The best of Mark Lane, JFK author

Russ writes:

“Rush to Judgment, the book, bravely informed Americans about the many questions surrounding the president’s murder and the subsequent “investigation.”

Mark Lane with JFK

Mark Lane, right, with President John F. Kennedy.

“Rush to Judgment, the movie, vividly illustrated those questions with a matter-of-fact presentation of one-on-one interviews. Many of these Q&A segments are absolutely mesmerizing, i.e. Mr. Holland from the overpass, Lee Bowers from the train tower, and Jack Ruby associates, Joe Johnson and Nancy Perrin Rich.”

82 comments

  1. Interesting that he did not ask Charles Brehm (in the edited version of the interview) where he thought the shots came from.

    But in reality, he had asked him:

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/lane_interviews/brehm.pdf

    . . . and got an answer he didn’t like.

  2. Lane edited the Bowers interview to make it seem Bowers might have seen two men who were assassins.

    But in fact, the guys he saw were in front of the fence.

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/lane_interviews/bowers.pdf

    Further, he seems to be describing the “back” of the wooden fence when he says “there was no one there when the shots were fired.”

    He edited the film dishonestly.

    • Bill Clarke says:

      John McAdams
      May 16, 2016 at 4:46 pm

      He edited the film dishonestly.

      He did a lot of things dishonestly.

    • Avinash says:

      Are you saying that Lane was dishonest?That he deliberately faked stuff?

      • He intentionally left out stuff that contradicted his narrative. He left out the part where Brehm said the shots came from up at the corner of Houston and Elm.

        He edited out the part where Bowers made it clear that the two guys he described were in front (the Elm Street side) of the Stockade Fence.

        • James Feldman says:

          With respect to Brehm’s description of the directions of the shots, I have already explained above that given Brehm’s uncertainties, assumptions, and speculations about several of the things that he saw and heard when JFK was murdered, including the direction of the shots, Lane’s decision to omit some of those statements was reasonable and was not deceptive by any stretch.

          Regarding Lee Bowers’ statements about the two men that he saw at the time of JFK’s murder, Bowers by no means “made it clear” that the men were in “front” of the Grassy Knoll fence at the time of the actual shooting. Bowers’ own words describe what he saw that day:

          “[T]hese two men were standing back from the street somewhat at the top of the incline and were very near two trees which were in the area. And ONE OF THEM [i.e., the men], from time to time to time as he walked back and forth, DISAPPEARED BEHIND A WOODEN FENCE. . . [T]hese two men to the best of my knowledge were standing there AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING.” [Emphasis added.]

          Bowers then goes on to describe the appearance of the two men, and then he describes what he saw:

          “[A]t the time of the shooting in the vicinity of where the two men I’ve described were, there was a flash of light or an — as far as I’m concerned something I could not identify. . . I could not identify it other than there was some unusual occurrence — a flash of light or smoke or — or something which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there.”

          To argue that the two men were in front of the fence because Bowers later said that “there was no one there when the shots were fired” is misleading and unsupported when all of Bowers statements above are considered. Bowers makes the statement about “no one there” in the context of what happened AFTER the shooting and the flash of light and/or puff of smoke that Bowers referred to above — not during the time of the shooting itself. Immediately preceding this statement, Bowers is describing the “large concentration of police officers” that came into this area “at the top of the embankment.” So, of course, “no one was there” when a “large concentration of police officers” arrived at the area.

          Thus, Lane wasn’t being disingenuous in his presentation of Brehm’s and Bowers’ statements. Rather, Lane’s critics are being disingenuous in their unsupported and ultimately false and misleading statements.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            It certainly is not misleading. Lane conspicuously avoided asking the glaringly obvious question – was anyone behind the fence in a position to perhaps take shots at the moment the caravan passed?

            So Bowers since he wasn’t asked saw fit to clarify: LEE BOWERS: “Now I could see back or the South side [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.”

            What can be more clear than that? Bowers had an unobstructed view of the precise part of the fence that many claim a sniper fired from and he is explicit in saying “there was no one there… at the moment that the shots were fired.”

          • I have already explained above that given Brehm’s uncertainties, assumptions, and speculations about several of the things that he saw and heard when JFK was murdered, including the direction of the shots,

            I don’t see any such thing “above.”

            Brehm’s statements are consistent that the shots came from up at the intersection of Houston and Elm.

            If you think the shots came from the Country Records Building, Brehm is consistent with that. But not the Grassy Knoll.

