Hammer Man and Crew

[Miles Scull]

, 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.

Quite right, Alan.

Posted Today, 08:35 PM

I have not taken part in the what Bowers could or could not see issue, and i'm not trying to throw Miles a lifeline either, but something has just crossed my mind which I think needs answering. Does anyone have the answer to this question?

Have the stairs ever been narrowed, widened, or replaced during work on the knoll over the last 44 years?

The reason I ask should be obvious to both the for and against readers and contributors to this thread, and bears consideration in fairness to the position which Miles is taking.

Duncan

Duncan,

Good question.

As you know, the photographic record of activity on the stairs before the shots is limited to Willis #5. Correct me, if I err.

Since Hudson's testimony is confused & unreliable, albeit well intentioned, then extrapolation from Hudson's testimony is also unreliable.

Bowers observation of the movement of individuals before the shots is not limited to the three men seen on the stairs in Moorman, but could easily have included sightings of these three at some time.

In other words, Bowers description tallies with photographic evidence.

For example, if the three men each wore shorts or were naked above the waist, then there would be problems.

Whether or not Bowers could see Hudson's shoulder is only an ancillary issue of interest en passant; it doesn't affect Bowers' placement of the two men at the stairs locus & removed from behind the fence.

[Bill Miller]

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.

Yes ... another validated contention that everyone with any common sense could have deduced. However, I am not sure that a simple lean of one foot for Hudson could have helped Bowers see any part of him ... and we must assume that Bowers was positioned at the far west most section of the tower to give himself the best possible angle to see towards the stairway ... but if we contend enough - we may even have JFK alive and well, but that's not the evidence before us.

Now with Hudson on the right/west side and being the heaviest of the three men on the steps, how does that work in with the plaid shirted or jacketed man not being the heavier of the two men Bowers described???

[Miles Scull]

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.

Yes ... another validated contention that everyone with any common sense could have deduced. However, I am not sure that a simple lean of one foot for Hudson could have helped Bowers see any part of him ... and we must assume that Bowers was positioned at the far west most section of the tower to give himself the best possible angle to see towards the stairway ... but if we contend enough - we may even have JFK alive and well, but that's not the evidence before us.

Now with Hudson on the right/west side and being the heaviest of the three men on the steps, how does that work in with the plaid shirted or jacketed man not being the heavier of the two men Bowers described???

Running man up the stairs was seen by Price carrying something in his right hand. A weapon?

At 100 yards, Bowers is comparing two individuals, he was not at the stairs with portable weighing scales.

You keep forgetting this.

By the way, did you really scan the book SSID?

Edited for grammar.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Have the stairs ever been narrowed, widened, or replaced during work on the knoll over the last 44 years?

In making even a feeble effort at doing research ... I discovered by calling the Museum that the stairs are still the same as they were at the time of the assassination.

Since Hudson's testimony is confused & unreliable, albeit well intentioned, then extrapolation from Hudson's testimony is also unreliable.

In speaking with other researchers and asking them if they felt Hudson's testimony was confusing - they said that it wasn't confusing to them. I also hold that opinion.

Bowers observation of the movement of individuals before the shots is not limited to the three men seen on the stairs in Moorman, but could easily have included sightings of these three at some time.

'At some time'??? Who cares if Bowers saw these guys a week earlier pitching pennies against the colonnade .... at the moment that the caravan entered the plaza and during the shooting is the important time frame to understand so to know if any of these three men on the stairs are candidates for being the two men Bowers testified about.

For example, if the three men each wore shorts or were naked above the waist, then there would be problems.

Whether three men could be seen as the caravan entered the plaza could also be a problem.

[Bill Miller]

Running man up the stairs was seen by Price carrying something in his right hand. A weapon?

Is it going to be a new contention of yours that JC Price was talking about seeing the running man who left Hudson's side as being the same man he told of seeing running off with a hair-piece???

At 100 yards, Bowers is comparing two individuals, he was not at the stairs with portable weighing scales.

So now Bowers who in your mind can see plaid on a shirt sleeve from a 100 yards away and through lenses that resemble the bottoms of two Coke bottles, but couldn't tell a heavy set man from a skinny one ... Is this yet another brilliant contention that you have come up with???

By the way, did you really scan the book SSID?

Who said anything about scanning books?

Bill Miller

Edited November 27, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Have the stairs ever been narrowed, widened, or replaced during work on the knoll over the last 44 years?

In making even a feeble effort at doing research ... I discovered by calling the Museum that the stairs are still the same as they were at the time of the assassination.

Since Hudson's testimony is confused & unreliable, albeit well intentioned, then extrapolation from Hudson's testimony is also unreliable.

In speaking with other researchers and asking them if they felt Hudson's testimony was confusing - they said that it wasn't confusing to them. I also hold that opinion.

Bowers observation of the movement of individuals before the shots is not limited to the three men seen on the stairs in Moorman, but could easily have included sightings of these three at some time.

'At some time'??? Who cares if Bowers saw these guys a week earlier pitching pennies against the colonnade .... at the moment that the caravan entered the plaza and during the shooting is the important time frame to understand so to know if any of these three men on the stairs are candidates for being the two men Bowers testified about.

Have you forgotten which was the young man?

For example, if the three men each wore shorts or were naked above the waist, then there would be problems.

Whether three men could be seen as the caravan entered the plaza could also be a problem.

[Miles Scull]

Who said anything about scanning books?

Bill Miller

So, you actually scanned the page in SSID !

[Bill Miller]

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

You have been warned about using inferior images and you have been advised to talk to people who would know the facts .... such as William Hudson. You should call him - interesting fellow .... seemed nice to me. And the beauty of your calling him will eliminate you telling everyone that what I posted about my discussion with William was mere hearsay.

