Miles Scull Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Got to agree with you Bill. It's time all these fake identity crap accusations were put to an end. For starters, it's boring. It serves no purpose other than to disrupt. This thread is about the existance of a hat or the non existance of a hat in photographs other than Moorman, and linked subjects. When the thread gets back on track i'll start contributing to it again. Duncan Duncan, Thx for your toleration of some barn cleaning. Now, on the question of the existence of an alleged "hat" in non-Moorman photos: Ed O'Hagan makes a good point. If the alleged "hat" is far too large to reasonably be a real hat, then is the size equal from one photo to another? Or does the size change. If the size is equal, then that is strong evidence that the alleged "hat" is not a "hat." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 (edited) Deleted. Edited November 12, 2007 by Alan Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 (edited) ]Alan's text has been deleted at Alan's request. Alan, Excellent point. By the way, if the alleged "hat" is not a "hat" on the consideration that the image is too large for a conventional "hat" then is the door opened for alternative interpretations? Such as: The image is merely foliage? Edited November 13, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 When the thread gets back on track i'll start contributing to it again. Picasso would have been proud of this thread. Maybe the Ostrich from Miles really does have some significance. Well spotted Miles, it took me a while to find it.http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i286/nit...wler147/ost.jpg Duncan If that's the best you've got why bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Rheberg Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 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? Bill 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 (edited) 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! Bowers testimony has been made out to be a lot more difficult than it had to be, but I suspect that this was purposely done by one person in particular. Duke makes a very accurate point when he mentions how Bowers could see at least one of the two mens trousers so to know the color. The High Ground was the second give away. Bowers classified the high ground to be the ground elevation that the TSBD sat on to the RR yard - to the underpass. Then a direct line between the tower and the mouth of the underpass was the third clue. I think Bowers went as far as to say that he didn't see anyone on the south side of the fence. So while Lee Bowers didn't say the exact words that would make things crystal clear - he at least gave enough information to plot out the general location to know they were on the north side of the fence. Bill Edited November 12, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 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! Bowers testimony has been made out to be a lot more difficult than it had to be, but I suspect that this was purposely done by one person in particular. Duke makes a very accurate point when he mentions how Bowers could see at least one of the two mens trousers so to know the color. The High Ground was the second give away. Bowers classified the high ground to be the ground elevation that the TSBD sat on to the RR yard - to the underpass. Then a direct line between the tower and the mouth of the underpass was the third clue. I think Bowers went as far as to say that he didn't see anyone on the south side of the fence. So while Lee Bowers didn't say the exact words that would make things crystal clear - he at least gave enough information to plot out the general location to know they were on the north side of the fence. Bill This not correct. Bowers states that of the men on the north side of the fence that he saw, that he knew them & recognised them. He further states that the only two men he did NOT know were the two in the area of the stairs, one in white shirt & one in plaid. Thus, the two men were not behind the fence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 (edited) This not correct.Bowers states that of the men on the north side of the fence that he saw, that he knew them & recognised them. He further states that the only two men he did NOT know were the two in the area of the stairs, one in white shirt & one in plaid. Thus, the two men were not behind the fence. Some people must think that if they tell a falsehood enough times, then somehow they can turn it into the truth. The two men Bowers spoke of were standing and watching the caravan as it entered the plaza. Bowers could see them so to know that they were standing and looking towards Houston and Main Street. Bowers said that after the shooting that one of the men was still at his previous location. You have wasted the better part of a thread telling everyone that those two men were the two men with Hudson. The only people at the stairs prior - during - and after the shooting were Hudson, RAM, and RSM. It is a known fact that Bowers could not see anyone on the steps from inside his tower, thus none of the men at the stairs are even candidates. Bill Miller Edited November 13, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 This not correct.Bowers states that of the men on the north side of the fence that he saw, that he knew them & recognised them. He further states that the only two men he did NOT know were the two in the area of the stairs, one in white shirt & one in plaid. Thus, the two men were not behind the fence. Some people must think that if they tell a falsehood enough times, then somehow they can turn it into the truth. Would that "someone" be you? The two men Bowers spoke of were standing and watching the caravan as it entered the plaza. Bowers could see them so to know that they were standing and looking towards Houston and Main Street. You have wasted the better part of a thread telling everyone that those two men were the two men with Hudson. It is a known fact that Bowers could not see anyone on the steps from inside his tower, thus the two men at the stairs are not even candidates. Bill Miller This is, also, not correct. Bowers is drawing on his recollection of his observations of app. 20 minutes before & after the app. 7 seconds during which time the shooting occurred. Therefore, the fact that apparently the three men on the stairs in Moorman were on the stairs during the 7 seconds is completely irrelevant & immaterial to the question of: Where were the two men Bowers saw located? Bowers' testimony is clear & unchallengeable. He said THAT TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE the two men were in the immediate area of the stairs at the time of the shooting. This means that Bowers saw the two men at the stairs in the area of the stairs not necessarily during the 7 seconds, but before & after the 7 seconds at different & various times at the stairs area. Also, Hudson's testimony is open to strong doubt. Thus, the two men Bowers saw, whom he did not know, were located at the time of the shooting in the area of the stairs & NOT behind the fence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 (edited) This is, also, not correct.Bowers is drawing on his recollection of his observations of app. 20 minutes before & after the app. 7 seconds during which time the shooting occurred. Look again .. Bowers clearly said that he could see the two men as the caravan came into the plaza. The only way you can get around this is to not be truthful about Lee saying it. 