          • “Bowers had an unobstructed view of the precise part of the fence that many claim a sniper fired from and he is explicit in saying “there was no one there… at the moment that the shots were fired.”~Jeremy Gilbert

            Again Mr Gilbert. I just got through listening to this interview one more time:

            “[A]t the time of the shooting in the vicinity of where the two men I’ve described were, there was a flash of light or an — as far as I’m concerned something I could not identify. . . I could not identify it other than there was some unusual occurrence — a flash of light or smoke or — or something which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there.”~Bowers to Lane

            \\][//

    • John Rowell says:

      Any discussion about Mark Lane that doesn’t take into account the courage it took to defend Oswald in late 1963 is in itself dishonest.

    • mike says:

      You are doing the same thing that you accuse Mark Lane of doing. You are spinning what Mark Lane did to suit your case. In so doing you imply that you accept that there were two men in front of the fence but you do not care to figure out who were those two men? The were not the men on the steps, and could not have been the men on the steps, but that is the false impression you are trying to create.

      Mark Lane did put the two men behind the fence, when, in fact, Lee Bowers said they were in front of the fence. But it was not for the reason that you (McAdams) stated.

      You leave out that Lee Bowers also said he saw a “flash of light” from the location of those two men.

      Putting the two together, the assassin on the knoll was IN FRONT of the fence. Being in front of the fence facilitated his escape.

      • Tom S. says:

        “Mike” has submitted nine comments as “Mike Rago,” and has submitted comments as “Mike” since 26 Feb., 2015.

          • mike rago says:

            The post the sentence “this is the first post I have made to this group in years” refers to is the post that you chose to use to “harass” me. That post, as can be clearly seen above, was made at 7:48 on May 26., well before the two responses you had to cobble together because you deleted my posts.

            Again, you are trying to create a false impression and you are abusing your power.

      • Putting the two together, the assassin on the knoll was IN FRONT of the fence. Being in front of the fence facilitated his escape.

        You mean standing right out in the open in Dealey Plaza.

        In plain sight of everybody in the Plaza.

        But invisible in any of the photos of the area.

        • “You mean standing right out in the open in Dealey Plaza.
          In plain sight of everybody in the Plaza.”~McAdams

          In case you hadn’t noticed there was a structure in front of that fence, the pergola, that could very well have given cover for a shooter behind it.

          Also the trees and bushes were on both sides of the fence.
          \\][//

  3. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Edited or not. Discredited by Weisberg or not. His interview’s with witnesses documented on film, the WO failed to interview, cut off, and changed testimony of is some of the best evidence in this never tried case.
    Plausible Denial came out the same year as JFK the movie. Was it a conspiracy by conspiracy theorists to implicate the cia? Or, I guess Lane was cashing in on the movie by further exposing them?

    • Plausible Denial was as dishonest as the other Mark Lane books:

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm

      The jury did not buy Lane’s conspiracy theory. They judged the case on the basis of “actual malice” as a libel case.

      • Jordan says:

        In my opinion, there is no worse example of tripe than Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History. Bugliosi almost makes Posner palatable….almost….

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        There you go again John, 20 year’s now on the net defending the Warren Omission? Juror Leslie Armstrong, “the evidence was clear she said. The CIA had killed President Kennedy, Hunt had been part of it, … The evidence was very impressive. It was not necessary for her to consider malice; she believed the accusations of CIA complicity to be truthful.”
        Pgs. 322-321, Plausible Denial.

        • Didn’t bother to read my link, did you?

          Now some facts Lane did not tell you:

          Armstrong apparently did say that, and doubtless believed it. But there were five other jurors. Two of them told the Miami Herald that they most certainly did not believe that Lane had proven that Hunt was a conspirator. Suzanne Reach said that “We were very disgusted and felt it was trash . . . . The paper published material that was sloppy – but it wasn’t malicious.” Reach added that “We were worried that our verdict might give the wrong impression to the public” and added that Lane’s conspiracy theories were “absolutely not” the reason for the verdict.

          The Herald also quoted another juror, who refused to be identified, saying that the verdict was the result of Hunt failing to demonstrate that the article was published with “reckless disregard for the truth,” and added that Lane’s conspiracy theories were “so much extraneous matter.”

          Likewise, an unidentified juror told the Associated Press that (in the words of the AP reporter) “no evidence was presented showing malice toward Hunt by the publication.” Finally, juror L. L. Cobb told United Press that the jury was concerned about whether the article was damaging to Hunt, not whether it was true. Quoting the UPI story:

          “What we looked at was the article and whether there was any instances of malice,” she said. “We did not find any because there had been many stories written about the issue.”

