From Behind the Fence

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

This is not a 20 foot or less shooting scene with known parameters. It appears their model cannot handle the distance and unknowns. All they do is provide a graphic representation. The same can be accomplished with a paper and pencil.

The way to prove the SBT is to park the jfklimo at Z218, with a Connally sitting (with a bullseye on his back) & a jfk sitting (with bullseye on his back/neck), & look throo telescopic sights from up at the SN.
Then, by trial & error, arrange jfk & Connally & scope such that when jfk is removed the crosshairs on the scope are pointing at the bullseye on Connally.
If the position of Connally & jfk are nearnuff as per the Z frames before going behind the sign (&/or after emerging), then we have proved the SBT.

I think that there have been a number of tests over the years kind of similar to the above, & on each occasion the testers were happy with the SBT.
But i daresay that thems tests have had many shortcomings (eg using Queen Mary).
Proper tests were needed.

[Royell Storing]

The way to prove the SBT is to park the jfklimo at Z218, with a Connally sitting (with a bullseye on his back) & a jfk sitting (with bullseye on his back/neck), & look throo telescopic sights from up at the SN.
Then, by trial & error, arrange jfk & Connally & scope such that when jfk is removed the crosshairs on the scope are pointing at the bullseye on Connally.
If the position of Connally & jfk are nearnuff as per the Z frames before going behind the sign (&/or after emerging), then we have proved the SBT.

I think that there have been a number of tests over the years kind of similar to the above, & on each occasion the testers were happy with the SBT.
But i daresay that thems tests have had many shortcomings (eg using Queen Mary).
Proper tests were needed.

    No matter how much they whine, cry, and babble on, SCIENCE has proven the, "SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE".  Case Closed!

[Anthony Dyle]

...
"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.

Steve,
have you read the full transcript?  Because Bowers makes it clear in there that he was talking about the south side of the fence where the cop Haygood ran to.  It's a pain but it's a fact.
I hope the answer is No.  Then I'd have to ask why not?
If it's Yes, then where exactly did you see it and do you know if it's available online(I've looked but had no luck)?
And you must know, even if you've only seen snippets, that Bowers never, ever said the two men he saw were in front of the fence.

"I could see the back of the fence" and "One man dissapeared behind the fence".  One statement was clarified with not one but two references to the south.  The other was not.

Just so you know, I am of the opinion that the Bower/Lane transcript points us to the area where Hudson stood too and it's most likely those people he saw milling around.  I also believe that Lane would not have used Bowers if Lee made it clear that they weren't behind the fence.  The fact is, is that he never said they weren't and he never said the were and that's down to Lane.  Mark Lane left it alone because he knew the answer already.

[Royell Storing]

Steve,
have you read the full transcript?  Because Bowers makes it clear in there that he was talking about the south side of the fence where the cop Haygood ran to.  It's a pain but it's a fact.
I hope the answer is No.  Then I'd have to ask why not?
If it's Yes, then where exactly did you see it and do you know if it's available online(I've looked but had no luck)?
And you must know, even if you've only seen snippets, that Bowers never, ever said the two men he saw were in front of the fence.

"I could see the back of the fence" and "One man dissapeared behind the fence".  One statement was clarified with not one but two references to the south.  The other was not.

Just so you know, I am of the opinion that the Bower/Lane transcript points us to the area where Hudson stood too and it's most likely those people he saw milling around.  I also believe that Lane would not have used Bowers if Lee made it clear that they weren't behind the fence.  The fact is, is that he never said they weren't and he never said the were and that's down to Lane.  Mark Lane left it alone because he knew the answer already.

         Whenever possible, I confine my Focus on anyone's eyewitness story to what they detail in an Official Setting such as the WC, HSCA, and ARRB. People in a setting such as this are inclined to minimize their hyperbole. This is why Bowers during his WC Testimony described "commotion" regarding what he saw following the Kill Shot. He simply was Not sure what he witnessed at that point in time.
         I often review the Mark Lane "interviews", but I also keep in mind that Lane wrote a book/$$ and probably prepped the witnesses he brought forth/filmed. That said, I do appreciate the "walk-through" Lane conducted with Skinny Holland there inside Dealey Plaza. That is very helpful and eliminates a lot of speculation as to where Holland saw smoke, cigarette butts, the car with mud on the bumper, etc. Also, actually seeing Holland "walk" across that parking lot makes me wonder how Long it took him to travel across that same lot with it jammed with cars on 11/22/63. Holland is anything but nimble.   

[Anthony Dyle]

         Whenever possible, I confine my Focus on anyone's eyewitness story to what they detail in an Official Setting such as the WC, HSCA, and ARRB...

Lane got more details from Bowers, important details that your enemys are using.  He got them within an exceptable time frame too and in a professional manner.  I've not heard one reason why we shouldn't use them, in fact they are treated like gold dust.  I take these things on a case by case basis, just like you do and of course I know you do because just ten minutes ago I read what you wrote about Josia Thompson's interviews for his first book SSID in the thread that refers to it as a classic.  I wish I had access to those interviews but the unedited ones is where the juice is.

