Hammer Man and Crew

[Miles Scull]

Right, Denis, true enough in a sense.

But, many times in the past researchers have failed to analyse in depth, only to discover to their embarrassment that seemingly insignificant details later proved to be key points of linkage to points of major importance.

They should be more embarrassed that they constantly misspell the word "analyze".

You have a tendency to take aim & shoot at what you imagine to be an easy target as a "poor speller" only, then post shot, to find to your amazement that you had actually aimed at & shot your own foot. Ouch!

"analyse" is merely the UK spelling (my preference) for the America spelling "analyze"

I prefer "colour" to "color"

I can recommend a podiatrist.

In this regard, a good example (remaining on topic) is the case of the irrational exuberance which occurred when it was apparently discovered that Lee Bowers could not have seen Hudson on the steps. This alleged discovery was mistakenly hailed as a proof that Bowers' general testimony of seeing the two men at the steps was invalid.

But, afterwards, lo & behold, these remarkable photos surfaced proving that Bowers easily could have seen Hudson's right plaid jacket at the shoulder or if he had raised his right arm

Miles, the mistake that is being made is you misstating the facts in some instances

You mean like saying that there is only one way to spell "analyze?"

and inventing facts that never existed in others.

Again, like saying people who can't spell must be wrong in there contentions, when it is laughably you who cannot spell?

If Hudson would have waved his arms - if Hudson would have raised his arms - if Hudson would have walked off the steps and stood where Bowers could see him on the incline - if Hudson had walked up to the tower and out in front of Bowers window so Lee could see him wouldn't make a bit of difference because Hudson, being the heaviest set man on the steps, wasn't wearing dark pants as Bowers described the man he was talking about had worn.

Nonsense. Here you have misstated the facts, as I will show. First of all, Bowers seeing Hudson's arm is demonstrated only as a possibility & has no bearing on whether or not Hudson was a man described by Bowers. As usual, you are repeating the same error you have repeatedly made in the past: that of assuming Bowers was standing on the steps with the three men at the time when actually Bowers was 100 yards away. Keep that in mind.

Bowers actually said:

"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."

You have omitted critical qualifiers, which omission distorts & misstates the facts.

"fairly heavy-set" & "fairly dark trousers"

"fairly" you omit.

Therefore, obviously, Bowers is NOT describing Hudson, but Bowers could have been (but not necessarily) describing the man seen here to Hudson's left about to run up the stairs:

In fact, you have offered no evidence that Hudson's coat was plaid.

Only the photo above offered many times before. You are misstating the facts.

William, Emmett's son. is listed in the book ... I invite anyone to call him and ask about his dad's coat.

Why don't you call? Why ask other people to do your research?

Just like you purposely misstated the evidence by constantly saying that Bowers saw a 'red plaid' shirt or jacket when Bowers had never used the word "red"

No, you are wrong again & you are misstating the facts again. My attribution of red has been stated many times:

QUOTE(Kathy Beckett @ Sep 17 2007, 04:49 PM)

Yes, Bowers says "plaid shirt."

Bowers does not say "red plaid shirt."

The reasoning is that if you ask yourself the question: "Why did Bowers not say red plaid, if that is what he meant?"

and then ask yourself: "What other colour might Bowers have had in mind when he said "plaid?"

and then answer yourself:

Well, maybe Bowers was saying that he saw one of these:

It's logically possible.

But is it probable?

At 100 yards Bowers says that, as he looked toward the stairs, he saw a young man in his mid-twenties wearing a shirt that he calls plaid.

The photographic evidence shows a young man (whom Hudson said was in his late twenties) wearing a red shirt on the stairs.

The supposition is made that most Americans at the time, including Bowers, thought of a plaid shirt as being a red plaid shirt for the reason that most plaid shirts sold & worn & SEEN in the 1960s were red in colouration to one degree or another. Other colourations for plaid shirts were not as commonplace as red.

The contention is that Bowers was one person of many who associated plaid shirts with red plaid shirts.

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.

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

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.

