On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Miles Scull]

Didn't Jimmy Files claim he was wearing a red plaid shirt? (reversible, as I recall)

Jack

Jack,

All this about plaid reminded me of Files too---exactly what I was thinkin'!!! But I think he had a plaid coat, and was supposed to have reversed it to the gray side after his "did his deed."

This, plus the fact that someone had mentioned a 17y/o "average height" earlier, made me wonder when his name was gonna show up.

Kathy

Miles, It's a good "go for it" but I'm afraid it's an unwinnable argument. It's just not provable, although you present a fairly good argument. My question to you is can't you continue with whatever you were going to do with this information, and leave it to the reader to decide??

Hi Kathy,

Welcome back!

You seemed to disappear into thin air. Wow.

I thought something was wrong with you.

Anyway, you're back! Great!

I'm afraid that I do not understand your question. What information?

The information is contained here: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm

Have you read this?

Watcha think?

[Bill Miller]

That's only Jack's opinion. I would be interested in seeing his enhancements, however.

Until the proof is produced, then it is logically correct to say that the photos do NOT show that the red shirt is NOT PLAID. Bowers was & is correct.

Keep the foolish responses coming Miles ... I just love it!!! And so to keep your statement at least somewhat valid and not totally deceptive ... you should have said that the images that you have chosen to use or have at your disposal do not show that the shirt isn't plaid. That would be equivalent to someone saying that if you use a poor enough image, then you can't say that the shirt was not plaid. However, the original Towner slides are at the Museum and that information has been posted numerous times now, so you just keep telling people that as long as they look at the crap images you have that no one can dispute what you are saying. (I just love it!!!)

Let me ask you this question ... now that you have been told about the original Towner slides and where to see them ... have you made any attempt to take a trip there? Have you made any attempt to contact Jones Harris? Have you made any attempt to contact Mark Lane? It seems that so far that all you have had time for is to try and fool people into thinking that Bowers said that the man in the plaid shirt or jacket was wearing red. So tell us why it is you have so much time to write responses designed to mislead other researchers, but no time to actually make the needed contacts so to get the facts straight??

The point is this:

Bowers says that he saw a man is a white shirt & a man in a Plaid shirt, not in a Blue or Green or Black or a Poka Dot or a Yellow shirt.

Bowers says Plaid.

The preponderance of the evidence is that Bowers saw a young man in a red shirt that Bowers called a plaid shirt.

Before I say anything else ... tell this forum how Bowers saw that the man on the steps had on a white shirt when the man's back was to the tower?

Of course, it is quite true that Bowers may not have seen, strictly speaking, a plaid shirt.

Let me see if I have this right ....... Bowers DID NOT say anything about seeing the plaid shirt or jacketed man wearing 'red', but you figure that he meant to say 'red plaid' shirt or jacket. Bowers DID say "plaid" shirt or jacket and you want to consider that Bowers never saw plaid design at all. (I just love this stuff!!!) So what is this about now, Miles - you laying the groundwork for when and if you go to the 6th Floor Museum to see that the red shirted guy had no plaid on his person, then you can say that Bowers probably never saw plaid at all.

But, then there was a young man in a red shirt in the exact area where Bowers was looking & he, Bowers, may have mistook this red shirt as a plaid shirt, as a red plaid shirt.

Mr. Ball established with Bowers early on in his testimony the difference between what they called the high ground Vs. Elm Street. The "high ground" was the ground elevation that the tower was sitting on.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I think the meaning of what Bowers said is quite clear. From his window

he could SEE OVER THE TOP OF THE WOODEN FENCE and he could NOT

SEE ANYONE ABOVE THE TOP OF THE FENCE on its south side. The fence

is five feet tall, so he could not see anyone shorter than that or sitting, but

could see anyone STANDING NEAR THE FENCE. If they were downslope from the

fence he could not see them, of course.

Jack

Your entitled to your opinion but like I pointed out what he actually said is impossible.

He could not see the south side of the fence.

I think he meant to say "north".

Isn't that just as reasonable, if not more so?

Jack is actually correct, but why not ... he knows the area around the fence well enough to talk intelligently about it. I also see that once again you misstate the facts. Bowers never said that he could 'see the south side of the fence' ... what Bowers said was that had anyone been near the fence, he would have seen enough of them had they been standing up near the south side of the fence.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

I'm certainly convinced Hudson & Co are in the right place for the RTJ description, that he said two men & not three is an insignificant triviality.

