THE UNDERPASS shortly)

Mr. BOWERS - Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket. (So here Bowers gives a description of the two men between he and where Elm Street goes DOWN UNDER THE UNDERPASS. Not ON TOP OF THE UNDERPASS, but rather DOWN UNDER THE UNDERPASS. This is the first clue that the men must be on the RR yard side of the fence)

Dale Myers continues on: 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). (Dale Myers clearly says that the two men Bowers described to Mr. Ball were at the west end of the stockade fence. The assassination images show us that clearly no one was on the south side of the fence down by the underpass and Bowers wasn't referring to anyone on the underpass at that time. And I am sure that some of you would like to say that Bowers was talking about the two men who stood at the little concrete banister that ran between the west end of the fence and the underpass, but there are two things wrong with that notion. One is that the banister is not between Bowers and where Elm Street runs DOWN UNDER THE UNDERPASS. No, the banister is between Bowers and the underpass itself. But More importantly, the two men who stood at that Banister were dressed nothing like the two men that Lee Bowers described, so they are not even in the running. So if Bowers isn't describing people on the south side of the fence - and not at the banister - and not on the underpass itself, then what's left??? Answer: THE RR YARD at the west end of the fence between Bowers and where Elm Street goes DOWN UNDER THE UNDERPASS!)

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

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

Dale Myers then writes: It would appear that the two men Bowers was referring to were not accomplices but were simply eyewitnesses who happened to be in close proximity to each other. In fact, over the next few moments, Bowers told Warren Commission counsel Joseph A. Ball that there were a number of eyewitnesses, including police officers, standing on the Triple Overpass nearby. 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. (The underlined text here shows when Bowers went on to describe witnesses ON THE UNDERPASS, which was separate from two men in direct line with Elm Street where it goes DOWN UNDER THE UNDERPASS)

Now ... is anyone lost so far or are you keeping up!

It is an importantant question, indeed. It appears that you are lost.

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. (Remember that Bowers had told Mr. Ball that he saw the President's car after it turned the corner of Houston and Elm Street until he lost sight of the limo behind the masonry wall. This is why Bowers was looking in the direction of the east end of the fence)

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, but the very area that some conspiracy theorists claim shots were fired from behind the fence.

Mr. BALL - And when you heard the second and third shot, could you see the car?

Mr. BOWERS - No; at the moment of the shots, I could---I do not think that it was in sight. It came in sight immediately following the last shot.

Mr. BALL - Did you see any activity in this high ground above Elm after the shot?

Mr. BOWERS - At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline.

Mr. BALL - On his motorcycle?

Mr. BOWERS - Yes.

Dale Myers continues by saying: Bowers was under the impression that the motorcycle officer, Clyde A. Haygood, shot all the way up the incline on his motorbike, however, Bowers could not see the south side (or front side) of the fence. Had he been able to see the south side of the fence he would have reported what numerous films and photographs show [see: Trask, Richard B., “Picture of the Pain,” pp.175, 210-11, 333-34, 405, 427] – the motorcycle officer dumped his bike at the foot of Elm street and ran up the incline toward the west end of the fence where photographs show him standing. Bowers described his arrival at the west end of the stockade fence:

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. (The area was described as where the two men were before Bowers started watching the caravan coming into the plaza some 40 - 45 seconds before the shooting ended)

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. (Bowers admits that he had lost track as to where one of the men who was at the west end of the fence had gone to. One must at leaqst contemplate whether or not the lost man was the source for the flash of light and/or the smoke seen on the embankment)

Mr. BALL - When you said there was a commotion, what do you mean by that? What did it look like to you when you were looking at the commotion?

Mr. BOWERS - I just am unable to describe rather than it was something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify. (This is precisely what Bowers was telling Lane when he said that a flash of light and/or smoke was seen on the embankment)

Mr. BALL - You couldn't describe it?

Mr. BOWERS - Nothing that I could pinpoint as having happened that--- (And this was where Lane said to Bowers that he appeared to have been cut off at that moment, so Lane allowed Bowers the chance to finish what he was going to say to the Commission had he gotten the chance. On a personal note I find it hard to swallow that Bowers was immediately drawn to the flash of light and smoke, but didn't the the source for it. I truly believe that if Bowers saw those two things, then he saw the person(s) responsible for it.)

