THE STRANGE DEATH OF LEE BOWERS

[THOMAS THISTLEWOOD]

NOW IT CAN BE TOLD

THE LEE BOWERS STORY

by David Perry

------------------------------------------------------------------

On May 6, 1992, "Now It Can Be Told" aired a program with the
intriguing title "The Curse of JFK."* During that show Geraldo
Rivera and his staff of reporters discussed the death of Lee Bowers
Jr. Bowers died August 9, 1966 about four hours after the car he
was driving drifted off a north Texas road and struck a concrete
abutment.

At the time of the Kennedy assassination Bowers worked in a
railroad switch tower behind Dealey Plaza. As tower operator he had
an unobstructed view of the area in back of the picket fence. The
House Select Committee identified that location as the probable
position of a second gunman. The Warren Commission felt Bowers'
observations were important enough to depose him.

Over the years investigators have related conflicting accounts
of how Bowers died. Some individuals claim the auto accident was a
murder. The account usually follows the line that someone killed
Bowers because he saw too much, never told The Warren Commission
all he knew and could have identified participants in the
assassination.

To me, Geraldo Rivera is a sensationalist. His staff does not
take time to confirm witnesses' stories. His research consultants'
veracity is usually unquestioned. The search for documentation is
superficial. Opinions pass as facts. With "The Curse of JFK" this
led to inaccurate reporting.

My investigation of Bowers' death began about a year ago. I
spoke with family members, friends and checked public records.
During Geraldo's show a guest mentioned Lee's brother Monty. Monty
died a few years after Lee. I first contacted Monty's widow in
August 1991 and now because of this program called again to ask for
her help. She and her family provided leads and background
information concerning events of that period.

After speaking with Monty's widow, I decided to reopen my
probe into Bowers' death. I would retrace the steps taken by
Rivera's staff. Maybe I could come up with some names, conduct
interviews and find what parts of "The Curse of JFK" were fact and
what was fiction.

Geraldo opened the segment with the first of many inaccurate
statements. He claimed Lee Bowers wanted to know who killed JFK. "
. . . (He) was looking for the answer to that question until his
untimely death." There is no evidence that Bowers ever attempted to
learn who shot Kennedy.

Next assassination researcher Robert Groden appeared. He
remarked, "Lee Bowers was heading west here on highway sixty-seven
heading from Midlothian down to Cleburne and according to an
eyewitness he was driven off the road by a black car. Drove him
into this bridge abutment. He didn't die immediately, he held on
for four hours and during that time he was talking to the ambulance
people and told them that he felt he had been drugged when he
stopped for coffee back there a few miles in Midlothian."

Author, researcher Penn Jones Jr. in his book "Forgive My
Grief II" said, ". . . his car drifted, according to two
eyewitnesses, into a concrete bridge abutment at 9:30 a.m. going at
a speed of fifty miles per hour. The doctor from Midlothian who
attended Bowers stated that he did not have a heart attack and that
he thought Bowers was in some sort of 'strange shock'."

Since Groden and Jones appeared on the same show, I thought
Geraldo's staff would have talked to both men. They gave
conflicting versions of the same story!

Were there three witnesses? Groden found one, Jones two.
Groden discovered some ambulance attendants who claimed Bowers said
someone drugged him. Jones found a doctor who maintained Bowers was
in a strange shock? Did the car drift or was it forced into the
abutment? Who observed the mysterious black car?

I started my inquiry by examining a description of the
accident. The summary appeared in Penn Jones' own newspaper, The
Midlothian Mirror.


"Lee E. Bowers Jr., 41, of Dallas, died
from injuries received in a one car accident,
Tuesday, August 9.

Bowers traveling alone in a late model
Pontiac, hit a bridge two miles southwest of
Midlothian on highway 67 about 9:30 a.m. He
was taken to W.C. Tenery Community Hospital in
Waxahachie, by a Pat Martin ambulance, and
later transferred to Methodist Hospital in
Dallas where he died at 1:30 p.m.

He was vice-president of Lockwood
Meadows, Inc. in Dallas."


I called the Pat Martin Funeral Home. The Martin Funeral Home
is now the Coward Funeral Home. Mr. Noel Coward purchased the
Martin Funeral Home in 1964 retaining the Martin name for
advertising purposes. Coward suffered a stroke recently and is
confined to a nursing home. However, because of the notoriety
surrounding Bowers' accident, he remembers the episode well. He was
the ambulance driver.


