On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Bill Miller]

You talk so much bollocks 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.

See response #111

Bill

[Miles Scull]

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.

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.

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

OK! Finally!

I thought that you never would agree.

Now , you are committing to call Lane & Jones Harris.

Great! I knew you were a man.

We will await the results & hope that you are vindicated. Doesn't look good, though.

Meanwhile Bowers' testimony stands as shining beacon in the night of Miller's bamboozling which beams out to all:

THE TWO MEN WERE NOT BEHIND THE FENCE !!

[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.

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.

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

OK! Finally!

I thought that you never would agree.

Now , you are committing to call Lane & Jones Harris.

Great! I knew you were a man.

We will await the results & hope that you are vindicated. Doesn't look good, though.

Meanwhile Bowers' testimony stands as shining beacon in the night of Miller's bamboozling which beams out to all:

THE TWO MEN WERE NOT BEHIND THE FENCE !!

xxxxx on, Miles ... xxxxx on. You are not wasting any more of my time. You are the one who needs to hear and see things for yourself or else it is just hearsay.

Also, see response number 111.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

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

OK! Finally!

I thought that you never would agree.

Now , you are committing to call Lane & Jones Harris.

Great! I knew you were a man.

We will await the results & hope that you are vindicated. Doesn't look good, though.

Meanwhile Bowers' testimony stands as shining beacon in the night of Miller's bamboozling which beams out to all:

THE TWO MEN WERE NOT BEHIND THE FENCE !!

xxxxx on, Miles ... xxxxx on. You are not wasting any more of my time. You are the one who needs to hear and see things for yourself or else it is just hearsay.

Also, see response number 111.

Bill Miller

Great!

I sure don't want to waste any more of your time.

Or, for that matter, I don't want you to waste any more of the forum's time, either.

So these, your additional earnests of your plan to contact Lane & Harris, are most welcome to a parched & languishing thread.

God speed & a blessings on your quest to prove your own assertions, which, of course, are in dire need of validation.

So, when you get the "goods" post them!

Till then, I & you will desist from wasting our time & that of everyone else!

RIGHT ?

Edited September 19, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

I sure don't want to waste any more of your time.

Or, for that matter, I don't want you to waste any more of the forum's time, either.

Yeah, right! If you really didn't want to waste my time or the forums time, then you would have called the contacts furnished to you. It would take the better part of an hour to read all your non-responsive replies - yet you didn't have five minutes to call the contacts. The archive will be a testament to your seriousness and ability as a researcher.

By the way ... no response after being made aware of Bowers defining the differencee between what he called "high ground" Vs. the slope of the knoll down to the street which he called the "incline"? (I didn't think so!)

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

I sure don't want to waste any more of your time.

Or, for that matter, I don't want you to waste any more of the forum's time, either.

Yeah, right! If you really didn't want to waste my time or the forums time, then you would have called the contacts furnished to you. It would take the better part of an hour to read all your non-responsive replies - yet you didn't have five minutes to call the contacts. The archive will be a testament to your seriousness and ability as a researcher.

By the way ... no response after being made aware of Bowers defining the differencee between what he called "high ground" Vs. the slope of the knoll down to the street which he called the "incline"? (I didn't think so!)

Bill Miller

Right. You got it. -

Before we move on, you have to clean up your nest, first.

You are calling Lane & Harris in order to prove & verify your own assertions, which are very, very needful of some kind of confirmation.

I'm sure you agree that you should not demand of others that they do your research work for you.

Good for you!

[Bill Miller]

Right. You got it. -

Before we move on, you have to clean up your nest, first.

You are calling Lane & Harris in order to prove & verify your own assertions, which are very, very needful of some kind of confirmation.

I'm sure you agree that you should not demand of others that they do your research work for you.

Good for you!

Miles, I had already verified my assertions ... I do that before I make them. And still no comment on Bowers defining the difference between what he called the 'high ground' Vs. what he called the 'incline'???

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Right. You got it. -

Before we move on, you have to clean up your nest, first.

You are calling Lane & Harris in order to prove & verify your own assertions, which are very, very needful of some kind of confirmation.

I'm sure you agree that you should not demand of others that they do your research work for you.

Good for you!

Miles, I had already verified my assertions ... I do that before I make them. And still no comment on Bowers defining the difference between what he called the 'high ground' Vs. what he called the 'incline'???

Bill Miller

No jokes, please.

No, you have verified zero & I'm not going to do your research tasks for you.

And, no, I'm also not buying you avian nest defouling detergent.

That's also your job.

You know the drill.

[Bill Miller]

Right. You got it. -

Before we move on, you have to clean up your nest, first.

You are calling Lane & Harris in order to prove & verify your own assertions, which are very, very needful of some kind of confirmation.

I'm sure you agree that you should not demand of others that they do your research work for you.

Good for you!

Miles, I had already verified my assertions ... I do that before I make them. And still no comment on Bowers defining the difference between what he called the 'high ground' Vs. what he called the 'incline'???