Dale Myers then writes: So here, we have confirmation that the two men Bowers described earlier were standing at the west end of the stockade fence – where Haygood ran to – and not at the east end where some conspiracy buffs claim two men were shooting at Kennedy.

Now who is lost - sure as heck isn't Myers!

You are correct. You are lost, not Myers.

Someone tell me just what it is again that I didn't get about where the men were that Myers wrote concerning Bowers testimony.

Do not ever forget, as I tried to point out to you repeatedly:

Forget Myers.

Bowers is the PRIME SOURCE.

Since Bowers knew the individuals north of the fence & those over by the steam pipe or in line with the mouth of the underpass,

then the two men, whom he did NOT know but whom he saw, must have been located in the area of the stairs, just as Bowers says they were.

There is no getting around that, just as if you smell an animal & wonder what it is, then you must check to see if there is anyone else in the room.

If you are alone, then you are smelling yourself, to your great surprise & enlightenment! -

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I know of 4 people that thought it was blood, Coley, Mulkey, Couch and Jean Hill. Although Hill changed her mind, at first she thought it was blood.

I knew Jean Hill personally and she told me that it wasn't blood. I'll explain why I believed her as we go.

What made Hill change her mind? Someone convinced her afterwards that it was Kool-Aid or some red drink. It could have been the Secret Service men she spoke with down at the courthouse that afternoon. How many drinks in 1963 looked like blood? Cherry Kool-Aid is out of the question because it's light red. There is no substitute for the look of blood except fake blood.

So let us re-think what you just said. Jean still claimed there were more than three shots. Jean still maintained that a man fired from the fence. Jean always maintained that someone forced her to go with them to be interviewed and then brow beaten about the number of shots that she had heard. Jean always maintained that there was a conspiracy. And so it is your position that she was scared into not saying that she saw blood ... now do you not see how little sense that makes!

As I said before, for a pool of blood to have gotten as large as the wet spot seen on the walkway, there would have been an enormous amount of blood loss that would have had to take place. The victims clothing would have been noticeable soaked in blood and at least the foot on the wounded side where the blood ran down onto the ground would have been leaving tracks much like someone did at Nicole's Brown Simpson's address in the OJ case.

Were there hoards of people in Dealey Plaza who saw smoke from the GK shooter?

The smoke came through the trees and only hung there for a couple of seconds before dissipating. That is a bit different from a pool of liquid that remained on the sidewalk while half of the plaza paraded passed it.

Were there hoards of people saying there was blood on the back of the limo or in the street behind the limo? No, it was covered up like most everything that happened that day.

I have to question how much thought you actually put into the things you say. Droplets of blood spray on a dark blue limo racing out of Dealey Plaza in your mind is the same as a stationary pool of liquid seen on a light colored sidewalk where people could walk by and observe it for as long as they wished - you must be joking!

It's sad that no independent researcher has ever interviewed Hudson... do you think he was the person that had to clean up the blood since he was the groundskeeper?

If he had to clean any liquid off the sidewalk - his son (William) never mentioned it to me. And Flynn who took the photograph of the park bench just a few feet away didn't mention it either, or take a photo of it.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Wrong! (But, understandably so.)

Remember what I quoted for you before about "straw man" arguments!

QUOTE

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 amisleading 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.

We are not making out that Dale is lacking, but that someone else is. Who?

There's a winner.

It is an importantant question, indeed. It appears that you are lost.

You are correct. You are lost, not Myers.

Do not ever forget, as I tried to point out to you repeatedly:

Forget Myers.

Bowers is the PRIME SOURCE.

Since Bowers knew the individuals north of the fence & those over by the steam pipe or in line with the mouth of the underpass,

then the two men, whom he did NOT know but whom he saw, must have been located in the area of the stairs, just as Bowers says they were.

There is no getting around that, just as if you smell an animal & wonder what it is, then you must check to see if there is anyone else in the room.

If you are alone, then you are smelling yourself, to your great surprise & enlightenment! -

Miles,

I took the time to carefully and systematically go over what Dale Myers posted concerning Bowers testimony and what he meant by it. I then asked for someone to tell me where I was wrong on these points and why. All I got out of you is the same old say-nothing blow-hard response in the quote above. I must say that the moderator that said the following sure had your number ....

