BOWERS VERY LIMITED VIEW FROM THE TOWER.

[Chris Bristow]

20 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

That is a great photo. Thanks for that. The point where the top of the shadow(The top of the stairs) meets the pergola is a very good match for the photos already posted here. It has to have been taken from the same basic altitude as the tower window. It looks like the camera was at the east side of the window. What I can't identify is the small tree in the center of the gap between pergola and the fence.

 

[Chris Bristow]

The issue has been resolved!! Moments ago I found Lasse Madsen on Facebook and she is in the plaza at this very moment and has an interest and experience in photography. I asked if she could do the photo from Hudson's position and in like 2 minutes she gave me the photo I needed. 
 In the photo below I used the left corner of the top stair and the corner of the pergola above to verify her line of sight and she was standing right on Hudson's spot. Her photo proves that Bowers tower was not visible at all to Hudson and that means Bowers had no view at all to Hudson. Many thanks to Lasse Hudson who works for a company that makes Hirg end 8mm movie camera's with very good optics.

[Chris Bristow]

One small correction Lasse just said he is a dude. Ooops

 

[Chris Bristow]

Lasse's photo now proves that Bowers never saw Hudson or Mudd or   Heygood attempting to jump the curb. So the big question is, where were the two people he described as having a plaid shirt and the other with dark trousers. He couldn't see anybodies trouser on the far side of the fence from his position in the tower. So they couldn't be on the south side of the fence or on the steps. The only plausible answer is he saw them in the parking lot and was not correct when he claimed no one was behind the fence.
 
 What a stroke of luck to find someone live in the plaza and willing to test the Hudson line of sight in real time and post the photo within 2 minutes.

Edited September 15 by Chris Bristow

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Lasse's photo now proves that Bowers never saw Hudson or Mudd or   Heygood attempting to jump the curb. So the big question is, where were the two people he described as having a plaid shirt and the other with dark trousers. He couldn't see anybodies trouser on the far side of the fence from his position in the tower. So they couldn't be on the south side of the fence or on the steps. The only plausible answer is he saw them in the parking lot and was not correct when he claimed no one was behind the fence.
 
 What a stroke of luck to find someone live in the plaza and willing to test the Hudson line of sight in real time and post the photo within 2 minutes.

CB-

Thanks for these informative posts. 

I have always been uncomfortable with witnesses who issued evolving statements over time, or who told officials different versions of that they may have said to friends.

That leaves researchers...well, which version do you believe? 

The above has a tangent from Tink Thompson on Bowers. 

The only explanation I can devise to "justify" Bower's evolving statements is that he was hired as a lookout, perhaps not knowing the full extent of what he was getting into. 

Feeling compromised, he lied and made gross omissions on his 11/22 affidavit, which mentions no men in pairs, by the fence, or guns of any kind. In short, he was an accessory before and after the fact in the JFKA. 

Later, feeling remorse, Bowers began to spill the beans.

Then he was murdered. 

But...the above narrative is getting into speculation land, with both feet. 

 

Edited September 15 by Benjamin Cole

[Ron Bulman]

11 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Thanks Chris.  This is stunning for me.  Best picture I've ever seen from that time of the area.  If from the tower second floor he had a great view of the back of the fence, and a brief view of Elm, as the shots were happening.  As well as anything to the right.

Edited September 15 by Ron Bulman

[Joe Bauer]

12 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

This above photo was taken when? Besides the old sedan I think I see some 1964 year models. One thing is for sure...Bowers had a dynamite view of the inside of the picket fence. With 20/20 vision ( corrected with glasses or not ) he would easily be able to accurately see the men on this side of it as he described imo.

I always wondered...did Bowers have a pair of binoculars at hand in his job of directing train traffic? I would think he would. Watching trains come and go with many out of close sight range... of course.

Even if Bowers stated some things he saw that were questionable...the huge majority of his WC testimony was accurate, unembellished and even understated imo.

