If The Hat Don't Fit

[Miles Scull]

"Directly in line, (Comma!) towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men."

Because of the COMMA, Bowers is not saying in direct line to the mouth of the underpass.[/color][/b]

Well lets see ... I can think of about 5 or 6 things you have told us what someone has meant that was totally wrong. One of them being Myers position, which he two places the two men at the west end of the fence. So you can have your opinion and the rest of us can have ours.

Bill Miller

Well lets see ... I can think of about 5 or 6 things you have told us

"Us?'' Oh, you mean you & Ken? OK.

what someone has meant that was totally wrong. One of them being Myers position, which he two places the two men at the west end of the fence.

This tread is about what Bowers said, not what Myers said. Did Myers get something wrong? OK, I'll alert Dale. No biggy.

So you can have your opinion and the rest of us can have ours.

OK, thanks. I was kinda hoping you'd give me your OK to me to have my own opinion. Can Alan & Duncan have theirs as well? Cool.

I think it is important, vitally critical, in fact, for you to be let in on a little secret in this regard.

Did you know that I have galactic support & approbation? No?

Well...

The inhabitants of countless solar systems agree with me on Bowers seeing the two men by the stairs.

You only have Ken.

Check it out!

Bill Miller

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The inhabitants of countless solar systems agree with me on Bowers seeing the two men by the stairs.

You only have Ken.

I do not doubt that the inhabitants of other solar systems who have never read SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS agree with you, Miles, but here on earth it does seem that Bowers was looking at two men BEHIND the fence on the grassy knoll.

[Bill Miller]

Well lets see ... I can think of about 5 or 6 things you have told us what someone has meant that was totally wrong. One of them being Myers position, which he two places the two men at the west end of the fence. So you can have your opinion and the rest of us can have ours.

Bill Miller

"Us?'' Oh, you mean you & Ken? OK.

By the word "us" ... I was referring to anyone who has read the garbage you post. This could mean anything from you telling us how Holland ran immediately off the underpass to you saying that Bowers could see the men on the stairs.

I think it is important, vitally critical, in fact, for you to be let in on a little secret in this regard.

Did you know that I have galactic support & approbation? No?

Well...

The inhabitants of countless solar systems agree with me on Bowers seeing the two men by the stairs.

You only have Ken.

Check it out!

I don't know about you having galactic support, but I can think of several other things that you probably have from high blood pressure to having a tendency of citing things as fact that you know nothing about.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Well lets see ... I can think of about 5 or 6 things you have told us what someone has meant that was totally wrong. One of them being Myers position, which he two places the two men at the west end of the fence. So you can have your opinion and the rest of us can have ours.

Bill Miller

"Us?'' Oh, you mean you & Ken? OK.

By the word "us" ... I was referring to anyone who has read the garbage you post. This could mean anything from you telling us how Holland ran immediately off the underpass to you saying that Bowers could see the men on the stairs.

I think it is important, vitally critical, in fact, for you to be let in on a little secret in this regard.

Did you know that I have galactic support & approbation? No?

Well...

The inhabitants of countless solar systems agree with me on Bowers seeing the two men by the stairs.

You only have Ken.

Check it out!

I don't know about you having galactic support, but I can think of several other things that you probably have from high blood pressure to having a tendency of citing things as fact that you know nothing about.

If you are contending that Bowers saw Hoffman's sniper dashing & bounding around the parking lot,

as Ed tells us (you, Ken & J. Raymond Carroll) that his sniper did before & after the shooting,

then naturally the key question appears like a visitation from outer space:

Why did Bowers not tell the WC & Lane about Ed's sniper?

Surely, this is an area of interest!

(reason for edit:removed picture of ostrich)

Edited November 13, 2007 by Kathy Beckett

[Duke Lane]

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.

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.

Mr. BALL - In what direction were they facing?

Mr. BOWERS - They were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston, and following the caravan as it came down.

Bowers responded in a direct question about whether he saw anyone on the "High Ground" ...

Oops. You have conveniently omitted "high side" from Ball's question. From Ball's question it is clear that Bowers easily could have interpreted (or allowably misinterpreted) Ball's question to mean from Elm up to higher ground.

Bowers response, in fact suggests this. Bowers responds:

"Directly in line, (Comma!) towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men."

Bowers means, because of the COMMA, directly in line down to Elm along his LOS between the pergola & the east side of the short leg of the picket fence.

Because of the COMMA, Bowers is not saying in direct line to the mouth of the underpass.

and Lee mentioned the two guys, "They were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston, and following the caravan as it came down." Common sense tells me ...