Therefore, to argue that Bowers' use of the word "plaid" strikes down or invalidates Bowers' testimony does not make sense.

Thanks for your enquiry, Kathy. And for your kind words, too.

This post has been edited by Miles Scull: Sep 17 2007, 09:46 PM

.... you are now attributing the same design to Hudson's coat. Let me remind you and everyone else that your past position was that the 'heavy set man' was in your words ... just the heavier set man between the two men Bowers told Mr. Ball about.

Let me remind you and everyone else that you are not making sense here.

So if Hudson wore a plaid coat for arguments sake, then he couldn't be the man who wore the black pants

You have at last grasped the truth of the matter!

(which was the heavier set of the two men Lee was describing when he testified before the Commission) and if Hudson was ever thought to be the man in plaid that Bowers spoke about, then he is too heavy for Emmett was by far the larger of any of the men on the steps.

No.

So no matter how you try and twist the facts

You are doing the twisting.

to fit the initial accusations you had made concerning why you believed the three men on the steps were the two men Bowers testified about - there is always something else in their description or where they were at a particular moment in time cancels them out as candidates for being the two men Bowers described to Ball.

Nonsense. Bowers was 100 yards away.

Even your responses show this to be the case for you have gone to implying that Bowers could see the men as they stood on the steps to if Hudson was holding his right arm out to his side, then Bowers could have seen Emmett's coat.

Nonsense. Hudson was not one of the two men.

You've managed to go from looking to be mistaken due to a poorly thought-out claim to showing that once you know you had made a mistake that you will make up silly possibilities to justify your previous statements.

No, that's what you do & have done. Remember the fictitious Weitzman report you made up to save your refuted position.

And just so you know ... I got several calls during the conference week from people who were in the plaza who told me that Groden and Mack were exactly right and that Bowers could not have seen the three men on the steps when the caravan entered the plaza. So like myself, I know they are watching your responses with great interest.

Of course they are, with trepidation & fear & trembling.

Then there is the little matter of the two men Bowers testified about who were standing 10 to 15 feet apart when the caravan entered the plaza. Again, Hudson was sitting down on the steps and side by side with the man seen next to him in the assassination images.

No. Wrong again. This has been gone over many times before. Bowers is speaking collectively to the best of his knowledge from times other than the 7 sec. of the shooting.

One thing that you (Miles) seem to be slanting a tad bit and that is that you have had photos taken of the LOS from the steps to the tower and the person who took the photos you are using found that one could not stand or sit where Emmett Hudson was located during the caravans trip through the plaza and see the window that Lee Bowers sat behind when the assassination took place. The description that Robert Groden gave and offered by way of photographs, along with the independent description Gary Mack relayed to me was in fact accurate. Your photographer had to actually step off the steps and onto the grass of the slope to fall onto a LOS that would allow them to see Bowers window and/or for Bowers to have seen them. I'll even extend an offer for you to ask your photographer to read what I have said and to respond as to whether the information already provided by several sources is accurate or not.

First of all, the photographer is not my photographer, but is an independent who avers that he stepped 1 foot west. So 6 inches west gives Bowers a sight of Hudson's arm.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

You have a tendency to take aim & shoot at what you imagine to be an easy target as a "poor speller" only,

Thats not true Miles ... I consider you to be poor at many things - not just spelling.

Nonsense. Here you have misstated the facts, as I will show. First of all, Bowers seeing Hudson's arm is demonstrated only as a possibility & has no bearing on whether or not Hudson was a man described by Bowers.

No doubt about that ... makes one wonder why you'd be posting about things that have no bearing on the subject.

As usual, you are repeating the same error you have repeatedly made in the past: that of assuming Bowers was standing on the steps with the three men at the time when actually Bowers was 100 yards away. Keep that in mind.

Miles, paste where I have ever said Bowers was standing on the steps with the three other men. Is this some more code language you have come up with?

You have omitted critical qualifiers, which omission distorts & misstates the facts.

"fairly heavy-set" & "fairly dark trousers"

"fairly" you omit.

