No, he does not. By the time Bowers talked with Mark Lane, he was afraid to say anything that would expressly place a gunman on the grassy knoll. Were both of his friends who spoke on the record lying when they disclosed that Bowers did not tell the WC everything he saw? Was Bowers' wife lying when she said her husband was warned not to talk?
And you guys do nothing but present labored, dubious denials when it comes to the clear implication of Bowers' testimony about the three cars that did an obvious recon of the area behind the knoll in the 20-30 minutes leading up to the assassination. The cars clearly weren't looking for a parking space. Bowers himself noted that the cars appeared to be "probing" the area, and that the second car's driver appeared to be talking into a microphone. But, oh, nah, according to you, this was just some strange, cosmic coincidence that just "must" have an innocent explanation, even though you can't provide one that makes any sense.
As for the number of shots that Bowers said he heard, it is rather lame to cite this as some kind of concrete proof that only three shots were fired. Some witnesses said they heard four or more shots. A number of witnesses said they only heard two shots. A few witnesses said they only heard one shot. The scientific acoustical evidence proves that at least four shots were fired, and the Zapruder film shows six reactions to gunfire.
And I notice you said nothing about Bowers' statement that two of the shots came in very rapid succession, too quickly to have been fired by the same person if using a bolt-action rifle. In fact, a number of witnesses said the thing, that two of the shots came right on top of each other, as "bang, bang," with virtually no break in between. But, yeah, never mind that, right?
You are correct. I was thinking of Charles Brehm.
Bowers said he didn't see anyone behind the fence at the time of the shooting. Period. He testified that the two people he did see were standing IN FRONT of the fence towards the mouth of the underpass. Not behind it. You cannot stand behind the fence and be near the mouth of the underpass.
From his testimony:
Mr. BOWERS -
Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket.
Later:
Mr. BOWERS - At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline.
Mr. BALL - On his motorcycle?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes.
Mr. BOWERS - He came up into this area where there are some trees, and where I had described the two men were in the general vicinity of this.
Mr. BALL - Were the two men there at the time?
Mr. BOWERS - I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not say. The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The white shirt, yes; I think he was.
So the motorcycle officer (Haygood) went up to where the two men were standing. That was in FRONT of the fence. And he heard no shot from behind the fence. He testified that he thought the three shots - three not four or five but three - all came from either the TSBD or the underpass.
Again: Bowers said he never saw anyone BEHIND the fence. You are using a witness in Bowers who demolishes your conspiracy beliefs all by himself; both in his WC testimony and his Mark Lane interview. Could he be wrong? Of course, witnesses often are. But that's not the question.
The two men he saw - the older man and the man in the plaid shirt/jacket - can be seen in the Moorman photo on the steps. Why he didn't see the black man/couple is a good question.