Never trust common sense. That's what has led you astray & continues to lead you astray. Only rely on the facts & on careful logic.

Aww, c'mon, now! There's parsing and then there's parsing!

Lee Bowers did not insert the comma, the stenographer did. Lee Bowers also waived signature, meaning that he didn't read it before publication, so he therefore also did not amend the written word to include the comma. I'm also fairly confident that he didn't speak in punctuations, like "well comma ya-apostrophe-see comma what I meant is this colon I don't talk that way exclamation point."

The comma, thus, is an invention of the stenographer and has absolutely nothing to do with what Bowers did or didn't mean.

That is "common sense, fact and careful logic." I don't feel led astray.

Hell, if you remove the subordinate clause between the paragraphs, you get "directly in line there were two men." Directly in line with what? Each other? Two points (men) are always "in line" with each other and cannot be otherwise. The only thing that Bowers gave as a reference point to be "in line" with was the mouth of the underpass. The stenographer's comma was actually extraneous.

[Ken Rheberg]

Duncan, ... didn't Bowers say that one of the men after the shooting was still at the same location. And didn't Officer Joe Marshal Smith possibly meet one of them?

I think a closer reading of Bowers' testimony is certainly in order. Bowers said that there were two men standing behind the fence, but that they didn't appear to be together and were standing some 10-15' apart. Neither of them did he describe as wearing a suit, which is one attribute that one might expect of the Secret Service. If memory serves, Smith indicated that the man was reaching inside his jacket, and if so, it rules out either of these men.

That is not, however, to say that Smith didn't meet up with someone claiming to be USSS.

Duke,

You said:

"I think a closer reading of Bowers' testimony is certainly in order. Bowers said that there were two men standing behind the fence. . ."

I take it you've read Bowers' testimony closer. Where does he ever say that there were two men standing behind the fence?

Ken

Actually, Ken, he didn't, anywhere in his testimony. There, he merely says that the two of them are "on the high ground" between his tower and the opening under the Triple Underpass. I never actually said otherwise, but that seems to be the concensus of others' opinions here, so why upset the apple cart?

It is, in any case, a defensible interpretation that they were behind the fence because he could see one of the men's trousers, a difficult exercise through a 5-6' stockade fence, even from Bowers' elevated position.

It may also be what he said in the RTJ film, which I no longer have either a copy of or a transcript from, so I don't know. I'm merely aping the opinions of others.

No "gotcha" here!

Duke,

Gotcha? What are you talking about? This is no game.

You said, "Bowers said that there were two men standing behind the fence. . ."

Well, that was incorrect. He never said any such thing. I point it out, and I'm playing a game of "gotcha."

Of course, according to you, there was no real "gotcha" because you knew the truth all along. Bowers never did say that. You just didn't want to "upset the apple cart" of the incorrect concensus of opinion on this thread.

You then justify this concensus of opinion by labeling it defensible.

That doesn't sound like you, Duke. Backing off on a misquote. Not wanting to upset the apple cart. All because the underlying position is defensible. Since when does someone else's defensible position stand in the way of what is correct?

By the way, I'm not saying there was no one behind the fence. Bowers said there seemed to be "some commotion," "a sort of milling around" on the high ground at the time of the shooting. That says a lot. Part of that commotion and milling around may have included one of the two men he describes, the man in plaid. But the two weren't standing behind what we normally think of as the fence at the time of the shots. And they certainly weren't standing on the grassy knoll stairway (which you don't appear to believe). Not if one takes a close look at everything Bowers said. Or what he said that we have at our disposal at the present time.

Which brings up a question I've posed to Miles that, I believe, he's avoided answering so far.

Miles,

Now Duke advises that he, too, does not have a copy of the complete Bowers RTJ transcript, which you do have.

As I said before in another thread, please send me a copy of the transcript, or send it to Debra Conway at Lancer. And while you're at it, send one to Duke. As he says in this thread, he's "merely aping the opinions of others" without it.

Ken

Edited November 13, 2007 by Ken Rheberg

[J. Raymond Carroll]

But the two weren't standing behind what we normally think of as the fence at the time of the shots.

Please elaborate on the basis for this statement. If they were not standing behind the fence, where were they standing?

[Miles Scull]

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.

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.

Mr. BALL - In what direction were they facing?

Mr. BOWERS - They were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston, and following the caravan as it came down.

Bowers responded in a direct question about whether he saw anyone on the "High Ground" ...