          Thus, depending on whether the unidentified juror in the Miami Herald story is the same person as the juror quoted by the Associated Press, three or four of the six jurors went on record as denying Lane’s claims to have proven a conspiracy.

          All the citations are at my link.

          Why do you think Lane failed to tell you about the other jurors?

  4. Thomas says:

    I have no problem with Mr. McAdams making the observations cited about Mark Lane editing dishonestly. That’s a defensible position and sheds some light.

    What I find hard to understand is how people who believe Oswald acted alone can analyze the work of the Warren Commission and not apply the same standards about dishonest editing (and other omissions) there as well. In essence, that’s where the problems begin, with the dishonest narrative of the Warren Report.

    • not apply the same standards about dishonest editing (and other omissions) there as well. In essence, that’s where the problems begin, with the dishonest narrative of the Warren Report.

      You are only saying that because you accept the dishonest narrative of the conspiracy books.

      I would urge you to watch one the issues sort out, one at a time, on this board.

      • Jordan says:

        And you are only saying that because you accept an unlikely premise based on a remotely possible theory.

        I would urge you to watch the issues sorted out, one at a time, on this board.

        • OK, do we now have it sorted out that Lane was dishonest about the testimony of Charles Brehm and Lee Bowers?

          Do we know have it sorted out that he was dishonest about the verdict in the Hunt trial?

          What else would you like to discuss?

          • Thomas says:

            Your reply did not address my issue. To reiterate: You place a burden of proof on Mark Lane that you do not put on the Warren Report and their work. This is disingenuous and demonstrates a lack of objectivity and fairness on your part which greatly undermines your point of view.

          • You place a burden of proof on Mark Lane that you do not put on the Warren Report and their work.

            Will you admit that Lane was dishonest about Brehm and Bowers?

      • JSA says:

        Oh, come on, John! Why should we take your line of reasoning seriously when you cannot even accept the overwhelming science that proves that manmade climate change is real?

        I think you are one of the most biased, one-sided arguers out there. I’ve been to your site and it doesn’t hold a candle to this one, jfkfacts.org, for integrity and for open-minded questioning of the JFK case.

        • Why should we take your line of reasoning seriously when you cannot even accept the overwhelming science that proves that manmade climate change is real?

          Why should we take your line of reasoning on “climate change” seriously when you can’t even accept the evidence of Oswald’s guilt?

          • JSA says:

            Because unlike the WC Report, which has only circumstantial evidence plus a broken chain of said evidence to convict Oswald, and many dissenting witnesses and doctors, etc. to draw an inconclusive judgement by any reasonable person, climate change is generally accepted and irrefutable by almost all climate experts. A reasonable person would conclude that the JFK assassination has unanswered questions that still haven’t been answered, while manmade climate change is settled; it’s real.

          • theNewDanger says:

            John McAdams

            May 21, 2016 at 10:30 pm

            *snip* you can’t even accept the evidence of Oswald’s guilt?

            This invasive, increasingly repeated sentiment ((http://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-2/#comment-869441) about accepting manicured lies as evidence of guilt deserves its own discussion.

    • Anthony Martin says:

      Sylvia Meagher made the same argument in her book “Accessories After the Fact”. The WC distorted and omitted evidence and testimony in less than a full effort to Present the truth of the matter. To deny that there are a multitude of discrepancies in the WC is not a sustainable position.

      • To deny that there are a multitude of discrepancies in the WC is not a sustainable position.

        You mean like the “discrepancy” of not establishing where Oswald got the strap attached to his rifle?

        She huffs and puffs about that.

        The issue is not whether there are “discrepancies” in the WC account. It’s whether there are fewer discrepancies in any other account.

        Any conspiracy author should be faced with somebody who will demand “what do you think happened?”

        • R. Andrew Kiel says:

          Mr. McAdams – first of all – Mark Lane investigated the murder of JFK with the idea of possibly defending Lee Oswald before the Warren Commission – as a defense attorney. Of course he was selective in presenting evidence – the Warren Commission was a legal brief for presenting selective evidence to convict Oswald & Lane was presenting evidence that the Commission ignored to defend Oswald – not hard to understand.

          You are correct that Lee Bowers indicated in the unedited Lane interview that the two men he saw were closer to the “mouth of the underpass”. However all available films show NO ONE was on the Elm Street side of the fence on the grassy slope from the steps to the overpass. So whom was Bowers describing?

