From Behind the Fence

[John Mytton]

    Yes, I have seen the numerous re-creations. That is ALL they are. RE-CREATIONS. That is NOT SCIENCE. That is Rich Little doing Jimmy Stewart. It is an attempted "Knock-Off". Rich Little is NOT SCIENCE. A lot of you guys wanna "follow the science" until you don't. You're now being "Hoisted on your own petard". SCIENCE has determined that the SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE!  Some of us are going to ensure that this declaration of Multiple Shooters = Conspiracy does not get buried by "Re-Creations" or other sophomoric "Dress Rehearsals". You will Not dodge THE SCIENCE.

Sorry to interrupt this verbal diarrhoea Royell, the Warren Commission never relied on the SBF. Oops

There is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds. However, Governor Connally’s testimony and certain other factors have given rise to some difference of opinion as to this probability, but there is no question in the mind of any member of the Commission that all the shots which caused the President’s and Governor Connally’s wounds were fired from the sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository

JohnM

[Royell Storing]

The reality of it is it just a computer representation of what can also be accomplished with a paper and pencil. You don't understand that?

     Your believing that the findings of SCIENCE can be replicated with a coloring book and a crayola explains why you accept the SBT along with falling back on the 50 yr old HSCA. Don't forget to shoe your horse and grease the wheels on that buggy of yours.

[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.