Bill Miller

No jokes, please.

No, you have verified zero & I'm not going to do your research tasks for you.

And, no, I'm also not buying you avian nest defouling detergent.

That's also your job.

You know the drill.

You obviously feel that your time is better spent running up threads and playing to an audience of one rather than to have made those contacts. There can be no doubt that if all you had to do is make a simple phone call so to make me look bad ... you'd of done it in a heartbeat. There is a reason why you chose not to do so. There is a reason why you cannot argue that Bowers differentiated the "high ground" from the "incline" when telling what he saw. There is also a reason why you have chosen to reword Bowers testimony by saying when Bowers said "south" he must have meant "north" and when he said "plaid" he must have meant "red". I am satisfied that this thread has gone the way it has and that your and my responses will be a reflection of our seriousness and ability as researchers here to try and learn some truth out of all this or if we were just someone trying to get attention for what ever reason.

Just remember this .... We are the authors who write your own legacy as a researcher, whether it be deemed by our peers as admirable or whether it be deemed by them as disgraceful.

Bill Miller

Edited September 20, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

There seems to be a lot of disinformation being spread around the research community concerning the 6th Floor Museum's role in the sharing of many, if not all, of the assassination images stored there. Let me see if I can put to rest some of the misconceptions.

One general myth is that the Museum owns all the materials they have there - this is simply not true! Another misconception is that the Museum can freely distribute copies of such materials at their own choice - this is simply not true either. The Museum is just that ... a place where collectibles and artifacts are stored for preservation purposes and sometimes for display. This doesn't mean that those images and artifacts are owned by the Museum. The 6th Floor Museum has to follow the same copyright laws and guidelines as anyone else does.

Below is a response I had gotten from Gary Mack concerning the Tina Towner film and the Jim Towner slides stored there. I hope that this explanation offered by Gary Mack will allow people to be better informed than those who seemingly feel that the Museum's goal is to keep such materials from being seen by the public.

Bill Miller

Gary Mack's response reads as follows ...

Bill,

In response to your question, yes, The Sixth Floor Museum does have the four original Jim Towner slides and the Tina Towner home movie. They are stored as a courtesy to Tina and her family. The slides and film are owned and copyrighted by her and the Museum does not have permission to make copies. We can show the scanned images at no charge to anyone who wants to make an appointment, but they cannot be copied.

Gary Mack

Edited September 20, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

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???

Talking with Lane or Harris is not going to help unless they have written evidence taken at the time of their interviews that recorded what Bowers told them(If Lane for example, tells anyone today that Bowers told him "the men were behind the fence" then their response must be, "so why don't the RTJ transcripts say that & why didn't you put it in the film?". Maybe someone could argue with Lane over that point but I certainly could not, not over the phone & especially since he doesn't know me from Adam).

Remember how you claim Golz told you on the phone that, "Yarborough said the man he saw dive to the ground was behind the retaining wall, in a serviceman's uniform"?

You know as well as me that that goes against a recorded interview with the ex-senator where he repeatedly denied both those assursions, the man was not in uniform & nowhere near that wall on the grassy knoll, he said.

Both Lane & Harris's work are already a matter of record, the full unedited transcripts of RTJ are not available at this present moment to everyone & Harris's work is kind of rare, printed in one or two early publications which I don't have.

If we had these items to hand then there is no need for a phone call & especially since a conversation can give you misleading results as the Golz example above proves & let's get this straight.....

Gary Mack mentioned Harris not you & he had already done so when I asked you for proof to back up your claim that Bowers had mentioned the same "south side" thing to several people.

So despite your words, YOU have gave me nothing because that's obviously all you have.

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 ...

I started by asking you if Bowers could have made a slip(it was stupid of me to ask your opinion I know but I took a chance), you told me it was out of the question because he said the same thing to others but that was just cheap talk obviously.

Will you admit you were wrong & you have nothing? No you won't.

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.

Did you notice how Bowers gave a specific position & did not mention the high ground

in his response? Obviously not!

These two men he mentioned above are dressed exactly like the two men he mentioned to Lane.

West of the decorative wall & east of the fence.

Didn't you notice that? NO.

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

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

Ah - one of them, as I recall, was a middle-aged man, fairly heavy-set with - what looked like a white shirt. Uh - he remained in sight practically all of the time. The other individual was uh - slighter build and had either a plaid jacket or a plaid shirt on and he - uh -is walking back and forth was in and out of sight, so that I could not state for sure whether he was standing there at the time of the shots or not..."

Sound familiar now?

The same men obviously.......

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.

I think anyone who needs you to read evidence for them, evidence that they already have to hand I add, needs looking at for many reasons.

Anyway, what you appear to be implying(although I note you haven't actually said these actual words yet!) is that Bowers was talking about two men to Ball & two different men to Lane.

Four men, each pair with the same physical descriptions, same ages & same clothing.

Please tell me I am wrong for goodness sake.

There is no way you can really believe that.

You are free to say it obviously but to really believe it?