If the police requested the ambulance Coward might respond
alone as the police officers would help load the victim(s). If
Coward had an attendant with him, it would be "Skeet" Meadows.
Meadows died in 1991. Coward, through his wife, told me that
stories about the ambulance attendants talking to Bowers are
"bull." When Coward arrived "the man's head was pretty bad." Coward
thought he was dead. He loaded Bowers into the ambulance and headed
for Tenery Community Hospital. There was no doctor at th
e scene as Penn Jones implied.

It would have been better if Jones provided the name of the
alleged physician but "Forgive My Grief II" has no footnotes. I
found it bizarre a doctor would use the term "strange shock."
Wouldn't anyone that struck a concrete abutment ". . . at fifty
miles per hour" be in shock? I started my search for the doctor.

When the ambulance arrived at the hospital, Dr. R.E. Bohl met
it. Bohl still works at Tenery, now Baylor Medical of Waxahachie.
Over the phone Bohl stated, "I was never at the scene. The patient
was in shock but not a strange shock. He had severe head injuries
and was unconscious. He was unconscious all the time I was with
him. I was trying to save his life. He was transferred to Methodist
(Hospital) in Dallas where he died."

I asked Bohl why he remembered the details. Bohl remarked he
received some unusual phone calls several years after the episode.
"One was from a national magazine and another from a newspaper.
The reporters wanted to know what clothes the patient was wearing
and if he had a finger missing. I told them I was too busy trying
to save the patient and I didn't notice."

In 1991 I interviewed Charles Good. Good was not only a friend
of Bowers but a member of the Texas Highway Patrol. He claims to
have investigated the accident. Good suggested Bowers was returning
to Dallas from Mansfield, Texas where Lee had been showing some
real estate. Good arrived at the scene hours later:

"I spoke with an old boy who was repairing fences at
the time of the accident. He said he saw two cars coming
down the road one behind the other. He turned away for a
moment, heard a crash and looked back. One car had hit a
bridge abutment and the other kept going."

From his interview with the witness Good formed the opinion
that another car forced the Bowers' vehicle off the road. I
discussed the possibility that Bowers drove the car in the rear. If
the driver in front wasn't looking in the rear view mirror he would
not know the accident occurred. Good conceded the point a valid
one.

Midlothian is a small town. After some research there, I
concluded R.V. Edwards was one, if not the only witness. Roy Virgil
Edwards died on January 26, 1986. Dr. Bohl verified that Edwards
witnessed the accident. Bohl's medical office is in Midlothian.
Edwards was one of his patients. Additional corroboration came from
Mrs. Coward (both she and her husband knew him) and Barham
Alderdice, publisher of "The Midlothian Mirror." Bohl and Alderdice
acknowledge Edwards maintained he was driving a tractor in a nearby
field at the time of the accident.

Dr. Bohl claims Edwards said, "The car simply drove into the
abutment." Mrs. Coward only knew Edwards was a witness. Mr.
Alderdice related Edwards told him the car hit the abutment so hard
it was ". . . like it was pulled into it (the abutment)." Good is
the only one I can find who mentions a second car.

What about the spiked coffee story? I understand Bowers often
stopped for coffee, but not in Midlothian. He would drop by the
Lockwood Pharmacy in Dallas before his trips. He met with Doris H.
Burns, Dr. Alfred Cinnamon and Charles Good. Doris Burns moved to
Mississippi or Florida. I am unable to locate her. Dr. Cinnamon
died in 1989. Good maintains Bowers told his three friends he saw
more than he told The Warren Commission. Good cannot document his
claim.

Then, there is Robert Groden's story about the mysterious
black car. I can't find a legitimate reference to it anywhere.
Good never mentioned the color of either car to me. I discovered
Fort Worth, Texas researcher Gary Mack interviewed Good several
years ago. He indicates Good did tell him the story of a black car
forcing Bowers off the road. Mack also suggested he (Mack) related
the story to Groden. Based upon my interviews with Dr. Bohl, Mrs.
Coward and Mr. Alderdice, I question the authenticity of this
account.

The next stop for the show is Dealey Plaza. Walter Rishel
appears with a reporter (Morey Terry [phonetic]). Rishel confides
that Bowers told him all about what he saw from the railroad switch
tower. He explains that Lee saw two men fire shots from the picket
fence. The reporter asks Rishel why he thinks Bowers was afraid to
speak out.