Exactly so, Alan,

Well put.

The overarching & ineluctable truth is that Bowers' newly revealed testimony (Myers) puts the two men Bowers saw at the locus of the steps.

All of this crying by Miller about the red shirt, was it plaid or not, smacks of a effort at diversion. Same thing with the unseen & unsee-able scans.

Maybe the mythical super scans are in the Weitzman Report?

You know, tail between legs & puppy yelping is this forced nonsense.

[Bill Miller]

"Now, I could see back or the south side of the wooden fence in the area.....".

This has been my point the whole time.

Bowers could not see the south side of the fence so it's reasonable to conclude he made a slip.

Anyone ever reading your replies cannot help but notice that besides spelling problems - your use of the English language is not all that great. In your quote ... you left off the rest of what Bowers said that would give a reasonably intelligent person a hint as what he was saying. If you read it all carefully - Bowers wasn't talking about being able to see if anyone painted a picture on the south side of the fence, but rather that he could see over the top of the fence enough to know that had someone been standing right there (as if to assist an assassin on the RR yard side of it), then he felt that he would have seen them. In 45 years no one had ever been unable to follow Bowers answer, but now we have a select few who are trying to get people to also look uneducated.

Here is Mark Lane's address and telephone number ... I assume it is OK to post it for its a matter of public record that anyone with an ounce of desire and sincere desire to put to rest where Bowers told Lane where the two men were located. Maybe between you and Miles - you guys can come up with enough money to give him a call. Lane would also probably have copies of the de' antonio interview.

Mark Lane

2523 BRUNSWICK RD

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903

(434) 293-9013

Bill Miller

Edited September 18, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

You know, tail between legs & puppy yelping is this forced nonsense.

Thanks for the compliment, Miles. If I understand you right ... are you saying that at least one of us has room between his legs to put his tail if need be?

Bill Miller

Edited September 18, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

You know, tail between legs & puppy yelping is this forced nonsense.

Thanks for the compliment, Miles. If I understand you right ... are you saying that at least one of us has room between his legs to put his tail if need be?

Bill Miller

No, I'm saying, with Alan, that you have no legs, i.e. no leg to stand on.

Just as you promised Duncan to scale GI Joe, you reneged.

Just as you promised to produce the apocryphal Weitzman Report, you reneged.

Just as you said the WC held photos of Bowers' view of the fence, you never produced them.

Just as Alan has asked you repeatedly to produce evidence of your claims re Bowers saying he could see the south side of the fence, you have not produce any evidence.

So,

Now you are claiming that your position is confirmed by unsee-able scans at the 6th Floor Museum.

Now, as usual, you are demanding that others do the research you fail to do yourself to prove your own assertions.

And, you make the preposterous claim that since others will not do the research you fail to do to prove your own position, that since they do not accede to your demand that they do your work FOR YOU, that THAT alone proves that you are right.

Is there a very large screw loose somewhere?

Edited September 18, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

The problem here is that were Bill to say Mark Lane said this or stated that, would you believe him?

Correct, Kathy. Miles or Alan would then claim that it was hearsay and should not be considered as evidence ... all the while telling us all the wording changes Miles made that was never said by the witnesses is considered circumstantial evidence. I am so glad this stuff is archived because one day I may open a web page detailing the inconsistencies, the record number misstatements of facts, and the deceitfulness that Miles infiltrated into this topic. And the beauty of it all will be that the forum rules won't apply to what I say in the piece.

Now, as you must be aware, if Miles or Alan were to contact Lane or Harris and it was discovered that there were other witnesses, possibly marks on an aerial photo, or any other remarks that discredits all the stupid crap Miles and Alan have been saying - they know the best thing for them to do is to NOT pick up the phone and call Mark Lane or even Jones Harris for that matter. I hope the members of this forum insist that these two actually follow-up with the contacts and if they do not, then it is their reputations that they will be tarnishing. The best will be yet to come!!!

Bill

[Bill Miller]

No, I'm saying, with Alan, that you have no legs, i.e. no leg to stand on.

Just as you promised Duncan to scale GI Joe, you reneged.

