From Behind the Fence

[Fergus O'Brien]

            Your point is the same one I often make. The eyewitnesses with Elevated viewing positions have the best overall view of Dealey Plaza. They are looking downward onto Elm St and therefore see much more than eyewitnesses at ground level on Elm St. People in everyday life seldom look Upward. Their vision seldom raising higher than roughly 10 feet high off the ground. Ground level eyewitnesses were fixated on the JFK Limo traveling down Elm St. These eyewitnesses were like a Pirate peering through an eye glass or someone on a submarine looking through a periscope. Very restricted vision. The higher ground vision of those on the Triple Underpass and Lee Bowers in the Railroad Tower is far superior. The WC attorney never asked Bowers, but I would bet that a pair of binoculars is standard equipment inside that Railroad Tower. Bowers needing to see the Top of the Triple Underpass would mandate a pair of binoculars being inside that tower to aid his vision for great distances such as this. I believe he probably used binoculars on 11/22/63. This would make his observations prior to the shooting all the more valuable/precise.

hello i agree with you in regard elevation for sure .and also that people were looking at jfk and or jackie . i have often bee told but witnesses would have seen a man /men behind the fence , but as we agree witnesses had no need to look there , well not until shots rang out any way . they were fixed looking at jfk and jackie in the center lane of elm . witnesses are never 100% accurate , its human nature .some may embellish or lie as i think happened in this case . not necessarily always for money but yes for some it may have been a factor . for some maybe just to insert them selves into history . even cops did this .do i think holland and co lied ? no , i have no reason at all to believe so . was holland wrong about how long it was before he ran to look behind the fence ? yes he was , greatly wrong ? no but wrong none the less . however that does not invalidate his observations .

in my humble opinion the WC didnt want bowers observations on record . i do think he saw more than he admitted to . that said he saw quite a bit as can be seen in his testimony . the commission could have gotten a lot more from him had THEY WANTED TO . lane asked him in essence to say what he was going to say to the commission before they cut him off and he did . he said something happened up there on the knoll a flash of light or smoke  , but he was not sure what .the W/C could have gotten so much more from witnesses but they didnt want to .thank you for your reply royell .

[Royell Storing]

hello i agree with you in regard elevation for sure .and also that people were looking at jfk and or jackie . i have often bee told but witnesses would have seen a man /men behind the fence , but as we agree witnesses had no need to look there , well not until shots rang out any way . they were fixed looking at jfk and jackie in the center lane of elm . witnesses are never 100% accurate , its human nature .some may embellish or lie as i think happened in this case . not necessarily always for money but yes for some it may have been a factor . for some maybe just to insert them selves into history . even cops did this .do i think holland and co lied ? no , i have no reason at all to believe so . was holland wrong about how long it was before he ran to look behind the fence ? yes he was , greatly wrong ? no but wrong none the less . however that does not invalidate his observations .

in my humble opinion the WC didnt want bowers observations on record . i do think he saw more than he admitted to . that said he saw quite a bit as can be seen in his testimony . the commission could have gotten a lot more from him had THEY WANTED TO . lane asked him in essence to say what he was going to say to the commission before they cut him off and he did . he said something happened up there on the knoll a flash of light or smoke  , but he was not sure what .the W/C could have gotten so much more from witnesses but they didnt want to .thank you for your reply royell .

    You and I agree right down the line.  Just looking at Holland physically, it would have taken him awhile to get back behind the picket fence had he immediately headed there. The assorted film images show a lot of people atop the Triple Underpass at least 90 seconds maybe 2 minutes after the kill shot. You can see them up there on the Couch footage of Officer Haygood straightening his motorcycle up at the curb.
     I do believe that Lee Bowers is a No Nonsense kinda person. What he says is not going to be exaggerated. His detailed description of those 3 cars along with his detailing a guy talking into something inside a car tells me he probably had binoculars trained on those cars. Bowers mentioned that the streets around Dealey Plaza had been blocked and this made Dealey Plaza absent any vehicle traffic. This is why those 3 cars drew his immediate attention. He could Not figure out how they gained access to Dealey Plaza and were able to then pass by his Railroad Tower.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