          Bowers told the Warren Commission & Lane that “they were the only two strangers in the area … about ten feet apart”. There were three men standing beside each other (not ten feet apart) on the steps during the shooting. Only one has been identified Emmett Hudson – Dealy Plaza groundskeepe. Hudson stated the shot hit him (JFK) a little above the ear … the shots that I heard definitely came from above and behind me.”

          I have climbed up to where Bowers was in the RR tower & am convinced he was describing men behind the fence – there was no one on the other side except on the steps! Lane interviewed Sam Holland (well known interview) but also Richard Dodd & James Simmons (neither acknowledged to exist by the Commission) both standing beside Holland. Simmons & Dodd corborated Holland about smoke from behind the fence & the shots originating from behind the fence – Warren Commission selectivity ignored two witnesses.

          Sam Holland & Deputy Sheriff Weitzman – immediately after the shooting both described fresh footprints behind a car behind the fence as well as mud on the bumper of a car & the two by four railing on the fence as well as footprints indicating someone had been pacing back & forth – care to comment on the Commission’s selectivity?

          You ignore the three cars that Bowers describes driving behind the fence during the half hour before the murder & Bowers description of “a flash of light or puff of smoke or something out of the ordinary at the time of the shooting” – why so selective?

          By the way Charles Brehm (Drehm) is originally quoted in the Dallas Morning News as stating the shots came from the front. Lane uses Brehm’s interview because Brehm stated that the back of JFK’s head was blown out.

          Finally – the forewoman of Lane’s trial with E Howard Hunt stated “Mr. Lane was asking us to do something difficult…we were compelled to conclude that CIA had indeed killed President Kennedy” – care to comment?

          • There were three men standing beside each other (not ten feet apart) on the steps during the shooting.

            If they were moving around, and Bowers was not referring to the exact instant of the shot, it could have been two of those guys.

            You are correct that Lee Bowers indicated in the unedited Lane interview that the two men he saw were closer to the “mouth of the underpass”.

            Here is his WC 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.

            Mr. BALL – Were they standing together or standing separately?

            Mr. BOWERS – They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew.

            Are these the same guys? Or different guys? I frankly don’t know.

            But I don’t see any way to make Bowers a Grassy Knoll shooter witness.

          • Dealy Plaza groundskeepe. Hudson stated the shot hit him (JFK) a little above the ear … the shots that I heard definitely came from above and behind me.”

            You are basing that on this:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136&relPageId=499

            But note he says “we had our backs to . . . that brick building.” So in his perception, the TSBD was “behind” him.

            See also:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=41&relPageId=570

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406&relPageId=33

          • Finally – the forewoman of Lane’s trial with E Howard Hunt stated “Mr. Lane was asking us to do something difficult…we were compelled to conclude that CIA had indeed killed President Kennedy” – care to comment?

            A classic example of Lane’s dishonesty. From this page:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm

            Armstrong apparently did say that, and doubtless believed it. But there were five other jurors. Two of them told the Miami Herald that they most certainly did not believe that Lane had proven that Hunt was a conspirator. Suzanne Reach said that “We were very disgusted and felt it was trash . . . . The paper published material that was sloppy – but it wasn’t malicious.” Reach added that “We were worried that our verdict might give the wrong impression to the public” and added that Lane’s conspiracy theories were “absolutely not” the reason for the verdict.

            The Herald also quoted another juror, who refused to be identified, saying that the verdict was the result of Hunt failing to demonstrate that the article was published with “reckless disregard for the truth,” and added that Lane’s conspiracy theories were “so much extraneous matter.”

            Likewise, an unidentified juror told the Associated Press that (in the words of the AP reporter) “no evidence was presented showing malice toward Hunt by the publication.” Finally, juror L. L. Cobb told United Press that the jury was concerned about whether the article was damaging to Hunt, not whether it was true. Quoting the UPI story:

            “What we looked at was the article and whether there was any instances of malice,” she said. “We did not find any because there had been many stories written about the issue.”

            Thus, depending on whether the unidentified juror in the Miami Herald story is the same person as the juror quoted by the Associated Press, three or four of the six jurors went on record as denying Lane’s claims to have proven a conspiracy.

            But Lane ignores them and quotes the single juror whose statements are convenient.

          • By the way Charles Brehm (Drehm) is originally quoted in the Dallas Morning News as stating the shots came from the front.

            No, it did not report him “stating” any such thing.

            It said he “seemed to believe” the shots came from the front.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          So if their back was toward the TSBD they were facing Elm?