Maybe in your eyes I have no legs, Miles, but you guys are quickly becoming the butt end of jokes in the research community with this nonsense. And so you know ... I have scaled Gordon Arnold to the figure in the Moorman photo and I think I posted that I had done this, but wanted to be certain about the aspect ratio. I also believe that Duncan posted as well saying that he too, thought that holding off and making sure it was done correctly was more important to him than putting up rushed illustrations that were little more than garbage. As far as the "GI JOE" foolishness ... about everyone but you has moved on from that erred illustration.

Just as you promised to produce the apocryphal Weitzman Report, you reneged.

Miles, if you keep saying this, then I will have to ask Simkin to reconsider the 'not calling someone a xxxx rule'. You have consistently misstated this matter in spite of it being brought to your attention over and over again. I said that I believed that I read in the 26 Volumes a report that referenced Weitzman being told that there was something seen tossed behind the fence over near the steam-pipe. I went on to say that I will need to get back to my office and go over my files and notes to see where this reference came from and if I found that I was mistaken, then I would be the first to post the error.

Now I am going to save this response and refer to it in the future when you attempt to misstate the facts once again. When I have free time, I may even go back and gather up all the other responses I did where I said the same thing just to show the pattern of trolling and baiting that you feel necessary to force upon this forum. God I love archived threads!

Just as you said the WC held photos of Bowers' view of the fence, you never produced them.

In response to the other times you have said this - I posted that the FBI took photos of the RR yard from the tower. I had learned this through Gary Mack a long time ago. This was done during the time the Commission was investigating JFK's assassination. I also told you this stuff should be in the National Archives and like you won't do by calling Jones Harris or Mark Lane ... you get off your @$$ and research this stuff. Instead you bless this forum with say-nothing trolled responses. Remember, your reputation as a researchers falls and/or rises on what you are able to contribute and the amount of effort you put into attempting to get to the truth. You are the only one who creates that record.

Just as Alan has asked you repeatedly to produce evidence of your claims re Bowers saying he could see the south side of the fence, you have not produce any evidence.

I not only corrected your constant misstating what Bowers had said by pointing out that he was not saying he could see the south side of the fence, but rather he said he could have seen someone had they been up near the fence assisting one of the two men he had described seeing. And once again I will remind the forum members that you were given the name of two of the people who could tell you why they believed Bowers saw two men behind the fence. The latter name was not only supplied to you, but also his address and phone number. I guess you are waiting for me to give you the dime to make the call, but I'm afraid that if you are to convince anyone that you are sincere about all this ... you really should do the last part yourself.

Now you are claiming that your position is confirmed by unsee-able scans at the 6th Floor Museum.

I think you've been twisting and misstating peoples statements for so long - that it has become a habit with you. The scans can be viewed by anyone who wishes to make an appointment and go look at them. This too, has been posted several times now and you either don't want to understand what is being said or you are incapable of understanding it. Either way, I will be happy to correct you every time you wish to mislead the forum members by misstating the facts.

Now, as usual, you are demanding that others do the research you fail to do yourself to prove your own assertions.

Well, I have referenced where to find the materials and I have said that Gary Mack viewed them and said he could not see any design pattern on the red shirted man's clothing. I believe that you replied that you needed to see them yourself, so that is what you need to do. You refuse to call people who interviewed Bowers and you seemingly are not interested in looking at the Towner original slides. Like I said before - you are the master of your own reputation as a serious researcher.

And, you make the preposterous claim that since others will not do the research you fail to do to prove your own position, that since they do not accede to your demand that they do your work FOR YOU, that THAT alone proves that you are right.

You say the dumbest things. It's like me telling you that the National Archives has the original Zapruder film there and then you come back saying that its up to me to prove it and you do it after already being on record saying that you don't accept hearsay, but rather you need to see the proof with your own eyes. I gave you researchers names ... I have provided you with at least one individuals address and phone number. Is there some reason - other than purposely avoiding not to - that you cannot make the call so to hear the information first hand? When I look back at all the responses you have given that was pure say-nothing foolishness - I have to wonder why that time could not have been better spent with you making those contacts???

Bill Miller

Edited September 19, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

No, I'm saying, with Alan, that you have no legs, i.e. no leg to stand on.

Just as you promised Duncan to scale GI Joe, you reneged.

Just as you promised to produce the apocryphal Weitzman Report, you reneged.