Therefore, obviously, Bowers is NOT describing Hudson, but Bowers could have been (but not necessarily) describing the man seen here to Hudson's left about to run up the stairs:

It is a proven fact that Bowers could not have seen anyone standing on the steps during the caravan entering the plaza - during the shooting - or as they ran up the walkway. This must be some more of that 'no-bearing' stuff you touched on earlier.

Only the photo above offered many times before. You are misstating the facts.

And that would be what - the Nix film capture that is far less superior than the original Towner slides???

Why don't you call? Why ask other people to do your research?

I have spoken to William Hudson about his dad's clothing and physical appearance at the time of the assassination, so to avoid the hearsay gamer you like to play ... I thought someone like yourself asking such a simple question would get around all the nonsense. And Miles ... when it comes to someone spending their hard earned money on research ... you aren't even in the same league so to be critical of my efforts.

Just like you purposely misstated the evidence by constantly saying that Bowers saw a 'red plaid' shirt or jacket when Bowers had never used the word "red"

No, you are wrong again & you are misstating the facts again. My attribution of red has been stated many times:

Yes - you should have posted some of your responses given before I asked that Kathy to call you on the matter.

At 100 yards Bowers says that, as he looked toward the stairs, he saw a young man in his mid-twenties wearing a shirt that he calls plaid.

The photographic evidence shows a young man (whom Hudson said was in his late twenties) wearing a red shirt on the stairs.

Oooopps - are we back on stuff that has no bearing on anything? Bowers described seeing the two men as the caravan entered the plaza and made its way to Elm Street and the men you are calling 'probable' are impossible to be the same men Lee spoke about during that period.

The supposition is made that most Americans at the time, including Bowers, thought of a plaid shirt as being a red plaid shirt for the reason that most plaid shirts sold & worn & SEEN in the 1960s were red in colouration to one degree or another. Other colourations for plaid shirts were not as commonplace as red.

And what data do you have to support your supposition???

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

Yes - code language ... if Bowers said he saw a man in a plaid shirt or jacket, then he must have meant just the opposite.

[Miles Scull]

Yes - code language ... if Bowers said he saw a man in a plaid shirt or jacket, then he must have meant just the opposite.

And now that you have had the obligatory ''chase the tail'' indulgence, shall we return to the topic of this thread?

You have claimed that the stein was a travel mug, despite the obvious gross size disparity.

Perhaps you propose that this gentleman was an Emmett Kelly trainee on break for the parade?

I hope that we can be serious in apprehending that Bowers' testimony that the two men were at the stairs, not behind the picket fence, is not to be sidestepped by diverting the topic of this thread.

[Bernice Moore]

Miles:

Can you please state the source, that the man on the top right on the steps, in your photo,

you have marked, below....is older...in the Bowers subject thread, thanks...

I do not see plaid....I see a red toned coloured jacket, whatever....the photo is too poor to analyse..

imo....for such details.....and BTW..if you think that plaid jackets, back then, came in one colour, red,

then that is in error.

Why are you diverting this thread back to the Bowers, Hudson, steps scenario..?...there is

a long thread on such, which you could have easily gone back to....

What you are doing is called hi-jacking a thread....there is always a reason, and it does get tiresome......

and I for one do not appreciate such...when overdone repeatedly..

B......

Edited November 26, 2007 by Bernice Moore

[Miles Scull]

Miles:

Can you please state the source, that the man on the top right on the steps, in your photo,

you have marked, below....is older...in the Bowers subject thread, thanks...

No prob., B

The source is all of the other photos & films taken in toto.

I do not see plaid....I see a red toned coloured jacket, whatever....the photo is too poor to analyse..

imo....for such details.....

Right, you cannot analyse (I note you use this UK spelling also for the American "analyze."), but you can speculate.

and BTW..if you think that plaid jackets, back then, came in one colour, red,

then that is in error.

Oh no, but most were red. That is the point..

Why are you diverting this thread back to the Bowers, Hudson, steps scenario..?...there is

a long thread on such, which you could have easily gone back to....