          • Read Hudson’s statement. His belief was that the “brick building” was behind him.

          • “No, it did not report him “stating” any such thing.
            It said he “seemed to believe” the shots came from the front.”~John McAdams

            If you want to be precise with the language McAdams, he DID say “such a thing”, he however did not say “I think the shots came from the front”. Seeming to “believe” is ‘such a thing’. Stating precisely is the ‘EXACT’ thing.

            Now McAdams, what the difference does it really make? He thought the shots came from the front is CLEARLY the message meant to be conveyed.

            You torture every word, every step of the way that does not tend to your bias. THAT is what is most precisely OBVIOUS on this forum.
            \\][//

          • Now McAdams, what the difference does it really make? He thought the shots came from the front is CLEARLY the message meant to be conveyed.

            The reporter said Drehm [Brehm] “seemed to believe” that.

            It was the reporter’s interpretation.

  5. M.J. Harrington says:

    I think Mark Lane was an advocate not a historian. His job was to test the case against Oswald. I would say that he created a more than reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Certainly it is not the job of defence lawyers to prove who actually committed the crime.

    Lane made a mistake in later years when he tried to convict the CIA with a case much weaker that the case against Oswald which he had done so much to discredit.

    I will remember with gratitude his early work for Oswald, which was a service for the whole world.

    His epitaph? “The defense rests”.

  6. I agree that Mark Lane was an important early critic of the Warren Report.

    I think that criticism was and is sound. I think that those who criticize Lane for the very things that the Warren Report is guilty of is quite hypocritical.

    As others have pointed out here, Lane was openly acting as an advocate for the accused; whereas the Warren Report pretended to be a non-biased search for the truth. It was NOT, it was in fact
    \\][// a prosecutorial brief against Oswald; both biased and dishonest.

    • Thomas says:

      Totally agree. Mark Lane opened the door to re-evaluating the conclusions of the Warren Report and much work that followed proved that the Warren Report was severely limited and compromised.

  7. Allen Lowe says:

    Jeremy Gilbert says, quoting Bowers to Lane: “Now I could see back or the South side [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.” Anybody else spot this? So Jeremy KNOWS that Bowers is saying the OPPOSITE of what he actually said, and so is changing Bowers’ testimony? Because by saying NORTH side of the fence Bowers is merely saying that no one was standing on the OTHER side of the fence from where the shots were fired. This is the kind of blatant distortion that makes it to hard to get at the truth.

    • “Now I could see back or the South side [BOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence] of the wooden fence in the area”~Bowers

      Yes indeed you are right Allen, Bowers was looking down from north of the fence, so he could only see the north face of that fence directly. He considered it the back, because the fence was RR property meant to divide the RR yards from the public spaces along Elm Street.
      \\][//

      He also claims there was “something” that happened there that caught his eye. This is all he says in the WC testimony. But elsewhere, perhaps in Lane’s interview he is more specific and says “something, like a flash of light caught my eye”.

      • Morton Beck says:

        I’m confused. Is Bowers referring to the side of the fence, which would be facing him from his vantage point in the railroad tower, or the side of the fence facing Elm Street? Looking at maps of the tower in relation to Dealey Plaza, I’m not sure how anybody could see anything that was happening on the street side considering there was a fence and trees in the way. Maybe someone has been inside the tower and can confirm it’s possible to see directly over the fence onto the grassy knoll from where Bowers stood or sat in the tower. Please advise.

      • Jean Davison says:

        Allen,

        “Because by saying NORTH side of the fence Bowers is merely saying that no one was standing on the OTHER side of the fence from where the shots were fired.”

        That can’t possibly be what he was saying because only the back of the fence was visible to him, and his testimony reads, “Now I could **see** back or the South side of the wooden fence…”

        Besides, if the shooter were on the street side the of the fence numerous people on the overpass would’ve seen him. It be foolish for Bowers to rule out a sniper in that location and ignore the opposite side, where the sniper supposedly was.

        That seems to leave some kind of error as the only explanation.

        IMO, Bowers may’ve misspoken and said “South” instead of “North” — or the stenographer/transcriber possibly left out or misheard a word. For instance, suppose he said “of” not “or,” and it was a simple typo? (“Now I could see back of the South side of the wooden fence…”)?

    • Now Bowers could have said he was at the WEST end of Dealey or the rail yard, because that is the position of the tower. But the tower is in fact north of the fence dividing the RR yards from the public plaza and Elm Street.

      The tower is WEST of the TSBD as well and North of it’s position.