"Like I have said before, I am quite sure, Miles' goal here is not to engage in true JFK assassination debate, ............................ (at times he sticks to rather insignificant minute details, and argues about these for pages and pages)."

So xxxxx on, Miles. You are the author of your own record as to whether you will be viewed as a serious researcher or just some clown who is here to screw around.

Bill Miller

Edited November 7, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Bill, with respect, I don't think it's fair that you should be quoting comments by mods who contact you privately with an opinion of another member's ethics and objectives. It has however brought something to my attention a concern which I think needs addressed. This private opinionated communication by a mod to you, in my opinion, shows a bias in your favour by that particular mod, who has the power to approve or deny any post submited by the discussed member concerned, ie Miles.

FWIW...Duncan

And for what it is worth to you, Duncan, moderators are also researchers who have an interest in the JFK assassination debate. That comment that you are concerned about came from one of several moderators who have gotten after me for something I have written in the past, so their bias so far has been pretty equally dispersed in accordance with the forum rules. I have never heard Miles complain that he actually posted evidence to support is claims only to have a moderator remove any part of it. Until that time comes, then there should be no concerns by anyone. And if that time should ever come that a moderator ever removes actual JFK research from someone's post such as Miles, then I'd be against them doing so.

I hope this has made sense to you for I am sure it will to everyone else.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

Bill, with respect, I don't think it's fair that you should be quoting comments by mods who contact you privately with an opinion of another member's ethics and objectives. It has however brought something to my attention a concern which I think needs addressed. This private opinionated communication by a mod to you, in my opinion, shows a bias in your favour by that particular mod, who has the power to approve or deny any post submited by the discussed member concerned, ie Miles.

FWIW...Duncan

I hope this has made sense to you for I am sure it will to everyone else. -

Bill

I must say that the moderator that said the following sure had your number ....

"Like I have said before, I am quite sure, Miles' goal here is not to engage in true JFK assassination debate, ............................ (at times he sticks to rather insignificant minute details, and argues about these for pages and pages)."

So xxxxx on, Miles. You are the author of your own record as to whether you will be viewed as a serious researcher or just some clown who is here to screw around.

Bill Miller

Bill, with respect, I don't think it's fair that you should be quoting comments by mods who contact you privately with an opinion of another member's ethics and objectives. It has however brought something to my attention a concern which I think needs addressed. This private opinionated communication by a mod to you, in my opinion, shows a bias in your favour by that particular mod, who has the power to approve or deny any post submited by the discussed member concerned, ie Miles.

FWIW...Duncan

Of course, you are right, Duncan.

I have not thought it worth the time to bother with this petty silliness, this obvious connivance by a moderator with a forum member & the concomitant indecent betrayal by Miller of an apparent confidence shown privately to Miller by this moderator.

Laughably, I considered that Miller had made this up & that this colluding moderator was just a bogus invention of Miller's. Ha!

Now, that you raise the question, Duncan, maybe, since Miller keeps bringing his moderator hireling up more & more frequently, it might be appropriate to pop the obvious question:

Who exactly is this ghost moderator?

[Alan Healy]

Now who is lost - sure as heck isn't Myers! Someone tell me just what it is again that I didn't get about where the men were that Myers wrote concerning Bowers testimony.

Your simply ignoring what came later, IMO just to make argument for you nothing better to do.

Have you read what Dale said about you?

I wonder, because if you didn't get to the part where he refers to the RTJ transcript you may not of seen it.

Anyway keep reading, you'll get to it eventually.

From that August news page you keep quoting from;

While the transcripts make it clear that the two men Bowers told the Warren Commission about in 1964 were in fact standing at the east end of the stockade fence, just as Mack stated in The Men Who Killed Kennedy – a fact, by the way, that is diametrically opposed to what Bowers told the Commission...

You see what happened now?

He/we saw the transcripts & moved the men to the east end of the fence because the Lane interview gave more detail than "the mouth of the underpass".