When Bowers WC questioners cut him off and didn't follow up on several of his answers, he respectfully and amiably let them take their line of inquiry where they wanted it to go. I thought Bowers was an honest, credible, thoughtful, respectful and good character WC witness.

 

Edited September 15 by Joe Bauer

[Joe Bauer]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The above has a tangent from Tink Thompson on Bowers. 

The only explanation I can devise to "justify" Bower's evolving statements is that he was hired as a lookout, perhaps not knowing the full extent of what he was getting into. 

Feeling compromised, he lied and made gross omissions on his 11/22 affidavit, which mentions no men in paring, by fence, or guns of any kind. In short, he was an accessory before and after the fact in the JFKA. 

Later, feeling remorse, Bowers began to spill the beans.

Then he was murdered. 

Totally agree.

[Benjamin Cole]

53 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Totally agree.

Think about it: If Lee Bowers actually saw two men, one or both armed, behind the wooden fence on 11/22, acting surreptitiously during the JFKA, and then signed this affidavit....well, who would do such a thing?

Could any sane person, with even the minimum amount sense of civic obligation, sign this affidavit below? 

Lee Bowers signed the below affidavit. Why? 

[Chris Bristow]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

CB-

Thanks for these informative posts. 

I have always been uncomfortable with witnesses who issued evolving statements over time, or who told officials different versions of that they may have said to friends.

That leaves researchers...well, which version do you believe? 

The above has a tangent from Tink Thompson on Bowers. 

The only explanation I can devise to "justify" Bower's evolving statements is that he was hired as a lookout, perhaps not knowing the full extent of what he was getting into. 

Feeling compromised, he lied and made gross omissions on his 11/22 affidavit, which mentions no men in pairs, by the fence, or guns of any kind. In short, he was an accessory before and after the fact in the JFKA. 

Later, feeling remorse, Bowers began to spill the beans.

Then he was murdered. 

But...the above narrative is getting into speculation land, with both feet. 

 

I think his initial instinct on 1/22 was to keep his mouth shut about any gunman he might have seen. After watching the suspicious cars seemingly casing the the parking, two gunman on the Knoll, and hearing there was also a shooter in the TSBD, he had to believe this assassination was an organized plot. He would have to wonder who is behind the plot. He would know that if he is publicly outed as a witness who saw the shooters, and might be able to identify them, he may be targeted himself. The Mob killing witnesses was a real thing, and I think it was well known then. I think he had good reason to lie right from the start.
  Then he appeared to have false memories about the cop riding up the knoll. I thought that might have come from extrapolating his memory of seeing Heygood's attempt to hop the curb. But that photo of Hudson's view proves that Bowers could never have seen Heygood's attempt. 
 If Heygood ran up to about Hudson's level and a few feet to the west, Bowers would see a cop with a helmet from the chest up. Maybe he just assumed Heygood was on his motor. 
 When it comes to the two guys he saw he must have seen them somewhere and well enough to describe their clothing. Exactly where and when he saw them is unknown. Plaid shirts were very common then as Lovelady and Bill Newman and a couple other kids around the plaza wore plaid that day. 
  There were up to 5 witnesses on the patio that day and they all ran away. You would think that the knoll gunman issue being such so controversial that one of them would have eventually come forward. I wonder if they feared reprisal for what they might have witnessed. If a knoll gunman exited to the east, those witnesses could have come face to face with him/them as they fled into the parking area. I'm seeing your speculation and raising you one.
  

[Chris Bristow]

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

This above photo was taken when? Besides the old sedan I think I see some 1964 year models. One thing is for sure...Bowers had a dynamite view of the inside of the picket fence. With 20/20 vision ( corrected with glasses or not ) he would easily be able to accurately see the men on this side of it as he described imo.

I always wondered...did Bowers have a pair of binoculars at hand in his job of directing train traffic? I would think he would. Watching trains come and go with many out of close sight range... of course.

Even if Bowers stated some things he saw that were questionable...the huge majority of his WC testimony was accurate, unembellished and even understated imo.