      I think Bowers testimony is confusing on those points.

      See image of plat here:

      https://i0.wp.com/www.mapmanusa.com/images/book-maps/bill-oreilly-killing-kennedy-dealey-plaza.jpg

      • Bowers says, “There was a flash of light…” at 53:40 mark in the video interview posted by Ronnie Wayne in another thread;
        [Rush to Judgment (1966)]
        \\][//

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Willy, you are correct in your analysis of where the tower is. Have you ever stood beneath it and looked South, SE or SW? If he chose to look in that direction, you don’t see much of Elm, the back side of the fence is about 30 – 40 yards away. A clear view.
        He told his Preacher he didn’t tell everything to officials, reportedly. And he died under questionable circumstances.
        Though the sources are questioned. The subject has been discussed elsewhere on the site in depth and may be moved by Tom.

    • So Jeremy KNOWS that Bowers is saying the OPPOSITE of what he actually said, and so is changing Bowers’ testimony?

      But Bowers had clearly said that there were two men on the south side of the fence.

      So the “nobody” obviously referred to the north side.

      And had he actually seen anybody shooting, he would have mentioned it.

      “Back” also would seem to imply north side.

      • “And had he actually seen anybody shooting, he would have mentioned it.”~McAdams

        Bowers did say in the interview with Mark Lane; “there was a flash of light..”

        At 53:40 mark in this video:

        https://youtu.be/0w4sQtwWfBo

      • Bowers did say in the interview with Mark Lane; “there was a flash of light..”

        Do you actually believe a muzzle flash of a rifle would be visible in broad daylight, with the shooter aiming in the direction opposite Bowers.

        And then, the men he described to Lane were on the Elm Street side of the fence.

        • “Do you actually believe a muzzle flash of a rifle would be visible in broad daylight, with the shooter aiming in the direction opposite Bowers.”~McAdams

          It doesn’t matter what I believe “professor”, I am reporting the actual words that Bowers spoke before a camera and microphone.
          \\][//

          • It doesn’t matter what I believe “professor”, I am reporting the actual words that Bowers spoke before a camera and microphone.

            His actual words are quite vague.

            You are giving them specific meaning because you want to.

        • Perhaps McAdams is unaware of the brightness of muzzle-flash even in some modern weapons.

          This is a video of me showing off the muzzle flash of a Mosin Nagant During the daytime.

          https://youtu.be/ElvvMDTLz7w?t=113

          Do you know what a ‘silencer’ is called in it’s proper terms? A ‘flash suppressor’. A muzzle blast has two elements “light” and “sound”–these are dealt with two similar suppressors:

          “A suppressor, sound suppressor, sound moderator, or silencer is a device attached to or part of the barrel of a firearm or air gun which reduces the amount of noise and visible muzzle flash generated … The earliest use of the term “suppressor” to refer to firearm noise reduction is in US Patent 4530417″
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor

          A flash suppressor, also known as a flash guard, flash eliminator, flash hider, or flash cone, is a … However, if the same weapon’s barrel is “cut down” (shortened), as is common in cavalry and jungle-combat adapted … The Noveske KX-3 is a flash suppressor intended for use on shorter barreled rifles and aids in reliability.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_suppressor

          There are reasons suppressors exist.
          \\][//

          • This is a video of me showing off the muzzle flash of a Mosin Nagant During the daytime.

            https://youtu.be/ElvvMDTLz7w?t=113

            I don’t see any muzzle flash. Just a wisp of smoke that quickly disappears.

            I don’t doubt one could see a muzzle flash at night.

          • “I don’t see any muzzle flash. Just a wisp of smoke that quickly disappears.”~McAdams

            It figures you can’t see something that is as plain as day right before your own eyes “professor”

            I advise you to go see an optometrist.
            \\][//

          • Muzzle flash, Real Vs. movie
            https://youtu.be/3fyekZEDUXA?t=81

            The first real muzzle flash shots are in a very well lit room.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            May 22, 2016 at 4:49 pm

            “Perhaps McAdams is unaware of the brightness of muzzle-flash even in some modern weapons.”

            “This is a video of me showing off the muzzle flash of a Mosin Nagant During the daytime.”

            “https://youtu.be/ElvvMDTLz7w?t=113”

            I realize the UTube says this is a “muzzle blast” but with all due respect it is not. A muzzle blast is a foot of flame coming out the end of your barrel. You should have seen the .50 caliber machine guns firing at night; now that was some muzzle blast.