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. Also, Hudson's testimony is open to strong doubt. It is you who is open to strong doubt. Edited November 13, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 This is, also, not correct.Bowers is drawing on his recollection of his observations of app. 20 minutes before & after the app. 7 seconds during which time the shooting occurred. Look again .. Bowers clearly said that he could see the two men as the caravan came into the plaza. The only way you can get around this is to not be truthful about Lee saying it.[/b] 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. And, once again, this is not correct. Sound familiar? When Bowers observed the two men they were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston, and following the caravan as it came down. This was Bowers' understanding from his collective observations. He does NOT say that he could see the two men as the caravan came into the plaza. That is only your attempt to put words into Bowers' mouth that he never spoke in order to twist Bowers' testimony to suit your agenda. Instead, Bowers is reporting what he believed was the true case as far as was THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE from his observations (plural!). Clearly, Bowers had observed the two men AT VARIOUS JUNCTURES looking toward MAIN & HOUSTON, as was to be expected, of course, and noting that fact. Then, Bowers reports that as far as was the BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE, he observed the two men facing and looking up towards Main and Houston, and following the caravan as it came down. So, Bowers testimony is consistent with the photographic evidence. Let's quit trying to alter Bowers' words. Bowers puts the two men in the area of the stairs. There is no way of getting around that core fact, unless you try to fudge the testimony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 (edited) He does NOT say that he could see the two men as the caravan came into the plaza. That is only your attempt to put words into Bowers' mouth that he never spoke in order to twist Bowers' testimony to suit your agenda. Instead, Bowers is reporting what he believed was the true case as far as was THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE from his observations (plural!). Suiting one's agenda??? That's quite a response coming from someone who posted so many times that Bowers saw "red plaid" only to eventually be forced to admit that Bowers never used the word 'red'. Or that when Bowers said 'two' men that he meant 'three' ... or when Bowers said 'south' that he must have meant 'north' ... or that when Bowers said 'High Ground' that he must have meant 'incline'. Yes, we know all about agendas from reading your post. In this instant, you are not getting off so easily. In fact, you had no problem in Bowers talking about the men on the steps as the caravan came into the plaza until you realized that Bowers couldn't have ever seen anyone as they sat or stood on the steps and this is when your 'they must have been observed in and around the stairs' nonsense came into play. Bowers mentions seeing the men 'as the caravan came down' .... supposed you tell this forum what you now want that to mean? Bowers responded in a direct question about whether he saw anyone on the "High Ground" 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 that these two men could not follow the caravan unless they could actually see the caravan. This means that the caravan has now come into the plaza so to be followed. (No word twisting there - just plain common sense) But when the caravan came into the plaza - Hudson and the man next to him were sitting on the steps when the caravan entered the plaza .... those would be the steps that couldn't be seen from inside the tower where Bowers sat as the caravan was making its way through the plaza. Bill Miller Edited November 13, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 (edited) He does NOT say that he could see the two men as the caravan came into the plaza. That is only your attempt to put words into Bowers' mouth that he never spoke in order to twist Bowers' testimony to suit your agenda. Instead, Bowers is reporting what he believed was the true case as far as was THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE from his observations (plural!). 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. 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. that these two men could not follow the caravan unless they could see the caravan. This is not correct. You are forgetting that Bowers was 100 yards away from the two men, whom he was observing intermittently at intervals & NOT continuously & closely. Put it another way: Bowers was in the tower & not down by the stairs. Thus, Bowers had to construe or construct what the two men were doing. That is why Bowers very significantly & importantly uses the phrase: to the best of my knowledge This means that the caravan has now come into the plaza. No. Not necessarily. But when the caravan came into the plaza - Hudson and the man next to him were sitting on the steps when the caravan entered the plaza OK. Hudson's testimony cannot be taken as necessarily accurate. But, even if Hudson is accurate that does not effect the meaning, the core meaning of Bowers' testimony. Bowers says that to the best of his knowledge the two men were at the stairs' area at the time of the shooting, even if Bowers did NOT see them at that precise time. He did see them immediately after the shooting. .... those would be the steps that couldn't be seen from inside the tower where Bowers sat. And if you just merely want to continue with that 'Hudson can't be trusted' crap, then that is fine ... I just don't think that anyone but you is that desperate Sounds like you are the desperate party here. to say such foolishness. Who is foolish? Just checking. Bill Miller Edited November 13, 2007 by Kathy Beckett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 "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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now