"Lee had disappeared for about two days, one night
I know for sure. It was very uncharacteristic of him and
when he came back one of the . . . his fingers was
missing on one of his hands. So Lee gave Monty some
excuse for what had happened which Monty didn't accept.
So he called the local hospitals, the clinics and some
doctor's offices and there was no record of anyone
certainly not Lee going in and having that taken care
of."

Does this mean a sinister group hacked Lee's finger off to
shut him up? Here is what my research shows about the incident.

Rishel is a self proclaimed close friend of Monty and Lee
Bowers. Monty's widow and her brothers don't recall him. I cannot
prove Rishel's friendship with Lee through Lee's mother and father.
Both died earlier. At any rate, the family finds Rishel's story
inaccurate. They assert Lee lost only the tip of a finger, if that.
Bowers injured the finger at a swimming pool party sponsored by the
Green Clinic of Oak Cliff. He had his hand draped over the edge of
the pool. Someone jumped into the water feet first crushing the
finger against the side of the pool.

At the time of the injury Lee was the Green Clinic's
bookkeeper. Family members gather Lee had his finger treated at the
clinic by Doctor Tim Richard Green. Green graduated from the
University of Texas, Baylor College of Medicine. He practiced
general surgery and treated this type of injury previously. The
damage appears minor as no one including Rishel remembers which
finger Lee injured.

All the conflicting stories confused me. I decided to contact
Charles Good again and telephoned him on the evening of June 17,
1992. I will paraphrase our conversation.

Perry: When we spoke the last time you said you investigated
the accident, is that correct?
Good: Yes
Perry: Were you acting officially as a member of the Texas
Highway Patrol?
Good: No, in fact I don't think I went to the scene until the
next day.
Perry: Did you interview anyone?
Good: Yes, there was a man working in a field near the scene.
Perry: Do you know the man's name?
Good: No, but he was either repairing fences or working on a
fence in a field near the scene.
Perry: Was he riding a tractor?
Good: No, but this was the next day, he may have been driving
a tractor when the accident happened.
Perry: Can you tell me what the man said?
Good: He said he, "Saw two cars coming down the road. Then he
turned away, heard a crash and looked back. One car
had run into a concrete abutment and the other kept on
going."
Perry: Did the man interpret this as suspicious?
Good: No
Perry: Did the man describe the color of either car to you?
Good: No, I never asked about the color of either car.
Perry: Did you ever hear of Roy Edwards?
Good: No
Perry: I believe that was the man you spoke to.
Good: Ok, but I don't remember his name.
Perry: Did you ever hear of Walter Rishel?
Good: No
Perry: Do you remember if Lee ever lost a finger?
Good: I don't remember Lee losing a finger but I think he
cut a finger on a table saw. He came into the Lockwood
Pharmacy one time with a finger bandaged. I don't think
Dr. Cinnamon was there at the time. Doris Burns and I
asked him about it.
Perry: Just before Lee injured his finger, did he disappear
for a couple of days?
Good: Absolutely not.
Perry: Do you recall how long before Lee's death he injured
his finger?
Good: I can't remember exactly.

Back to the program.

Since the reporter had discovered in Rishel a friend of both
Lee and Monty, why not get an "expert" opinion on Lee's death?
Rishel quickly obliged. He contends that shortly after Lee died he
". . . was in Monty's office. He (Monty) was very upset because the
insurance company had refused to pay the claim. I can't recall too
vividly but I believe that Monty felt that the insurance company
did not believe that the death was accidental."

Walter Rishel is correct on this point. The insurance company
did not want to make good on the claim immediately. Monty Bower's
widow tells me Monty had to deal with the insurance adjuster's
belief that it was no accident. The company thought it was a
suicide. Lee obtained an accident/health/life policy within a year
of his death. The insurance company was investigating under the
"suicide clause" contained in the policy.

"Permissible provisions. State laws permit insurers to
include policy restrictions for suicide, aviation and
war. A suicide restriction is included in nearly every
ordinary life policy. An aviation exclusion seldom is
found and the war clause is contained in policies issued
during war or threat of war."

"Suicide. If the insured commits suicide
within two years (one year, in some policies)
from the inception of the policy, the
liability of the insurer is limited to a
return of premiums. Insurers, in the absence
of this clause, would be subject to severe
adverse selection."

At this point, Geraldo's brother Craig declares, "Bowers also
told his minister that he had seen more than he told publicly." To
learn the name of this individual, I checked the Bowers' obituary.
The item appeared in the "Dallas Times Herald," August 10, 1966 on
page 12C.