            “There are reasons suppressors exist.”

            On an air gun? Why would anyone do that? There is no gasses released to cause a muzzle blast or make a loud noise. To each his own I guess.

          • “You should have seen the .50 caliber machine guns firing at night; now that was some muzzle blast.”Bill Clarke

            I realize that Mr Clarke pretends at expertise in all things military — be my guest.

            However it is preposterous to compare a single daytime rifle shot with “.50 caliber machine guns firing at night.”
            \\][//

          • “On an air gun? Why would anyone do that? There is no gasses released to cause a muzzle blast or make a loud noise. To each his own I guess.”
            ~Bill Clarke

            You are the one bringing up an air gun Mr Clarke,
            Perhaps you can explain why you did so to the forum.
            \\][//

          • It figures you can’t see something that is as plain as day right before your own eyes “professor”

            I advise you to go see an optometrist.

            Anybody can look at the video and see that it isn’t any “flash.” It’s just a wisp of smoke.

          • “Anybody can look at the video and see that it isn’t any “flash.” It’s just a wisp of smoke.”
            ~McAdams

            Lol, really my man, you need to have your eyes checked if you can’t see the flash from that rifle muzzle.

            Try this one ‘professor’, even someone half blind should be able to see the muzzle flash in this video.

            And do note that the second part of it compares the real world muzzle flashes of the author’s own sequence, with the exaggerated cinematic scenes from the Al Pacino film.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            May 23, 2016 at 8:17 am

            “On an air gun? Why would anyone do that? There is no gasses released to cause a muzzle blast or make a loud noise. To each his own I guess.”
            ~Bill Clarke

            “You are the one bringing up an air gun Mr Clarke, Perhaps you can explain why you did so to the forum.”

            No Willy, you are the one that bought up the air gun. So you do the explaining.
            Do you read what you post?

            “Willy Whitten”
            “May 22, 2016 at 4:49 pm”

            “A suppressor, sound suppressor, sound moderator, or silencer is a device attached to or part of the barrel of a firearm or “air gun” which reduces the amount of noise and visible muzzle flash generated”

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            May 23, 2016 at 8:04 am

            “You should have seen the .50 caliber machine guns firing at night; now that was some muzzle blast.”Bill Clarke

            “I realize that Mr Clarke pretends at expertise in all things military — be my guest.”

            No no Willy. Not all things. Jus the parts I know about.

            “However it is preposterous to compare a single daytime rifle shot with “.50 caliber machine guns firing at night.”

            True. But Willy, I didn’t see any flame in your utube either. I’ve watched it several times now.

          • “True. But Willy, I didn’t see any flame in your utube either. I’ve watched it several times now.”
            ~Bill Clarke

            I can see them clearly. There are dozens of videos and images on the web showing daylight muzzle flash.

            https://i1.wp.com/www.gunslot.com/files/gunslot/images/75153.jpg

            https://youtu.be/3fyekZEDUXA

            Muzzle Flash in daylight is too common to argue about >>Fast Forward >> to 3:38
            in the video below:

            https://youtu.be/HF3h97Cc4JE

            \\][//

        • R. Andrew Kiel says:

          The photos & films prove that the men on the steps did not have their backs to the Book Depository – no matter what Emmitt Hudson “might have” told the FBI – its pretty clear that what the FBI reported is not what was seen by many eyewitnesses at the scene.

          Hudson stated ” I happened to be looking right at him (JFK) when that bullet him . . . it looked like it hit him somewhere along about a little behind behind the ear and and a little behind the ear . . . The shots that I heard DEFINITELY came from above and behind me”.

          The New York Times reported on December 5, 1963 “Most private citizens who had cooperated with newsman reporting the crime have refused to give further help after being interviewed by agents of the FBI.” – Why McAdams?

          So McAdams the “buffs” started to question the FBI’s story pretty early or was this an attempt at honest reporting which was shut down by intimidation ?

          Numerous primary sources & witness’s support what Hudson INITIALLY said:

          Hurchel Jacks driver of LBJ’s car stated “that before the President’s body was covered it appeared that the bullet struck had struck him above the right ear or near the temple”.

          William Newman standing on the curb 10-15 feet from the limo (ignored by the Warren Commission)stated that “the shot hit him (JFK) in the right temple . . . I do not recall looking toward the TSBD. I looked back in the vicinity of the garden”.

          Marilyn Sitzman – standing with Abraham Zapruder stated “(the bullet ) hit him in the side of the face . . . I would say above the ear and to the front . . . between the eye and the ear.”