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?"

The above statements are illogical IMO. Not only does the original Towner slides not show any plaid design on the mens clothing who were photographed on the knoll, but to then somehow add the color 'red' to the mix as if there are no other colors made in the world that have a plaid design to them is totally irresponsible.

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.

Bowers doesn't say this ... it is your interpretation.

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

But Bowers could not have seen neither of the young men on the stairs with Hudson when the Caravan entered the plaza and made its way to the underpass. This means that Bowers had been talking about someone else.

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.

That's as ridiculous as assuming that most American's believe that obese people got fat from eating jelly doughnuts. Your supposing things is why so many of your claims have fallen apart upon further investigation.

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.

So you are telling us that the person who took the photos you posted was a man? And the 1' west was said to be of the steps and not 6" or 1' west of where Hudson was standing. But who's counting - right! After all, seeing Hudson's coat wouldn't cause someone to see plaid - or two other men standing further east - or know which way two of them were facing as the caravan came into the plaza. It's almost like Hudson and the men on the stairs are irrelevant when it comes to the two men Bowers testified about ... which I believe is what I have said from the onset.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Don Bailey]

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. The man at the wall raised a mug, glass, or what ever to toast the passing President. Another old guy being said to be giving the 'OK' sign as if he is signaling someone . These things coming from someone who cannot even look at a photo and see a shade line on a man's arm only to mistake it for being the handle on a mallet.

You are the one with the ridiculous claim if you think that I'm a LN'er... matter of fact, I don't care what you think of me or my views. When I signed up for this forum it was to discuss the topics on the JFK assassination, there is nothing in the rules about conforming to your supposed golden word.

And if that isn't bad enough, then let's waste forum space trying to make something out of nothing.

Why not discuss the issues? After all, this is the JFK Assassination Debate.

It does make sense to have a signalman or several signalmen on the ground. The enormous object in this man’s hand is out of the ordinary. Signalers and markers were in place for the shooters… like the yellow paint on the south side curb of Elm.

Don

[Bill Miller]

You are the one with the ridiculous claim if you think that I'm a LN'er... matter of fact, I don't care what you think of me or my views. When I signed up for this forum it was to discuss the topics on the JFK assassination, there is nothing in the rules about conforming to your supposed golden word.

No ... I don't think you are necessarily a LN'r .... but I do think removing the "L" would be appropriate. That thread about Hudson maybe being one of the tramps was certainly a classic.

It does make sense to have a signalman or several signalmen on the ground. The enormous object in this man’s hand is out of the ordinary. Signalers and markers were in place for the shooters… like the yellow paint on the south side curb of Elm.

So what is your take on this ... is it your position that the people who carried out the assassination were not complex enough to come up with signals that only they would recognize as such, but instead handed out giant mallets to be waved around like one would see in an "Itchy and Scratchy" cartoon.

And about that 'yellow paint' you touched on. Just so you know ... the yellow paint has been used in Dallas since the mid to late 1950's to mark curbs where the road turns. So unless you are willing to say that JFK's assassination was being planned by way of painting the curbs in Dallas yellow before Kennedy was ever elected ... then you have a lot of loose ends to tie up. LOL!!!

[Don Bailey]

No ... I don't think you are necessarily a LN'r .... but I do think removing the "L" would be appropriate.

So what if I am, it’s what helped me to become a great investigator.

So what is your take on this ... is it your position that the people who carried out the assassination were not complex enough to come up with signals that only they would recognize as such, but instead handed out giant mallets to be waved around like one would see in an "Itchy and Scratchy" cartoon.

It certainly would be an eye-catcher for the SS to look at when they passed-by… another diversion.

That thread about Hudson maybe being one of the tramps was certainly a classic.

I’m not finished with that subject.

Don

[Chris Davidson]

Perhaps we can identify another spotter signal or muzzle flash or whatever it may be. (Lady to Hammerman's right)

Or, is that just another one of those reflections?

Also, hammerman apparently with nothing in hand but a gesture of waving.

Towner film with Hammerman stabilized.

Let's see, we have Z film damage around 153 and the Croft photo is about 161. Interesting

chris

Edited November 27, 2007 by Chris Davidson

[Bill Miller]

So what if I am, it’s what helped me to become a great investigator.

Yes ... your knowledge or lack of knowledge as to who Emmett Hudson was sure showed your investigative talents.

I’m not finished with that subject.

Don

Really? About the only thing left is for you to make a public apology to the Hudson family for thinking he was a tramp.

[Chris Davidson]

Perhaps we can identify another spotter signal or muzzle flash or whatever it may be. (Lady to Hammerman's right)

Or, is that just another one of those reflections?

Also, hammerman apparently with nothing in hand but a gesture of waving.

Towner film with Hammerman stabilized.

Let's see, we have Z film damage around 153 and the Croft photo is about 161. Interesting

chris

Chris, all of your stabilized gifs are great..but they all run much too fast and I know of no way to control them. The speed of one's internet connection seems to determine the speed and having a fast one they zip past at speeds I can't focus on the details...is there someway you can post them with a speed control or is there some standard software that will? Thanks. Otherwise they are great...magical!

Peter,

Here it is a little slower. Let me know if this is ok.

thanks,

chris

[Chris Davidson]

Larger version of Towner supplied at: http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/A.gif

The Epipolar Geometric Analysis done by Dale Myers has the Towner film ending approx 10.5 seconds before the 313 headshot.

In Z frames that about frame 124, if it existed.

Croft photo is taken at Z161, which gives mallet/beermug man approx. 2 seconds to stop waving his arm, reach his mallet/mug

and appear as such in Croft's photo.

interesting

chris