Reread this thread. You will see that Miller has diverted this thread.

What you are doing is called hi-jacking a thread....there is always a reason, and it does get tiresome......

and I for one do not appreciate such...when overdone repeatedly..

Reread the thread.

Miller tried to fault me for misspelling "analyze" & got shot out of the saddle. Go figure.

See my post # 50 on this thread & you will see that I have tried to return this Miller diversion to the thread's proper topic.

B......

[Tim Gratz]

Bill wrote:

One cannot help but wonder if some of the more ridiculous claims are being made so to make it appear that CT's are off their rocker. Just think of it .... what better of a way to counter CT's than by pretending to be one of them and then waste tons of time raising some of the most ridiculous observations possible.

Bill, this thought has crossed my mind as well, particularly because VB in "Reclaiming History" uses that precise tactic of reciting some of the more absurd arguments to ridicule all of us who believe in a conspiracy. Of course I like the Josiah Thompson argument that the best way to deal with such absurdities is to ignore them rather than writing a 1600 page book attempting to debunk every one of them.

[Tim Gratz]

A balloon ready to be launched to celebrate the assassination?

[Tim Gratz]

Well, that explains it!

Only a true criminal genius would have thought of a Mugman, a GlovePuppetMan and a Balloonman!

Edited November 26, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Miles Scull]

Well, that explains it!

Thanks Tim, I knew you'd get it eventually, so simple eh?

MugMan holds up the mug as a decoy, GlovePuppetMan send the real signal. After JFK is shot Balloonman releases the Balloon to celebrate their triumph. They then all share the beer in the mug. Assassinating a president is thirsty work.

Duncan,

Good work to enlighten Tim who from a cursory glance at his posts elsewhere has profited from your tutelage.

Still, it is a mistake to judge this object to be a mug. It is far too large for that, just as Shorty is too small.

[Bill Miller]

Reread this thread. You will see that Miller has diverted this thread.

I believe that the Bowers information was revisited initially in Post #30, the reason given as an example of "irrational exuberance".

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=128635

Kathy, Miles isn't going to want you exposing his childish game playing. I guess its about time to post more on how a xxxxx operates to see if there are any similar behavior patterns involved here. It's said that they set up little divergences and then come back to complain about the thread getting off-track.

Oh by the way, Kathy. You were in Dallas this year. I wanted to ask you .... did you by chance get to the knoll and check the view of the tower from where the men on the steps were positioned and if so ... was the Bowers window visible from there or was Groden and Mack correct that Lee Bowers could not have seen anyone standing on the steps whether it be when the caravan entered the plaza or during the shooting???

Bill

Edited December 3, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Hello Bill!!!

Why, YES, I was in Dallas, attending a conference. And yes, I went to the knoll.

Immediately, we had a vendor step to where we were, and began to give us his take of the events on 11/22/63 (where shooters were, etc). I was very curious about the information that I had read on the Bowers thread. He had a tabloid loaded with pictures, and realizing I was near the steps, I asked him if the tabloid contained Moorman 5, and it did. I was allowed to look at it (for $10. ), and positioned myself, facing the tower, in all 3 of the men's positions on the steps. I was not able to see it.

However, when I moved to the grass on the left, I COULD see the tower.

Sincerely,

Kathy Beckett

Thanks for that very informative response. I guess this adds credibility to what Groden and Mack had already said on the matter. However, in case it comes up through Miles ... did you by chance bother to see if someone stood where Hudson did and held their arm out to their left side (possibly like a scarecrow hanging in a farmers field) to see if their sleeve would be visible from the tower??? Because we all know that some people can merely see a wrist sticking out past a wall and tell which way someone's head is turned so to know if they were watching the caravan entering the plaza and making its way to them. I mean, I realize this sound idiotic, but I thought we'd address it before Miles attempted to raise the issue. LOL!!!

[William O'Neil]

Reread this thread. You will see that Miller has diverted this thread.

I believe that the Bowers information was revisited initially in Post #30, the reason given as an example of "irrational exuberance".