"Funeral services . . . were to be held at 3 p.m.
Wednesday at the Casa View Methodist Church. The Rev.
Willfred Bailey was to officiate at the services."

Local researcher Dr. David Murph interviewed Reverend Will
Bailey. Coincidentally, David Murph is a minister who has known
Rev. Bailey for several years. The two talked June 11, 1992.

Rev. Bailey commented, "Lee did discuss that day with me. He
said he saw movement behind the fence. He believed something was
going on, but he never got more specific than that. He did not
share with me any more than he shared with the Warren Commission."

We return to the studio where Geraldo is questioning Craig.
Geraldo asks, "If Lee Bowers' death was not accidental what was it?
Joining me now . . . Craig Rivera. What was it?"

Craig Rivera responds, "We don't really know because the death
certificate is missing!"

Craig is guilty of inaccurate reporting. The death certificate
is not missing. Anyone can obtain a copy as I did by visiting
Dallas City Hall, filling out an application and paying a fee of
nine dollars.

Geraldo continues, "What about the official autopsy?"

Craig answers, "There is no autopsy either!"

He managed to get that right but for the wrong reason. If he
read the death certificate he would discover an autopsy never took
place. "Multiple head and internal injuries" caused Lee's death.
The statue requires an autopsy for deaths by violent or unnatural
means (i.e. gunshot). The Justice of the Peace reviewed the
evidence and felt an autopsy was unnecessary.

Remember how Rishel claimed Bowers said he noticed two men
shooting at Kennedy? There is yet another version of this story! In
1967 another friend and fellow employee of Bowers, James R.
Sterling gave a statement to Gary Sanders of Jim Garrison's staff.
Sterling said Bowers ". . . observed two men running from behind
the fence. They ran up to a car parked behind the Pergola, opened
the trunk and placed something in it and then closed the trunk. The
two men then drove the car away in somewhat of a peculiar method."
In this rendition, no mention is made that Bowers witnessed the
actual shooting.

Mark Lane asserted Warren Commission counsel Joseph Ball
interrupted Bowers ". . . as he was about to give that (additional)
information" about what he saw. Many individuals forget Mark Lane
interviewed Lee Bowers on March 31, 1966. What additional
important detail did Lane get from Lee that the Commission did not?

" He was not sure as to what it was (that caught his
attention), but he believed it was a puff of smoke or
flash of light."

I find it incredible that some people profess Bowers told them
more than he told Lane. It would appear researchers and Bowers'
"friends" have developed and sought corroboration for their own
unsubstantiated stories. They lose sight of the truth as they twist
and embellish the facts.

In the end, Monty Bowers concluded Lee's allergies contributed
to his death. Both Monty and Lee had severe allergies and were
prone to fits of sneezing. They took antihistamines that provided
little relief. Monty told representatives of the insurance company
his allergies bothered him that day. He assumed Lee experienced
similar symptoms. Could it be, Lee took antihistamines, dozed off
and struck the abutment? Is it possible a sneezing fit caused him
to loose control of the vehicle? In my view the answer is YES. I
will modify my opinion when someone comes forward with verifiable
facts to the contrary.

[mainframetech]

Yep. A strange story alright. Died of a sneezing fit while driving!
I've had sneezing fits while driving, but it never caused me to drive
right off the road. Bowers seemed to be a careful kind of guy. Sneezing
wouldn't sway him from glimpsing the road between sneezes and correcting
for any slight drift.

The Walter Rischel story sounds more likely, but again without
corroboration it is hard to tell if it's for real. We can say that
Rischel did NOT try for fame and fortune with his knowledge from Bowers,
so that's in his favor. The family trying to say they didn't know Rischel
seems possible, or they didn't want to get involved and possible get hurt
over it. They might think that if someone thought that Bowers mentioned
something to his family, the family had to go. There was a video online
of Rischel telling his story, but it's gone now. The owner pulled it
back. So we don't know about the story.

Being a careful guy, and having a cup of coffee before driving and at
9:30am, it seems like he wouldn't just fall asleep on the road, and the
sneezing fit just sounds laughable.

Chris

[THOMAS THISTLEWOOD]

What about a seance? Chris, you should try and attempt to communicate
with the spirit of Lee Bowers. Do you know Whoopi Goldberg?