Just as you said the WC held photos of Bowers' view of the fence, you never produced them.

Just as Alan has asked you repeatedly to produce evidence of your claims re Bowers saying he could see the south side of the fence, you have not produce any evidence.

So,

Now you are claiming that your position is confirmed by unsee-able scans at the 6th Floor Museum.

Now, as usual, you are demanding that others do the research you fail to do yourself to prove your own assertions.

And, you make the preposterous claim that since others will not do the research you fail to do to prove your own position, that since they do not accede to your demand that they do your work FOR YOU, that THAT alone proves that you are right.

Is there a very large screw loose somewhere?

The problem here is that were Bill to say Mark Lane said this or stated that, would you believe him?

The problem here is that were Bill to say Mark Lane said this or stated that, would you believe him?

Good point, Kathy!

However, I think, Kathy, that if you consider something which you may have overlooked then you will notice a problem.

Did you read Miller's post # 77 of this thread?

Here it is:

QUOTE

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

As you can see, Bill has posted, not for the first time, a message from an anonymous source, which supports his position.

Notice anything?

Right.

The source of this quote is not cited.

Is the source Miller, himself? Did Miller write this message himself to himself?

We don't know, do we?

Well, this is the problem.

Now, Miller has made some assertions which Alan & I do not think are valid or provable.

So, Duncan, Alan or I say OK Miller where is the evidence for your claim? Please produce some proof for your assertion.

Miller, in reply, says: "No, you find the evidence & proof for my assertions?"

But, there is a trick here, Kathy.

Miller knows, before hand, that it will prove impossible for anyone to find the alleged proof or evidence for Millers' assertions, because the proof & the evidence is not there.

Thus, Miller neatly avoids the problem of providing evidence & proof, which does not exist.

Now, Kathy, you ask the question:

The problem here is that were Bill to say Mark Lane said this or stated that, would you believe him?

Very good point!

Here's the answer:

If Miller calls Mark Lane & obtains a QUOTE from Lane which Miller actually cites as Lane's QUOTE, then we MUST believe Miller.

If we don't, then we can call Lane & ask Lane for confirmation.

Why does Miller not call Lane himself?

I submit that Miller knows that Lane will not say anything which will support or confirm Miller's claims.

Miller knows this & does what?

Surprise?

So, to avoid the embarrassment of seeing his own assertions collapse from lack of proof or evidence, Miller does what?

Miller demands that other members do the work of proving Miller's own assertions & claims.

Neat trick, huh?

I probably would not complain about this Miller trick, because it is laughably silly, except for one thing.

What's that?

Well, Miller, incredibly, announces to the forum readers:

If others will not do my research for me, as I demand that they do, in order to prove my own assertions FOR ME, then that proves that my assertions are valid.

Well, of course, this is preposterous nonsense, isn't it, Kathy? But, Kathy, is it worse than that? -

BTW, Kathy, it's nice to see you participating on the forum, making good points!

Edited September 19, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Alan Healy]

"Now, I could see back or the south side of the wooden fence in the area.....".

This has been my point the whole time.

Bowers could not see the south side of the fence so it's reasonable to conclude he made a slip.

Anyone ever reading your replies cannot help but notice that besides spelling problems - your use of the English language is not all that great. In your quote ... you left off the rest of what Bowers said that would give a reasonably intelligent person a hint as what he was saying. If you read it all carefully - Bowers wasn't talking about being able to see if anyone painted a picture on the south side of the fence, but rather that he could see over the top of the fence enough to know that had someone been standing right there (as if to assist an assassin on the RR yard side of it), then he felt that he would have seen them. In 45 years no one had ever been unable to follow Bowers answer, but now we have a select few who are trying to get people to also look uneducated.

Here is Mark Lane's address and telephone number ... I assume it is OK to post it for its a matter of public record that anyone with an ounce of desire and sincere desire to put to rest where Bowers told Lane where the two men were located. Maybe between you and Miles - you guys can come up with enough money to give him a call. Lane would also probably have copies of the de' antonio interview.

Mark Lane

2523 BRUNSWICK RD

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903

(434) 293-9013

Bill Miller

You don't not know how to quote evidence.

Most people know that, to gain any amount of respect, that's what you must do.