Give me a break.

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.

He shot up the incline on his bike where he said the two men were.

Despite the fact that Haygood didn't really make the jump over the curb to begin with, it is still possible that Bowers saw the attempt at the jump & the struggle with the bike.

That happened on the street at the bottom of the incline, nowhere near the highground but very close to Hudson & Co from Bowers POV.

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???

See the reasons I stated above.

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.

It is still appreciated that you take an avid interest in this matters but what is not appreciated is all the personal BS that surrounds each & every post you make. That will make it very hard for future researchers to sift through.

Bowers never said the two men were on the highground in his WC testimony. He was asked a question that included the word "highground" but he never mentioned that word in his answer as I've pointed out above. He specified exactly where they were & there was no mention of the highground or the fence in his responses.

The only evidence the old school researchers had of men behind the fence from Bowers is the statement where he said he saw two men "on a direct line to the mouth of the underpass".

That's it.

That's all they had & the transcripts from RTJ have now blown a hole in that.

In the transcripts he specifies exactly where they were so there is no more confusion.

Wall ~> Men ~>Fence, the same two men. The only two men.

[Alan Healy]

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.

Bowers did say he could see the south side of the fence, how many times do I have to show you the transcript?

Deal with it.

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.

These two people GM named have published written work on the subject.

In Lane's case the important facts have been kept secret because it doesn't put the men behind the fence at all.

If it was down to Lane, Gary Mack & Myers would not have have seen those transcripts.

The day Mark Lane starts handing out evidence that trounces the main thrust of RTJ will be a memorable one indeed.

As for Harris, as I've already told you.... "Classic Gunman Theory".

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.

What if we call them & they say something opposite to what was recorded 40 years ago?

Just like you & Golz.

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???

If a researcher phoned you & you told them that Golz said to you "Yarborough mentioned a wall & a uniform", he would be worse off than if he had never called you at all.

You get my point?

There is written evidence of what Bowers said to Harris & Lane already out there.

Any researcher worth his salt should have that to hand before he makes a phone call asking random questions.

Is there anyone else you know of that talked to Bowers btw?

You mentioned "several people".

So far you've mentioned one, Harris(we already have Lane & de Antonio's work in the transcript) & that name already came from Gary not you. You obviously know nothing about his research either.

Is the classic gunman behind the fence in Nix? No.

Edited September 21, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Miles Scull]

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.

Bowers did say he could see the south side of the fence, how many times do I have to show you the transcript?

Deal with it.

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.

These two people GM named have published written work on the subject.

In Lane's case the important facts have been kept secret because it doesn't put the men behind the fence at all.

If it was down to Lane, Gary Mack & Myers would not have have seen those transcripts.

The day Mark Lane starts handing out evidence that trounces the main thrust of RTJ will be a memorable one indeed.

As for Harris, as I've already told you.... "Classic Gunman Theory".

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.

What if we call them & they say something opposite to what was recorded 40 years ago?

Just like you & Golz.

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???

If a researcher phoned you & you told them that Golz said to you "Yarborough mentioned a wall & a uniform", he would be worse off than if he had never called you at all.

You get my point?

There is written evidence of what Bowers said to Harris & Lane already out there.

Any researcher worth his salt should have that to hand before he makes a phone call asking random questions.

Is there anyone else you know of that talked to Bowers btw?

You mentioned "several people".

So far you've mentioned one, Harris(we already have Lane & de Antonio's work in the transcript) & that name already came from Gary not you. You obviously know nothing about his research either.

Is the classic gunman behind the fence in Nix? No.

You obviously know nothing about his research either.

Alan,

I thought you might be interested in this little Atom Bomb excerpt from the Bowers - Lane interview.

"...in the vicinity of where the two men I've described were,..." = THE STAIRS

Edited September 21, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Bowers did say he could see the south side of the fence, how many times do I have to show you the transcript?

Deal with it.

You do not need to show me the transcript - you need someone to talk with understanding what you read. In almost 4.5 decades passes and finally some odd-ball tries to make something out of nothing and he thinks the whole world should listen. Had you and I have been on the South knoll looking towards the RR yard when Holland and Lane did their interview, then we would have been correct to say that we could see the south side of the fence and noticed two gentlemen talking to one another. That's all Bowers was doing and you guys have made fools of yourselves by making ludicrous claims that when Bowers said 'south' ... he must have meant 'north', and when Bowers said 'high ground' ... he must have meant the 'incline' ... and when Bowers said plaid ... he must have meant 'red'. This is the difference in why people like Thompson, Garrison, Lane, Weisberg, and a list of others became known as experts on the assassination, while people like yourself will be remembered for not knowing what was meant when Bowers said he could see the south side of the fence.

Bill Miller

Edited September 22, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Silly me sees the smoke seen in the Dave Wiegman film to be what Bower's referred to. The smoke did get propelled out over the incline/embankment as it drifted through the trees.

Bill Miller

Edited September 22, 2007 by Bill Miller