[THOMAS THISTLEWOOD]

On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 10:56:41 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT

THE STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF DALLAS

BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of
Texas, on this day personally appeared Lee E. Bowers, Jr., w/m/38 of 10508
Maplegrove Lane, Dallas, Texas DA-1-1909 who, after being by me duly
sworn, on oath deposes and says:

I work at North Tower Union Terminal Co. RI-8-4698 7 am to 3 pm Monday
thru [sic] Friday. The tower where I work is West and a little north of
the Texas Book Depository Building. I was on duty today and about 11:55 am
I saw a dirty 1959 Oldsmobile Station Wagon come down the street toward my
building. This street dead ends in the railroad yard. This car had out of
state license plats with white background and black numbers, no letters.
It also had a Goldwater for "64" sticker in the rear window. This car just
drove around slowly and left the area. It was occupied by a middle aged
white man partly grey hair. At about 12:15 pm another car came into the
area with a white man about 25 to 35 years old driving. This car was a
1957 Ford, Black, 2 door with Texas license. This man appeared to have a
mike or telephone in the car. Just a few minutes after this car left at
12:20 pm another car pulled in. This car was a 1961 Chevrolet, Impala, 4
door, am not sure that this was a 4 door, color white and dirty up to the
windows. This car also had a Goldwater for "64" sticker. This car was
driven by a white male about 25 to 35 years old with long blond hair. He
stayed in the area longer than the others. This car also had the XXX
[strikeout] same type license plates as the 1959 Oldsmobile. He left this
area about 12:25 pm. About 8 or 10 minutes after he left I heard at least
3 shots very close together. Just after the shots the area became crowded
with people coming from Elm Street and the slope just north of Elm.


/s/ Lee E. Bowers Jr.


/s/ Patsy Collins


Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas

[THOMAS THISTLEWOOD]

On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 10:56:41 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

Side Effects of Antihistamines:

Adults who take antihistamines should know how the medicine affects them
before driving or using machinery.

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 14, 2014 9:28:21 PM UTC-4, THOMAS THISTLEWOOD wrote:

I find it business as usual when a Lone Gunman theorist makes all this
fact finding as a reason to come up with a convenient 'dozed off' theory.
Stuff, like his interviewing of the guy who saw a car driving off and not
finding it unusual is a dead giveaway. A car crashes, and another drives
off and that is normal!!??

We'll never know positively and that's why this guys start investigating
stuff like this as there is no way they can lose in their story-writing.
The most interesting thing is that he did see stuff back there, and when
he says he didn't say everything to the WC, it is probably because like
many witnesses, by the time the WC came around, there was a protocol to
keep it on the LG side else one might be come to be known as a
'dissenter'.

[Mike]

Lee Bowers describes the "flash of light" in the immediate area on the
embankment. He did not say it was behind the fence. The men he described
were in front of the fence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcU0mhstQds

Description of where the 2 men were located...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19298

Notice at the above link that Mark Lane did not say the men were behind
the fence when he was in the presence of Lee Bowers.

Here is what Mark Lane said to Lee Bowers

"Did you recognize these two men who were standing around or near the
wooden fence on the occasion as men who were employed by the Union
Terminal or any other agency in the area?"

But in his book , Rush To Judgement, Mark Lane says this...

"Bowers also testified he saw two men standing near the fence when the
shots were fired. He said one was middle aged and fairly heavy set. The
other was mid twenties in plaid coat or plaid shirt or jacket. His
description of the men BEHIND the fence was not unlike..."

IT is Mark Lane who puts those men behind the fence. Lee Bowers
description of where the men were located did not put them behind the
fence. Lee Bowers description put those men in front of the fence.

Lee Bowers was killed in August 1966, the same month that Rush To
Judgement was published.

[mainframetech]

Do you know those men over there coming at you with the white coats on
and the big net?

Chris

[mainframetech]

That's nice. Now show Walter Rischel's statements.

Chris

[mainframetech]

So doctor, you know that Bowers took an antihistamine? That he had a
cold or similar problem? Or is it that you know nothing of the sort and
are just pumping out baloney?

Chris

[bigdog]

Probably is a word conspiracy hobbyists like to use when they have made
something up that sounds good to them even though they have no evidence to
support it.

[THOMAS THISTLEWOOD]

So, it was Mark Lane who ran Lee Bowers off the road?

[mainframetech]

On Friday, October 17, 2014 8:24:10 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:

Bowers was speaking of men that were behind the fence from Elm street,
but in front to him in the tower. Same for other things he mentions.