I quoted the evidence but you, in your crazy way of thinking assume you can put words in Bowers mouth & we'll all believe that's what Bowers said.

Your special I guess.

My advice, find another hobby, I don't think you have the first clue about presenting evidence.

Now, I could see back or the south side of the wooden fence in the area....

Bowers never said he could see the south side of the fence

What kind of person claims that a witness did not say something that is already a matter of record?

The special kind obviously.

Your not fit to talk about this evidence with your mentality.

Go see a shrink. Fast.

Edited September 22, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Bill Miller]

As you can see, Bill has posted, not for the first time, a message from an anonymous source, which supports his position.

Notice anything?

Right.

The source of this quote is not cited.

Is the source Miller, himself? Did Miller write this message himself to himself?

We don't know, do we?

Well, this is the problem.

Now, Miller has made some assertions which Alan & I do not think are valid or provable.

So, Duncan, Alan or I say OK Miller where is the evidence for your claim? Please produce some proof for your assertion.

Miller, in reply, says: "No, you find the evidence & proof for my assertions?"

It is said that the difference between a wise man and a stupid man is that the wise man will eventually see when he was wrong where the stupid man will not. Just so you know, Miles ... I save my messages and who they were from. If you would like for me to forward them to someone like Kathy, who will not cite who they are from, but can verify that they are legit, then that is OK with me.

As far as your misleading line saying, "No, you find the evidence & proof for my assertions?", I gave you the names and even the information so to make the contact so YOU would know for sure that the information was valid. Unless you feel that you wouldn't even trust yourself to know if you were hearing these people correctly - I see no reason for you not doing what any serious researcher would do. You have time to make more non-responsive post and yet not time to make a phone call or write a letter. Most long distant companies charge less than ten cents a minute for long distance calls ... five munutes should be enough time for you to ask about Bowers and get your answer. That means you spend fifty cents for the call .... what is that in terms that you can understand .... How about my putting it this way - that means that if you buy one less doughnut - you have just come up with the money for the call. See, problem solved!

As I have already said - you are the author of how your own reputation as a serious researcher will read.

But, there is a trick here, Kathy.

Miller knows, before hand, that it will prove impossible for anyone to find the alleged proof or evidence for Millers' assertions.

Thus, Miller neatly avoids the problem of providing evidence & proof, which does not exist.

If you believed what you said to be true, Miles, then who among us would not think that you'd not jump at the chance to show that to be the case. The information I had gathered was that these interviewers first spoke to Bowers to see if they could get an interview with him. They went over the things they would want to know ... found out whether the witness had anything to offer ... and then carried out the interview by documenting the witness such as in the case with Mark Lane and De Antonio. I find it quite odd that you claim the evidence does not exist, but yet you have not done a single thing to validate such a comment. Maybe it is YOU who this time is speaking in code language. I guess that when you say that the evidence and proof do not exist - what you mean is that as long as you refuse to make the contacts that were handed to you on a silver platter, then you can continue to claim the evidence and proof do not exist. Again, you are the author of how your own reputation as a serious researcher will read.

If Miller calls Mark Lane & obtains a QUOTE from Lane which Miller actually cites as Lane's QUOTE, then we MUST believe Miller.

If we don't, then we can call Lane & ask Lane for confirmation.

I think you have finally seen the light, but not intentionally. You have already posted what you believe to be the definition of hearsay and how you need to hear and see things for yourself. This is just why YOU must stop the trolling long enough to make that simple call.

Why does Miller not call Lane himself?

I submit that Miller knows that Lane will not say anything which will support or confirm Miller's claims.

Miller knows this & does what?

Surprise?

So, to avoid the embarrassment of seeing his own assertions collapse from lack of proof or evidence Miller does what?

Miller demands that other members do the work of proving Miller's own assertions & claims.

How do you know that I do not already know what Mark will say and that I am just insisting on you hearing what I already know ... but of course I believe that this is exactly why you have no intentions of getting the information straight from the horses mouth so-to-speak.

Bill Miller

Edited September 19, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

And, you make the preposterous claim that since others will not do the research you fail to do to prove your own position, that since they do not accede to your demand that they do your work FOR YOU, that THAT alone proves that you are right.

Is there a very large screw loose somewhere?

First off, thank you Miles,

your one hundred percent correct, this man is not playing with a full deck.

Let's keep reminding ourselves of that.