    You and I agree right down the line.  Just looking at Holland physically, it would have taken him awhile to get back behind the picket fence had he immediately headed there. The assorted film images show a lot of people atop the Triple Underpass at least 90 seconds maybe 2 minutes after the kill shot. You can see them up there on the Couch footage of Officer Haygood straightening his motorcycle up at the curb.
     I do believe that Lee Bowers is a No Nonsense kinda person. What he says is not going to be exaggerated. His detailed description of those 3 cars along with his detailing a guy talking into something inside a car tells me he probably had binoculars trained on those cars. Bowers mentioned that the streets around Dealey Plaza had been blocked and this made Dealey Plaza absent any vehicle traffic. This is why those 3 cars drew his immediate attention. He could Not figure out how they gained access to Dealey Plaza and were able to then pass by his Railroad Tower.

If you believe Bowers then you have a couple of problems. The first one is on the number of shots. Here is his WC testimony.

Mr. BOWERS - I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together. Also reverberation from the shots.
Mr. BELIN - And were you able to form an opinion as to the source of the sound or what direction it came from, I mean?
Mr. BOWERS - The sounds came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass.

Three shots. From either the TSBD or the mouth of the underpass. Since JFK and Connally were both shot from behind that rules out the underpass.

The second is a supposed shooter from behind the fence. He said this in the Lane interview:
"Now I could see back or the South side 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."

He further said that the "flash of light or smoke " was where the two men - in *front* of the fence were located. Nothing from *behind* the fence.

So, three shots and no shooter from behind the fence. Not a good witness for the conspiracy believers.

[Royell Storing]

If you believe Bowers then you have a couple of problems. The first one is on the number of shots. Here is his WC testimony.

Mr. BOWERS - I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together. Also reverberation from the shots.
Mr. BELIN - And were you able to form an opinion as to the source of the sound or what direction it came from, I mean?
Mr. BOWERS - The sounds came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass.

Three shots. From either the TSBD or the mouth of the underpass. Since JFK and Connally were both shot from behind that rules out the underpass.

The second is a supposed shooter from behind the fence. He said this in the Lane interview:
"Now I could see back or the South side 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."

He further said that the "flash of light or smoke " was where the two men - in *front* of the fence were located. Nothing from *behind* the fence.

So, three shots and no shooter from behind the fence. Not a good witness for the conspiracy believers.

    You seem to believe that ALL people claiming conspiracy think in lock-step as to how the assassination was carried out. Your Premise is FALSE and DQ's everything you propose from that point forward.
    To me, Lee Bowers is a critical witness due to his documenting there being a White Shirt Man "....in line with the Triple Underpass". Do the research and give this some Objective consideration.
       

[Steve M. Galbraith]

    You seem to believe that ALL people claiming conspiracy think in lock-step as to how the assassination was carried out. Your Premise is FALSE and DQ's everything you propose from that point forward.
    To me, Lee Bowers is a critical witness due to his documenting there being a White Shirt Man "....in line with the Triple Underpass". Do the research and give this some Objective consideration.
     

Once again Bowers said he saw no one behind the fence at the time of the shooting. And he said he heard three shots. That is him saying this not me.

You can disqualify me, whatever that means, but you can't disqualify Bowers and his account while at the same time saying he's your "critical witness". You have to confront the fact that he said he saw no shooter behind the fence and that he heard three - not four, not five, not six - shots.

It is Bowers you need to deal with - to disqualify - not me or my views of the conspiracy advocates. I am quoting him I am not quoting me.

And of course I don't believe "all conspiracy believers" believe the same thing or are in lock step agreement. That's really their problem. They have 20 different theories - at least - as to what happened. That can't be true. It only happened one way. They need to look at the evidence first and then come up with a theory and not start with a pre-existing theory - the CIA, the military, the mob, the anti-Castro Cuban, the rich Texas oilmen - and then find evidence for it.

Did you ever ask yourself why so many conspiracy believers are at odds with each other?

[Royell Storing]

Once again Bowers said he saw no one behind the fence at the time of the shooting. And he said he heard three shots. That is him saying this not me.