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=128635

Kathy, Miles isn't going to want you exposing his childish xxxxx game playing. I guess its about time to post more on how a xxxxx operates. They set up little divergences and then come back to complain about the thread getting off-track.

Oh by the way, Kathy. You were in Dallas this year. I wanted to ask you .... did you by chance get to the knoll and check the view of the tower from where the men on the steps were positioned and if so ... was the Bowers window visible from there or was Groden and Mack correct that Lee Bowers could not have seen anyone standing on the steps whether it be when the caravan entered the plaza or during the shooting???

Bill

Hello Bill!!!

Why, YES, I was in Dallas, attending a conference. And yes, I went to the knoll.

Immediately, we had a vendor step to where we were, and began to give us his take of the events on 11/22/63 (where shooters were, etc). I was very curious about the information that I had read on the Bowers thread. He had a tabloid loaded with pictures, and realizing I was near the steps, I asked him if the tabloid contained Moorman 5, and it did. I was allowed to look at it (for $10. ), and positioned myself, facing the tower, in all 3 of the men's positions on the steps. I was not able to see it(the window).

Moving to the left of the stairs gave me a good view of the tower, although it was probably a foot over, at least.

I hope that answers your question.

BTW, we were also able to meet Ed Hoffman, and I wanted you to know that he is feeling much better.

Sincerely,

Kathy Beckett

I was also there at the same time Kathy was (Hey Kathy!), and will confirm that there is no line of sight from Hudson's posistion to the tower, or visa versa. I also asked Jerry Dealey about this, he said that he'd been up in that tower and you cannot see that far down on the steps, the end of the pergola is in the way. Larry Hancock also confirmed this , and the fact that Bowers would not have consisdered men on those steps suspicious in the first place, as he knew there was a parade coming by. It's a bogus issue ! I took photo's but do not know how to post them.

-Bill O

[Bill Miller]

I was also there at the same time Kathy was (Hey Kathy!), and will confirm that there is no line of sight from Hudson's posistion to the tower, or visa versa. I also asked Jerry Dealey about this, he said that he'd been up in that tower and you cannot see that far down on the steps, the end of the pergola is in the way. Larry Hancock also confirmed this , and the fact that Bowers would not have consisdered men on those steps suspicious in the first place, as he knew there was a parade coming by. It's a bogus issue ! I took photo's but do not know how to post them.

-Bill O

Hello Bill. Of course it is a bogus issue and I believe the person(s) responsible for bringing it to the table knew this from the very beginning. "Ye shall know thee by the fruit they bare".

If you wish to send me a personal message ... I will give you instructions on how to post photos to the forum.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

If you wish to send me a personal message ...

Bill

I mean, I realize this sound idiotic,...

More validated infromation:

Bill,

I took another walk up and down the steps this morning. What I saw was covered in my October 17 note to you:

As you know from your visits to Dealey Plaza, the steps do not fall in a straight line from the walkway to the curb. They are curved. Their actual path, from the walkway, is semi-circular extending slightly to the west above the landing and back to the east below it. Because of that, I decided to check the steps above the landing even though Hudson was never there, as far as anyone knows.

If, and this is a very big if, Hudson stood on the second step above the walkway and leaned way over the west edge of the steps, he might see a small part of the large window where Bowers stood. But there's no reason to suspect that Hudson did that, nor was there any reason to walk around on the hill and avoid the steps. And even if Hudson did do that, the second man would still have been totally blocked from Bowers' view by the pergola.

Gary Mack

This post has been edited by Bill Miller: Oct 31 2007, 04:57 AM

Gary's always game for a spot of fun. -

My contention that Bowers could have seen the right shoulder of Hudson, if he had leaned to his right or if he had momentarily stepped 1 foot to his right, west to the stairs, is confirmed.

[Alan Healy]

, and the fact that Bowers would not have consisdered men on those steps suspicious in the first place, as he knew there was a parade coming by. It's a bogus issue ! I took photo's but do not know how to post them.

-Bill O

The two men Bowers talked about were never described as suspicious, they were just two men watching/following the motorcade.