Oops. You have conveniently omitted "high side" from Ball's question. From Ball's question it is clear that Bowers easily could have interpreted (or allowably misinterpreted) Ball's question to mean from Elm up to higher ground.

Bowers response, in fact suggests this. Bowers responds:

"Directly in line, (Comma!) towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men."

Bowers means, because of the COMMA, directly in line down to Elm along his LOS between the pergola & the east side of the short leg of the picket fence.

Because of the COMMA, Bowers is not saying in direct line to the mouth of the underpass.

and Lee mentioned the two guys, "They were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston, and following the caravan as it came down." Common sense tells me ...

Never trust common sense. That's what has led you astray & continues to lead you astray. Only rely on the facts & on careful logic.

Aww, c'mon, now! There's parsing and then there's parsing!.

No, Duke, this not parsing strange.

No.

Stenographers are highly skilled, highly trained & highly intelligent professionals.

They have to be.

Especially legal stenographers.

Why?

If they mis-record in a murder trial, then an innocent man is going to the chair, because a sitting jury reviews & parses HIS transcript.

A stenographer never casually puts a comma here or there just to keep his comma quota up.

Hardly.

A stenographer places a comma carefully & precisely. It's a matter of professional expertise & pride & the issue & consequence of years & years of arduous practise.

A COMMA means a pause or a hesitation in the speakers language. The stenographers put down a COMMA to show exactly that.

If there had not been a pause, then there would not have been a COMMA so placed.

Then Bowers' sentence would read this way:

"Directly in line towards the mouth of the underpass there were two men."

This is clearly what would have been recorded by the stenographer IF that was what the stenographer heard Bowers say.

But, Bowers did not say this!

That's the very important significance of the COMMA.

Bowers said this:

"Directly in line, (Comma!) towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men."

Note in fact there are TWO COMMAS.

If you study Bowers testimony, WC & Lane, you will notice in Bowers' language that there is a very pronounced & frequently occurring habit & tendency to let thoughts drift & concatenate in sequential rhythms according to the flow of Bowers' idea progression.

This is what is happening here & explains the insertion of the commas which would not be otherwise needed.

The commas show a process of linear organisation & stream gathering of ideas. Thus, the language is not clear. (!)

Thus, the COMMAS.

And, thus the elimination of the simple reading that Bowers was saying that the two men were "in line with a vector LOS pointed to the underpass."

Then, of course, you have to consider the massive weight of all of Bowers' other testimony which clearly contradicts this simple reading & clearly places the two men by the stairs & not behind the fence.

Edited for spelling.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Ken Rheberg]

But the two weren't standing behind what we normally think of as the fence at the time of the shots.

Please elaborate on the basis for this statement. If they were not standing behind the fence, where were they standing?

Below is a frame from the Bell film, courtesy of Miles Scull in another thread. The man in white is seen clearly. The man in plaid is hard to find, although Miles, I believe, claimed to see him. I know Lee Bowers had trouble finding him at about this time. This Bell frame isn't the only reason I believe the two men were standing here. But it's a good start.

Ken

Edited November 13, 2007 by Ken Rheberg

[Miles Scull]

But the two weren't standing behind what we normally think of as the fence at the time of the shots.

Please elaborate on the basis for this statement. If they were not standing behind the fence, where were they standing?

Below is a frame from the Bell film, courtesy of Miles Scull in another thread. The man in white is seen clearly. The man in plaid is hard to find, although Miles, I believe, claimed to see him. I know Lee Bowers had trouble finding him at about this time. This Bell frame isn't the only reason I believe the two men were standing here. But it's a good start.

Ken

The left arrow points to two individuals standing close together side by side.

The person who lent me a copy of the Lane/Bowers transcript did so with the strict proviso that the copy would not be distributed by me & that that the person would remain private.

The key parts of the transcript are already published by Myers & me.

Check with Gary Mack for confirmation of this.

Gary's always ready to help if he can do so.

[Bill Miller]

A stenographer never casually puts a comma here or there just to keep his comma quota up.

Hardly.

A stenographer places a comma carefully & precisely. It's a matter of professional expertise & pride & the issue & consequence of years & years of arduous practise.

Miles, what now ... are going to pretend that you know what Stenographers do??? Go read the Witness testimony before the Commission ... it has several mistakes through-out it where the Stenographer got the wrong word or made some other error. Considering how many things you have blown concerning what someone meant to say - you'd be the last person at this point who I'd have translating meanings attributed people. You even misstated what you idol Dale Myers had written.