The problem here is that were Bill to say Mark Lane said this or stated that, would you believe him?

No Kathy, I would not believe anything he brought back from a witness unless it was on tape & we could verify the voice. The man twists everything to his own preconceived ideas, I have been witness to this over the last four years. Everything new he finds, supports his theories, EVERYTHING.

If he gets an answer that does not compliment his version he does not report it.

That is Bill Miller.

Twisted.

[Alan Healy]

The problem here is that were Bill to say Mark Lane said this or stated that, would you believe him?

Correct, Kathy. Miles or Alan would then claim that it was hearsay and should not be considered as evidence ... all the while telling us all the wording changes Miles made that was never said by the witnesses is considered circumstantial evidence. I am so glad this stuff is archived because one day I may open a web page detailing the inconsistencies, the record number misstatements of facts, and the deceitfulness that Miles infiltrated into this topic. And the beauty of it all will be that the forum rules won't apply to what I say in the piece.

Now, as you must be aware, if Miles or Alan were to contact Lane or Harris and it was discovered that there were other witnesses, possibly marks on an aerial photo, or any other remarks that discredits all the stupid crap Miles and Alan have been saying - they know the best thing for them to do is to NOT pick up the phone and call Mark Lane or even Jones Harris for that matter. I hope the members of this forum insist that these two actually follow-up with the contacts and if they do not, then it is their reputations that they will be tarnishing. The best will be yet to come!!!

Bill

You talk so much stupid crap its's hard for anyone with a life to keep track.

Harris's work does not put the men behind the fence, it puts them at the classic gunman position in NIX.

Go ask him if you don't believe me.

I'm really surprised Gary did not tell you this.

Bowers told the same thing to Harris, Lane & de Antonio that is his lasting legacy which you are taking a dump on.

You must twist & shout a lot when you sleep.

Edited September 22, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Bill Miller]

No Kathy, I would not believe anything he brought back from a witness unless it was on tape & we could verify the voice. The man twists everything to his own preconceived ideas, I have been witness to this over the last four years. Everything new he finds, supports his theories, EVERYTHING.

If he gets an answer that does not compliment his version he does not report it.

That is Bill Miller.

Twisted.

Alan,

You are another one who if you believed what you said to be true, then you'd of called these contacts if for no other reason than to make me look foolish - yet you and Miles seem to be avoiding contacting these people. You say I'm twisting the information to suit my belief ... how twisted was the contact information that I gave you???

There has been so much grandstanding by you guys because it was you who started with the belief and worked your way backwards. Bowers referenced different areas of the plaza so there would be no confusion as to what he was talking about, but you have become so rabid and focused on not being wrong that you have failed to see these things. For instance ...

HIGH GROUND: This is the ground that would be on the same level as the RR tower. Such a reference can be found in Lee Bowers testimony before the Commisssion.

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?

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

INCLINE: this is the ground between the High Ground and Elm Street. Lee Bowers also referenced this area.

Mr. BALL - Afterwards did a good many people come up there on this high ground at the tower?

Mr. BOWERS - A large number of people came, more than one direction. One group converged from the corner of Elm and Houston, and came down the extension of Elm and came into the high ground, and another line another large group went across the triangular area between Houston and Elm and then across Elm and then up the incline. Some of them all the way up. Many of them did, as well as, of course, between 50 and a hundred policemen within a maximum of 5 minutes.

Another reference to the "INCLINE": 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.

Bowers separated what he called the 'high ground' from the 'incline' and neither you or Miles has stopped long enough to see this. Hudson and the men on the steps were east of the fence and on the incline. People from Weisberg - to Garrison - to Thompson - to Groden - to White and Mack, and etc., have known the difference between what was called the 'high ground' and the 'incline'. Bowers certainly knew the difference and referenced as much in his testimony to Mr. Ball. Dale Myers seems to have missed this point, as well as Miles and yourself and that is why you guys are a small minority. The blind leading the blind might be the best way to say it. I'm not going to try and convince you of anything, but rather I will post these observations and opinions for all to see in the years to come and they can make up their own minds. It is up to you to admit when you were wrong.

You have the contact information for Mark Lane and a web search will find Jones Harris and probably De Antonio, so how serious are you over this matter???

Bill Miller

Edited September 19, 2007 by Bill Miller