[Royell Storing]

Lane got more details from Bowers, important details that your enemys are using.  He got them within an exceptable time frame too and in a professional manner.  I've not heard one reason why we shouldn't use them, in fact they are treated like gold dust.  I take these things on a case by case basis, just like you do and of course I know you do because just ten minutes ago I read what you wrote about Josia Thompson's interviews for his first book SSID in the thread that refers to it as a classic.  I wish I had access to those interviews but the unedited ones is where the juice is.

     Thompson's 1st book issa classic and always will be due to being written long before the Internet, YOU TUBE, and Forums such as this. The avenues of communication were extremely few and far between way back then and his book served as a JFK Assassination clarion call. But that's the book, which also generated him $$. As to Thompson the man, he was basically a Navy Seal before there were Navy Seals. This forever connects him to the Military Industrial Complex. Thompson also admits that while on the Time/Life payroll he snuck into the high security Time/Life HQ and stole/snapped photos/16mm negatives of the Z Film. What happened to any of those pics? Thompson never mentions or is ever asked about the whereabouts of those pics he took. And then he disappears for 20-30 yrs eventually resurfacing with the claim he has been doing PI Work during this extended hiatus? Who can support a family for 20-30 years with PI work? Thompson's past and now his suddenly rising from the dead with book #2 are strange to say the least. The interviews he conducted for his "Six Seconds In Dallas" (1967) had to of been audio taped due to Thompson's verbatim transcripts from those interviews. I've read both of his books and he Never mentions having a stenographer on hand at any of the interviews he conducted. I believe these audio taped interviews and his photos/16mm Z Film stills are at best another selfish withholding of early/valuable JFK Assassination information by another alleged JFK Assassination "researcher".  On the other hand, it is extremely early JFK Assassination Information such as this that might also serve as a dual Life Insurance & annuity/$$ policy. On top of all of this, I recently saw a clip of Thompson announcing he was now done with the JFK Assassination and going "on vacation" with his wife. The way he said it, made it sound like a Very Long Vacation. Going way back and now up to this day he continues to smell of fish.   

[Zeon Mason]

Those 2 men that Bowers saw “in line” with the Triple U bridge, preceding the shooting  yet not AT the time of shooting , could be that they had either left or were not in LOS of Bowers anymore.  That suggests the possibility of a shooter and his accomplice located at the far storm drain at the junction of the wooden fence and the concrete bridge abutment.

The shooter could  have arrived at the far storm sewer by access to an unguarded larger diameter drain pipe that exited near the stream that ran some distance beyond the parking lot.

This is about  the only probable place that a shooter fairing at the front of the limo, could have had the angle to bypass the limo Front windshield and JCs head.

It’s about the only probable  way a shot from the front could strike the right temple of JFK where the “V” wound  is in the autopsy photo, the bullet then traverses across the right side of the skull causing the radial fragmentation lines visible in the JFK lateral skull x-Ray, and without any damage to the left side of of JFK skull, and the exit wound in  back of the head still be to the right side  the longitudinal centerline of the skull.

There were many cars parked along behind the wooden fence in line all the way to this far storm sewer location which could have provided cover from  LOS from the tower position Bowers was viewing the parking lot from.

So one gunman at ground level actually standing in  the sewer would have a plausible prone position to fire from thru just a small gap  in the wooden fence section, and taking advantage of  ground foliage ti obscure barrel yet allow a view thru the scope with clear LOS to JFK at about Z313.

[Royell Storing]

Those 2 men that Bowers saw “in line” with the Triple U bridge, preceding the shooting  yet not AT the time of shooting , could be that they had either left or were not in LOS of Bowers anymore.  That suggests the possibility of a shooter and his accomplice located at the far storm drain at the junction of the wooden fence and the concrete bridge abutment.

The shooter could  have arrived at the far storm sewer by access to an unguarded larger diameter drain pipe that exited near the stream that ran some distance beyond the parking lot.

This is about  the only probable place that a shooter fairing at the front of the limo, could have had the angle to bypass the limo Front windshield and JCs head.

It’s about the only probable  way a shot from the front could strike the right temple of JFK where the “V” wound  is in the autopsy photo, the bullet then traverses across the right side of the skull causing the radial fragmentation lines visible in the JFK lateral skull x-Ray, and without any damage to the left side of of JFK skull, and the exit wound in  back of the head still be to the right side  the longitudinal centerline of the skull.

There were many cars parked along behind the wooden fence in line all the way to this far storm sewer location which could have provided cover from  LOS from the tower position Bowers was viewing the parking lot from.

So one gunman at ground level actually standing in  the sewer would have a plausible prone position to fire from thru just a small gap  in the wooden fence section, and taking advantage of  ground foliage ti obscure barrel yet allow a view thru the scope with clear LOS to JFK at about Z313.

    Bowers testified that 1 of those 2 men "in line" with the Triple Underpass was wearing a WHITE SHIRT. With none of the 3 guys standing on The Steps wearing a white shirt, Bowers WHITE SHIRT MAN has always been dismissed.  Problem is, this WHITE SHIRT MAN is clearly visible moving Up The Steps and disappearing into darkness on the Nix Film. Not surprisingly, the Original Nix Film has been missing for decades. No telling what else might be on the Original Nix Film.  The WHITE SHIRT MAN is only visible on roughly 3 frames immediately following the Kill Shot.