You can disqualify me, whatever that means, but you can't disqualify Bowers and his account while at the same time saying he's your "critical witness". You have to confront the fact that he said he saw no shooter behind the fence and that he heard three - not four, not five, not six - shots.

It is Bowers you need to deal with - to disqualify - not me or my views of the conspiracy advocates. I am quoting him I am not quoting me.

And of course I don't believe "all conspiracy believers" believe the same thing or are in lock step agreement. That's really their problem. They have 20 different theories - at least - as to what happened. That can't be true. It only happened one way. They need to look at the evidence first and then come up with a theory and not start with a pre-existing theory - the CIA, the military, the mob, the anti-Castro Cuban, the rich Texas oilmen - and then find evidence for it.

Did you ever ask yourself why so many conspiracy believers are at odds with each other?

       I'll start with you last misnomer. All those that believe there were multiple shooters can interpret the Evidence differently. This is along the lines of, "many paths leading to the same destination".
       When are we going to see a single LN using SCIENCE to dispel the findings of Knott Lab and their Laser 360 Technology which is routinely used in courtrooms around this country? The SBT = DOA   

[Fergus O'Brien]

    You and I agree right down the line.  Just looking at Holland physically, it would have taken him awhile to get back behind the picket fence had he immediately headed there. The assorted film images show a lot of people atop the Triple Underpass at least 90 seconds maybe 2 minutes after the kill shot. You can see them up there on the Couch footage of Officer Haygood straightening his motorcycle up at the curb.
     I do believe that Lee Bowers is a No Nonsense kinda person. What he says is not going to be exaggerated. His detailed description of those 3 cars along with his detailing a guy talking into something inside a car tells me he probably had binoculars trained on those cars. Bowers mentioned that the streets around Dealey Plaza had been blocked and this made Dealey Plaza absent any vehicle traffic. This is why those 3 cars drew his immediate attention. He could Not figure out how they gained access to Dealey Plaza and were able to then pass by his Railroad Tower.

the parking area was sealed off or atleast so we were told . and as you said certainly once they knew jfk was enroute they would have closed off roads .and blocked access .so yes both bowers and us must question how those cars came to get into the car parking area , an area if memory serves was used by the dallas police . seemingly they had no business in there and also should not have been able to get in there .all that said bowers as you mentioned seems to have seen someone talking on a radio or similar . i have had a thought that that one car might have been some type of law enforcement but then why if that is the case have the police never said this ? . that only to my thinking brings is back to who ever they were they should have not been in there .

as to the question of binoculars ive seen you mention this before if im correct , and yes you raise a valid point there that i had not considered . but im not familiar enough with the workings of a railroad tower so i cant say . but yes it seems reasonable on the surface that bowers would have binoculars .

[Fergus O'Brien]

Once again Bowers said he saw no one behind the fence at the time of the shooting. And he said he heard three shots. That is him saying this not me.

You can disqualify me, whatever that means, but you can't disqualify Bowers and his account while at the same time saying he's your "critical witness". You have to confront the fact that he said he saw no shooter behind the fence and that he heard three - not four, not five, not six - shots.

It is Bowers you need to deal with - to disqualify - not me or my views of the conspiracy advocates. I am quoting him I am not quoting me.

And of course I don't believe "all conspiracy believers" believe the same thing or are in lock step agreement. That's really their problem. They have 20 different theories - at least - as to what happened. That can't be true. It only happened one way. They need to look at the evidence first and then come up with a theory and not start with a pre-existing theory - the CIA, the military, the mob, the anti-Castro Cuban, the rich Texas oilmen - and then find evidence for it.

Did you ever ask yourself why so many conspiracy believers are at odds with each other?

if you dont see a person somewhere does that mean they were never there ? . of course not .so its not impossible that bowers didnt see someone there .the place was a sea of cars and trucks with over hanging trees and shrubbery and shadow from them .. he was not expecting an assassination , no one was . its not unreasonable that he looked at the space between the knoll fence and the pergola because logically that is the only spot he could have hoped to see any of the motorcade through . what it seems you are in essence saying is if he was asked DID YOU SEE ANYONE ? and he said NO that that can only mean no one was there . while it can mean no one was there it can equally mean he just did not notice someone there .