Chris

[claviger]

Here is what Bowers really said:

The Testimony of Lee Bowers, Jr.
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/bowers1.htm
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/bowers.htm

[mainframetech]

Yes indeed! I agree completely that Bowers said those things. He also
spoke with Walter Rischel and told him the full story, that he was afraid
for his life to tell to the WC. And sure enough, he had a strange
accident under suspicious circumstances. His insurance company didn't
want to pay out because of suspicious circumstances.

his accident happened in the morning, after he had stopped for a cup of
coffee, and gotten on the road. He veered off the road and ran directly
into a concrete abutment and was injured badly. It was said that during
his being taken to the hospital he had acted drugged, and a doctor said he
was in a strange state. He died of his injuries that day.

The story is online.

Which reminds me of another thing that you stated, but never showed.
You said you had seen the video of Walter Rischel, and I asked where the
link to it was. Please come up with it. Thank you.

Chris

[bigdog]

Insurance companies don't want to pay out, period. If they see an angle
where they can get out of paying up, they will go for it. What do they
have to lose. It was a one car accident. In this case, they argued suicide
which would have invalidated the claim. Murder on the other hand is not
grounds for refusing a claim. It would have done them no good to argue it
was murder.

> his accident happened in the morning, after he had stopped for a cup of
> coffee, and gotten on the road. He veered off the road and ran directly
> into a concrete abutment and was injured badly. It was said that during
> his being taken to the hospital he had acted drugged, and a doctor said he
> was in a strange state. He died of his injuries that day.
>

A guy crashes into a bridge abutment and you thing it is odd he would be
disoriented?

[Anthony Marsh]

> accident =nder suspicious circumstances. His insurance company didn't

> want to pay out because of suspicious circumstances.
>
> his accident happened in the morning, after he had stopped for a cup of
> coffee, and gotten on the road. He veered off the road and ran directly
> into a concrete abutment and was injured badly. It was said that during
> his being taken to the hospital he had acted drugged, and a doctor said he
> was in a strange state. He died of his injuries that day.
>

What was in his coffee? Who served him his coffee? Sidney Gottlieb?

[Bud]

Means what? Establishes what?

> And sure enough, he had a strange
> accident under suspicious circumstances.

Means what? Establishes what?

> His insurance company didn't
> want to pay out because of suspicious circumstances.

Means what? Establishes what?

> his accident happened in the morning, after he had stopped for a cup of
> coffee, and gotten on the road. He veered off the road and ran directly
> into a concrete abutment and was injured badly. It was said that during
> his being taken to the hospital he had acted drugged, and a doctor said he
> was in a strange state.

Means what? Establishes what?

> He died of his injuries that day.

Finally, a fact.

> The story is online.
>
> Which reminds me of another thing that you stated, but never showed.
> You said you had seen the video of Walter Rischel, and I asked where the
> link to it was. Please come up with it. Thank you.
>
> Chris

More silly ideas the hobbyists can`t advance in any meaningful way.
Fifty plus years of playing games and going nowhere, what a silly hobby.

[mainframetech]

Oh geez! Now he's an expert insurance specialist! Will the pretending
to be an expert on anything ever stop?

Based on your word, Bowers' insurance company saw an "angle" and used
it. Now what was the angle? It was a suspicious death. Suicide was far
from Bowers mind, yet they saw the possibility. There was also the talk
of a black car that might have run Bowers off the road and into the cement
abutment.

> > his accident happened in the morning, after he had stopped for a cup of
> > coffee, and gotten on the road. He veered off the road and ran directly
> > into a concrete abutment and was injured badly. It was said that during
> > his being taken to the hospital he had acted drugged, and a doctor said he
> > was in a strange state. He died of his injuries that day.
> >
>
> A guy crashes into a bridge abutment and you thing it is odd he would be
> disoriented?

WRONG as usual. The EMTs and a doctor thought it was odd when they saw
him. I'm just repeating their concern. Try and get it together and not
jump so foolishly.

Chris

[bigdog]

So you think it takes an expert to know that insurance companies like
taking our money but hate like hell when they have to pay out. Do you
think it takes an expert to know that most life insurance policies have a
clause that invalidates a policy if the policy holder commits suicide?
There is no such clause regarding murder.

> Based on your word, Bowers' insurance company saw an "angle" and used
> it. Now what was the angle? It was a suspicious death. Suicide was far
> from Bowers mind, yet they saw the possibility. There was also the talk
> of a black car that might have run Bowers off the road and into the cement
> abutment.
>

Suspicious deaths are payable. Suicides are not. When a car runs off a
road it could an accident or it could be the driver trying to kill
himself. Which one do you think an insurance company would argue for?