When Bowers WC questioners cut him off and didn't follow up on several of his answers, he respectfully and amiably let them take their line of inquiry where they wanted it to go. I thought Bowers was an honest, credible, thoughtful, respectful and good character WC witness.

 

He did come across as honest and thoughtful. I don't think he lied but did have some false memories. His eyeglass Rx was very minor and it looks to be a farsighted correction. So even if his Rx was a bit old he could simply remove his glasses and have very good distance vision when he wanted to. If he was slightly nearsighted with some astigmatism his Rx was still minor and he could have easily seen people standing 100 yards away. 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Think about it: If Lee Bowers actually saw two men, one or both armed, behind the wooden fence on 11/22, acting surreptitiously during the JFKA, and then signed this affidavit....well, who would do such a thing?

Could any sane person, with even the minimum amount sense of civic obligation, sign this affidavit below? 

Lee Bowers signed the below affidavit. Why? 

Bowers told Lane they were on the other side of the fence from him. And the men he described were dressed exactly like Hudson and the man standing near him, who has been identified as Mudd. This has been discussed many times. 

 

 

(Interview with Mark Lane in Rush to Judgment, 1966) “At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I described were, there was a flash of light or—there was something which occurred that caught my eye. What this was I couldn’t say at the time and at this time I couldn’t identify it, other than that there was some unusual occurrence, a flash of light or smoke or something, which caused me to feel that something out of the ordinary had occurred there…There were three shots.These were spaced with one shot, then a pause, and then two shots in very close order, such as perhaps (He raps on table with his hand “rap…raprap"). Almost on top of each other, while there was some pause between the first and second shots.” (When asked if he told this to the FBI) “When I stated that I felt like the second and third shots could not have been fired from the same rifle, they reminded me that I wasn’t an expert, and I had to agree.” (Unreleased segments of Bowers' 1966 interview with Mark Lane, from a transcript of the interview found in the papers of Rush to Judgment director Emilo de Antonio at the Wisconsin Historical Archives, and published online by Dale Myers, 2004)) (When asked if there were any pedestrians between his location and Elm Street) "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..." (When asked if he saw anyone suspicious in the area) "Other than these two and the people who were over on the top of the Underpass who - that were, for the most part, were railroad employees or were employees of a Fort Worth welding firm who were working on the railroad, uh - there were no strangers out in this area." (When returning to the question of whether or not anyone was shooting from behind the fence) "Now I could see back or the South side [Note: here MYERS adds "BOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence] of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired."

 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Bowers told Lane they were on the other side of the fence from him. And the men he described were dressed exactly like Hudson and the man standing near him, who has been identified as Mudd. This has been discussed many times. 

 

 

(Interview with Mark Lane in Rush to Judgment, 1966) “At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I described were, there was a flash of light or—there was something which occurred that caught my eye. What this was I couldn’t say at the time and at this time I couldn’t identify it, other than that there was some unusual occurrence, a flash of light or smoke or something, which caused me to feel that something out of the ordinary had occurred there…There were three shots.These were spaced with one shot, then a pause, and then two shots in very close order, such as perhaps (He raps on table with his hand “rap…raprap"). Almost on top of each other, while there was some pause between the first and second shots.” (When asked if he told this to the FBI) “When I stated that I felt like the second and third shots could not have been fired from the same rifle, they reminded me that I wasn’t an expert, and I had to agree.” (Unreleased segments of Bowers' 1966 interview with Mark Lane, from a transcript of the interview found in the papers of Rush to Judgment director Emilo de Antonio at the Wisconsin Historical Archives, and published online by Dale Myers, 2004)) (When asked if there were any pedestrians between his location and Elm Street) "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..." (When asked if he saw anyone suspicious in the area) "Other than these two and the people who were over on the top of the Underpass who - that were, for the most part, were railroad employees or were employees of a Fort Worth welding firm who were working on the railroad, uh - there were no strangers out in this area." (When returning to the question of whether or not anyone was shooting from behind the fence) "Now I could see back or the South side [Note: here MYERS adds "BOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence] of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired."