The Mark Lane interview & what Myers said & is still saying about it after getting access to the transcripts is after all what started this whole thing in the first place & Miles has seen them too, so he's in a better position than most.

To ignore the transcripts now(even the portions you & I have seen) is just plain crazy.

You are ignoring the transcript then running around with your hands in the air shouting "I'm not confused" like a child.

If we all ignored what was said to Mark Lane like you, then there is no issue to discuss.

[Alan Healy]

Bill,

Chri's gif was stabilized.

That's the only reason I managed to notice the downward movement of the cap I think.

Miles must of been studying it harder for he noticed the same movement before Chris posted his gif.

I've uploaded a slightly smaller version.

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...nZ405toZ414.gif

The reason the head is moving left to right is because Hudson is going down.

Going down & turning left.

Regardless,

if the only importance of this is that you don't want to admit a mistake, then I'll waste no more time on it.

Alan,

What you are saying is interesting and I will be happy to create a more stabilized version of the frames in question. In fact, I would like to go back a few more when I know Hudson is on the Nix film and see if I cannot pick up on him so to see his head and the direction it is pointing when he is looking over his shoulder at the limo. I also think that if he is starting to go down, then that is a telling find that supports his statement. And so you know ... my finding that it was Hudson seen through the pyracantha bush was the importance of what I did because until then it was Groden who had claimed this person to possibly be one of the assassins. The direction his head was facing was irrelevant to me, but it was the left to right movement of his head moving in correlation with the limo is why I had maintained that he was facing the car. I look forward to making a longer stabilized clip and posting it. That I can promise.

Bill

[Ken Rheberg]

Thanks Ken but it's okay, honestly,

I see the bias don't worry & I've also seen "Beyond Conspiracy" I know who Dale Myers is.

However, how can you know for a fact that Lane didn't ask Bowers to mark something unless you've read the full transcript?

Also,

I personally think what Bowers told Lane is different & I'm not being led by anyone, I'm just going by the snippets of the transcript I have read.

In the transcript he is talking about the east end of the fence in my opinion & this opinion is shared by everyone who's spoke about it thus far(that's only a handful granted) but if you see something different please explain when you get time.

"This happened only one way"....... I agree Dale....... just..... not your way.

Miles,

Ken brought up a great point so I have to ask you.

Did Lane ever ask Bowers to mark a map or photo for where the two men he was talking about were?

Is it in the transcript Miles?

Alan,

Lane never did ask Bowers to mark anything. If it could have helped Lane's case, you can bet he would have had Bowers mark where the two men were standing. Like he had James Simmons mark where he saw the smoke appear by the picket fence. Instead, while Bowers is talking, a photo of the picket fence area fills the screen with a large white "X" marking the spot where I'm sure Lane wanted us to believe the two men were standing. It coincides with Simmons' mark.

Dale Myers was right on this. Lane was leading us along by the nose. Bowers never said or indicated any such thing.

Myers was correct in his conclusions about Bowers' WC testimony with regards to the location of the two men. But with the exception of the above assessment of Lane, when Myers gets to the Lane interview, he lets his bias get in the way.

Obvious bias usually is evident when analysis of an opposing argument is coupled with a scornful, derisive, almost loathing reference to not just one person on the other side but the entire group no matter how large. It's always a red flag for me when I see this kind of treatment. Posner and Bugliosi come quickly to mind. Myers does the same thing once he gets to the Lane interview.

Inspite of what Myers tries to prove, the Lane interview AGREES with Bowers' WC testimony. Myers is so eager to prove that no one was behind the picket fence that his objectivity goes out the window.

When I get a chance, I'll revisit my prior post on this subject. And, if I have the time, I'll break down Myers' initially honest but ultimately biased analysis.

Ken

Alan,

You said:

"However, how can you know for a fact that Lane didn't ask Bowers to mark something unless you've read the full transcript?. . . I'm just going by the snippets of the transcript I have read."

And you're right. How can we know without having the full transcript?

**So I'm asking whoever has access to the complete transcript to post it in its entirety or, at least, to identify where it can be located.**

Miles has attached selected pages from it in this thread, so I would expect feedback of some sort from him fairly soon. I'll check back tonight to see what we've come up with. If nothing, I'll make note of it and proceed from there.

Ken