[Bill Miller]

The left arrow points to two individuals standing close together side by side.

The person who lent me a copy of the Lane/Bowers transcript did so with the strict proviso that the copy would not be distributed by me & that that the person would remain private.

When Mack looked at the original Bell film - he saw that the two men at the banister were not dressed like the two men Bowers described.

And as far as you not distributing the transcript - that's bunk! You have already posted pages of it on the forum. That excuse doesn't fly any more than a thief could get away with by saying he only stole 20% of the missing money.

The key parts of the transcript are already published by Myers & me.

Check with Gary Mack for confirmation of this.

Gary Mack will be the first one to tell you that you were in violation to the copyright laws when you posted pages from the transcript to this forum. That this was an unpublished transcript. This I know because Gary and I have talked about this.

I also know that when you say "published by Myers and me" that you are probably not who you claim to be. Gary Mack gave a copy of the transcript to Todd Vaughn who I expect is very close in all of this, if not you. Myers was out in the plaza when he handed a copy of the transcript off, so Gary gave Todd the copy to give to Dale. Dale and Todd would be the only two people who had the opportunity to be giving copies of the transcript away.

I would also like to point out that Ken has not asked for you to break the copyright laws any more than you already have. Your sharing a copy of the transcript to read would not violate anything. Only if Ken published the pages would he then be in violation of the copyright laws. I personally expect that any excuse not to share the total transcript with another researchers is for reasons other than the ones being given.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

The left arrow points to two individuals standing close together side by side.

The person who lent me a copy of the Lane/Bowers transcript did so with the strict proviso that the copy would not be distributed by me & that that the person would remain private.

When Mack looked at the original Bell film - he saw that the two men at the banister were not dressed like the two men Bowers described.

And as far as you not distributing the transcript - that's bunk! You have already posted pages of it on the forum. That excuse doesn't fly any more than a thief could get away with by saying he only stole 20% of the missing money.

The key parts of the transcript are already published by Myers & me.

Check with Gary Mack for confirmation of this.

Gary Mack will be the first one to tell you that you were in violation to the copyright laws when you posted pages from the transcript to this forum. That this was an unpublished transcript. This I know because Gary and I have talked about this.

I also know that when you say "published by Myers and me" that you are probably not who you claim to be. Gary Mack gave a copy of the transcript to Todd Vaughn who I expect is very close in all of this, if not you. Myers was out in the plaza when he handed a copy of the transcript off, so Gary gave Todd the copy to give to Dale. Dale and Todd would be the only two people who had the opportunity to be giving copies of the transcript away.

I would also like to point out that Ken has not asked for you to break the copyright laws any more than you already have. Your sharing a copy of the transcript to read would not violate anything. Only if Ken published the pages would he then be in violation of the copyright laws. I personally expect that any excuse not to share the total transcript with another researchers is for reasons other than the ones being given.

Bill Miller

And as far as you not distributing the transcript - that's bunk!

If you can't improve on this silly nonsense, its time to call it a day.

EVERYTHING YOU HAVE WRITTEN HERE IS COMPLETELY INCORRECT !

Since you have used the word "bunk," then let me reply that what you have written here is, all of it, total BUNK.

Not surprised.

[Bill Miller]

If you can't improve on this silly nonsense, its time to call it a day.

EVERYTHING YOU HAVE WRITTEN HERE IS COMPLETELY INCORRECT !

Since you have used the word "bunk," then let me reply that what you have written here is, all of it, total BUNK.

Not surprised.

Well if you say so, then it must be true - right Miles! BTW, Ken is still waiting for his copy of the entire transcript ... letting him read it isn't a copyright infringement, so when can he expect it???

Bill Miller

[Duke Lane]

Aww, c'mon, now! There's parsing and then there's parsing!.

No, Duke, this not parsing strange. No.

Well, that pretty well sums it up, doesn't it?

Miles, can you actually name a single stenographer for the Dallas or Washington depositions, much less delineate his or her qualifications?

If not, then you're dealing in "theoreticals," trying to prove something on the basis of what you reasonably believe to be true. While maybe reasonable, it's not necessarily factual.

Theoretically, the Chief Justice of the United States would never have permitted his name to be associated with the "justice" that was done to the case of the murder of the Commander in Chief of the United States of America, yet he did ... and a future President and Commission member stood by it. Both are theoretically inconceivable and impossible, but there you have it.

... And we're now discussing the placement of a couple of punctuation marks?!?

That, my man, is parsing ... in CAPITALS!