 

PS-

Thanks for you comment, which looks to me to be valid, as much as I understand the confusing comments made by Bowers in his 1966 Lane-interview, and Lane's possibly inspired editing. 

At other times, Bowers is said to have made more-detailed or embellished statements to others regarding 11/22, such as to friends, work associates and ministers. It is those statements that I am referring. Those other statements are not filmed or recorded, and are, essentially, hearsay evidence. 

What I am asking, if Bowers' more-startling (unofficial and unrecorded) statements are true...then why the anodyne 11/22 affidavit? 

I have given up on positing "The Truth" in the JFKA, but I do toss out a lot of materials as dubious. "Dubious" does not mean "untrue." Just means, "Can you trust this?" 

 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I think his initial instinct on 1/22 was to keep his mouth shut about any gunman he might have seen. After watching the suspicious cars seemingly casing the the parking, two gunman on the Knoll, and hearing there was also a shooter in the TSBD, he had to believe this assassination was an organized plot. He would have to wonder who is behind the plot. He would know that if he is publicly outed as a witness who saw the shooters, and might be able to identify them, he may be targeted himself. The Mob killing witnesses was a real thing, and I think it was well known then. I think he had good reason to lie right from the start.
  Then he appeared to have false memories about the cop riding up the knoll. I thought that might have come from extrapolating his memory of seeing Heygood's attempt to hop the curb. But that photo of Hudson's view proves that Bowers could never have seen Heygood's attempt. 
 If Heygood ran up to about Hudson's level and a few feet to the west, Bowers would see a cop with a helmet from the chest up. Maybe he just assumed Heygood was on his motor. 
 When it comes to the two guys he saw he must have seen them somewhere and well enough to describe their clothing. Exactly where and when he saw them is unknown. Plaid shirts were very common then as Lovelady and Bill Newman and a couple other kids around the plaza wore plaid that day. 
  There were up to 5 witnesses on the patio that day and they all ran away. You would think that the knoll gunman issue being such so controversial that one of them would have eventually come forward. I wonder if they feared reprisal for what they might have witnessed. If a knoll gunman exited to the east, those witnesses could have come face to face with him/them as they fled into the parking area. I'm seeing your speculation and raising you one.
  

CB-

It is a possibility that Bowers was simply frightened on 11/22, when he gave his anodyne statement to authorities. 

Or, that he was complicit, having been paid off in advance to keep quiet, without really knowing what he was getting into. 

Or...that Bowers just had an active imagination, and liked the sense of intrigue and drama that came with his later revelations. 

I wish there was more intrigue and drama in my somewhat dull life too. A few honeypots trying to eke information out of me would not be bad either. 

 

 

[Joe Bauer]

Bowers recounts the FBI telling him ( "reminding" ) him that "he wasn't an expert" regards him telling them his belief that the second and third shots could not have come from the same rifle. Their interrupting him and his account with a credibility discounting charge that he was no expert, was an act of intimidation. Bowers didn't argue their charge. In fact he felt compelled to say back to them ... " I agree." What person being interviewed by the FBI regards their involvement in one of the most important eyewitness aspects of the most important and scary historical event of the 20th century and being condescendingly "countered and corrected" by them wouldn't feel intimidated? Bowers knew he had limits to what he could and could not say in interviews with official government agencies. Bowers knew their questioning of him revealed they didn't trust him and his version of what he saw and thought that day.

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

There were three shots. These were spaced with one shot, then a pause, and then two shots in very close order, such as perhaps (He raps on table with his hand “rap…rap-rap"). Almost on top of each other, while there was some pause between the first and second shots.” (When asked if he told this to the FBI) “When I stated that I felt like the second and third shots could not have been fired from the same rifle, they reminded me that I wasn’t an expert, and I had to agree.”

 

Edited September 15 by Joe Bauer