          Roy Kellerman – riding in the right front of JFK’s car stated that “there was small wound and blood in the right temple in the hairline.”

          What would a “real autopsy” in Dallas & a trial with a competent defense have shown?

          • Photon says:

            Exactly what the pathologist who would have performed the autopsy in Dallas stated after reviewing the autopsy results, photos and radiographs-that JFK was hit by two shots that came from the rear; the head shot produced a small entrance wound in the back of the head and a massive exit wound in the right parietal-temporal area.
            If you are going to imply that Earl Rose didn’t know what he was talking about you should not reference him.

          • Do you actually believe the witnesses you cite could see a bullet enter Kennedy’s head?

            The witnesses are describing where they saw Kennedy’s head open up.

            In other words, there were making certain assumptions about wound ballistics.

          • The photos & films prove that the men on the steps did not have their backs to the Book Depository – no matter what Emmitt Hudson “might have” told the FBI –

            In the first place, it was the Dallas Sheriff’s office, not the FBI.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136&relPageId=499

            In the second place, he knew what he meant by “behind.” In his mind, the “brick building” was behind.

            In the third place, he explicitly told the FBI that the shots came from the TSBD.

          • Earl Rose did not do the autopsy on President Kennedy Photon,

            Commander Humes did at Bethesda.
            Dr, Boswell was Humes’ first assistant. Col, Finck was present in an advisory position.

            Was Photon sitting in the gallery puffing a cigar? Did he have Dr Rose in his hip pocket?

            ‘Only the Shadow knows…’
            \\][//

      • R. Andrew Kiel says:

        AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING Bowers describes the two men as being ten feet apart. AT THE TIME OF THE SHOTS there are three men standing close to each other on the steps – NO ONE ELSE.

        There are no photos or films showing ANYONE on the grassy slope from the steps west to the viaduct. Therefore Bowers has to be describing the men as being behind the fence – or he is describing the men on the steps – but they are not ten feet apart & three men are not two men.

        • Therefore Bowers has to be describing the men as being behind the fence – or he is describing the men on the steps – but they are not ten feet apart & three men are not two men.

          Again, depending on when he was looking, he might have seen only two, with the two being ten feet apart.

          If they were behind the fence, you have to deal with his statement that “there was no one there.”

          There simply is no way to make him a witness for a Grassy Knoll shooter.

          • “There simply is no way to make him [Bowers] a witness for a Grassy Knoll shooter.”~John McAdams

            You suggest another straw-man argument ‘professor’; no one is claiming Bowers is a witness OF a Grassy Knoll shooter.

            Bowers evidence certainly can be asserted to suggest a Grassy Knoll shooter, not in that he saw someone shooting, but in that he saw what would be the results of a shot by a rifle at that spot.

            The subjects being ten feet apart is no evidence that one man wasn’t a spotter ready to give a signal to the shooter if someone approached them.

            The flash and smoke are established words of Mr Bowers, whether you like it or not ‘professor’.
            \\][//

  8. Tom S. says:

    James Feldman….stop submitting comments until you read this and conform to what it describes, please!
    http://jfkfacts.org/comment-policy/

  9. Allen Lowe says:

    1) of course you can see a flash of light in daylight; and 2) thanks, Jean Davison and ex-Professor McAdams, for correcting what you were not there to report on, and which was EXACTLY what an eye witness testified.

  10. James Feldman says:

    Willy, you must understand that John McAdams “can’t see” the flash of gunfire unless those Hollywood special effects are added to create the right Ummpph to the visuals, as were used in the final scene of Brian De Palma’s “Scarface,” for example. Of course, John McAdams’ “vision” is adversely affected by the origin of the shots. If we were talking about a witness who testified about a flash of light and/or a puff of smoke from a window on the 6th Floor of the TSBDB, why, then, John McAdams would have seen the flash of light in your video clearly, sharply, and vividly. But since we’re talking about a witness testifying about a flash of light and/or a puff of smoke originating from the Grassy Knoll, the flash of light in your video is invisible.

    • Jordan says:

      Would that then be described as cognitive dissidence..? /s

      • “Would that then be described as cognitive dissidence..?”
        ~Jordan

        Toss up in my opinion Jordan; cognitive dissidence, or disingenuous argumentation.

        “Of course, John McAdams’ “vision” is adversely affected by the origin of the shots.”~James Feldman

        Yes Mr Feldman, I agree that McAdams’ biases glare like Klieg Lights in a dark dessert.
        \\][//

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.