>
>
>
> > > his accident happened in the morning, after he had stopped for a cup of
> > > coffee, and gotten on the road. He veered off the road and ran directly
> > > into a concrete abutment and was injured badly. It was said that during
> > > his being taken to the hospital he had acted drugged, and a doctor said he
> > > was in a strange state. He died of his injuries that day.
> > >
> >
> > A guy crashes into a bridge abutment and you thing it is odd he would be
> > disoriented?
>
>
> WRONG as usual. The EMTs and a doctor thought it was odd when they saw
> him. I'm just repeating their concern. Try and get it together and not
> jump so foolishly.
>

So you don't look at witness statements critically. We already knew that.

[Anthony Marsh]

Will your personal insults ever stop? No, you don't know how to argue
honestly.

> Based on your word, Bowers' insurance company saw an "angle" and used
> it. Now what was the angle? It was a suspicious death. Suicide was far
> from Bowers mind, yet they saw the possibility. There was also the talk
> of a black car that might have run Bowers off the road and into the cement
> abutment.
>

Garbage.

[Mark Florio]

He's pretending to be no such thing. He's telling you what he knows about
how insurance companies work. Common knowledge. Is there something
specific about what he said about the insurance industry that you disagree
with? Mark

[mainframetech]

I've watched him play the game of expert and dictate stuff too often.
You may not have paid attention, but since he loves to argue with my
information, I hear it often. I'm sensitized to it. Since he also never
misses a chance to insult me, I do it back. And on it goes. You haven't
been as insulting, so you don't hear as much of it from me in return. I
try to be an equal opportunity insulter, though it's hard to gauge
exactly. bd has also made a strong commitmnent that he never plays an
expert of any kind, and so I call him on it whenever it seems he has done
it yet again.

Chris

[mainframetech]

It depends on the policy and how it was written. You can get a policy
that includes suicide, you just have to pay more for it. Didn't you know
that? Geez, some expert. Most insurance companies don't question obvious
cases where the death was accidental. It costs them money to investigate
a case. This was not the case in Bowers death. It's suspicious to them
that he ran off the road after having a cup of coffee and being a
generally quiet and careful guy, just forget where he was and rive int oa
concrete qabutment. He had no reason to commit suicide either, so it was
suspicious for my purposes.

> > Based on your word, Bowers' insurance company saw an "angle" and used
> > it. Now what was the angle? It was a suspicious death. Suicide was far
> > from Bowers mind, yet they saw the possibility. There was also the talk
> > of a black car that might have run Bowers off the road and into the cement
> > abutment.
> >
>
> Suspicious deaths are payable. Suicides are not. When a car runs off a
> road it could an accident or it could be the driver trying to kill
> himself. Which one do you think an insurance company would argue for?
>

The one they thought was phony after checking it out. Which they did
after complaints from the family. The death was suspicious. He had no
reason to kill himself.

> >
> >
> >
> > > > his accident happened in the morning, after he had stopped for a cup of
> > > > coffee, and gotten on the road. He veered off the road and ran directly
> > > > into a concrete abutment and was injured badly. It was said that during
> > > > his being taken to the hospital he had acted drugged, and a doctor said he
> > > > was in a strange state. He died of his injuries that day.
> > > >
> > >
> > > A guy crashes into a bridge abutment and you thing it is odd he would be
> > > disoriented?
> >
> >
> > WRONG as usual. The EMTs and a doctor thought it was odd when they saw
> > him. I'm just repeating their concern. Try and get it together and not
> > jump so foolishly.
> >
>
> So you don't look at witness statements critically. We already knew that.

For EMTs and a doctor to say the same type of thing that they saw in
Bowers, it's corroboration, and needs to be paid attention to. Bowers
wasn't a loser, he was a stable guy with a good job and a future.
Suicide was not in his future. And letting himself lose concentration and
run off the road after having coffee and it being in the morning, a more
wakeful time, I'm not a believer in that either.

Chris

[bigdog]

Why would the insurance company care if Bowers' death was an accident or a
murder? They would have to pay either way. The only issue that would
affect them is whether or not it was a suicide. That would be their only
grounds for contesting payment. If they balked at paying out the policy it
would be because they suspected suicide, not because they suspected
murder.

There are policies that will pay on suicide but those are the exception
and generally the exception doesn't kick in until the policy has been held
for two years. Insurance companies aren't stupid. They aren't going to let
a guy buy a policy that pays off on suicide knowing that he could blow his
brains out as soon as the premium check cleared and they would be on the
hook. Of course that is irrelevant to the Bowers case. If his policy had
that exception there would have been no grounds for the insurance company
denying payment. And just so you know, I am not relying on my own
expertise in this area because I have none. I got this information by
doing a google search.

>
>
> > > Based on your word, Bowers' insurance company saw an "angle" and used
> > > it. Now what was the angle? It was a suspicious death. Suicide was far
> > > from Bowers mind, yet they saw the possibility. There was also the talk
> > > of a black car that might have run Bowers off the road and into the cement
> > > abutment.
> > >
> >
> > Suspicious deaths are payable. Suicides are not. When a car runs off a
> > road it could an accident or it could be the driver trying to kill
> > himself. Which one do you think an insurance company would argue for?
> >
>
>
> The one they thought was phony after checking it out. Which they did
> after complaints from the family. The death was suspicious. He had no
> reason to kill himself.
>

The insurance company wouldn't have cared if it was a suspicious death
unless the suspicion was that it was a suicide. If murder was suspected,
it wouldn't have mattered to them. They would have had to pay anyway.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > his accident happened in the morning, after he had stopped for a cup of
> > > > > coffee, and gotten on the road. He veered off the road and ran directly
> > > > > into a concrete abutment and was injured badly. It was said that during
> > > > > his being taken to the hospital he had acted drugged, and a doctor said he
> > > > > was in a strange state. He died of his injuries that day.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > A guy crashes into a bridge abutment and you thing it is odd he would be
> > > > disoriented?
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG as usual. The EMTs and a doctor thought it was odd when they saw
> > > him. I'm just repeating their concern. Try and get it together and not
> > > jump so foolishly.
> > >
> >
> > So you don't look at witness statements critically. We already knew that.
>
>
>
> For EMTs and a doctor to say the same type of thing that they saw in
> Bowers, it's corroboration, and needs to be paid attention to. Bowers
> wasn't a loser, he was a stable guy with a good job and a future.
> Suicide was not in his future. And letting himself lose concentration and
> run off the road after having coffee and it being in the morning, a more
> wakeful time, I'm not a believer in that either.
>

I'm not the one who argued it was a suicide. That issue was raised by the
insurance company because it was to their benefit if it was. I believe
Bowers probably fell asleep at the wheel and went off the road at a bad
place. That sort of thing is not uncommon. I don't like admitting this but
it happened to me a few years ago. I was driving from the Oregon coast
through the mountains toward Eugene when I suddenly became drowsy. I knew
I needed to get off the road but it was a two lane highway with a very
narrow shoulder. If I pulled off my left wheels would have been in the
roadway. I decided I would pull off at the first place where I could park
safely but I never made it. All of a sudden the car was plowing through
the brush into a ditch. I was very lucky. It could have been a tree. If I
had veered to the left I could have hit somebody head on. Bowers
apparently wasn't as lucky as I was.

[mainframetech]

> > generally quiet and careful guy, just forget where he was and drive into a
> > concrete abutment. He had no reason to commit suicide either, so it was

> > suspicious for my purposes.
> >
>
> Why would the insurance company care if Bowers' death was an accident or a
> murder? They would have to pay either way. The only issue that would
> affect them is whether or not it was a suicide. That would be their only
> grounds for contesting payment. If they balked at paying out the policy it
> would be because they suspected suicide, not because they suspected
> murder.

You're finally correct. They suspected suicide. However, we have NO
reason to suspect suicide. Bowers was in good health, had a good family
and wasn't depresed to our knowledge.

>
> There are policies that will pay on suicide but those are the exception
> and generally the exception doesn't kick in until the policy has been held
> for two years.

and you think Bowers had a policy for less than 2 years? I'm sure glad
you're pretending to be an insurance expert. And you know of course, that
Bowers was perfectly able to make a policy including suicide and may have
held it for 4or more years. right?

Insurance companies aren't stupid. They aren't going to let
> a guy buy a policy that pays off on suicide knowing that he could blow his
> brains out as soon as the premium check cleared and they would be on the
> hook. Of course that is irrelevant to the Bowers case. If his policy had
> that exception there would have been no grounds for the insurance company
> denying payment. And just so you know, I am not relying on my own
> expertise in this area because I have none. I got this information by
> doing a google search.
>

Ah, you used a Google search to pretend you're an insurance agent. I
see. Either case, as I said, the death was suspicious. The talk of a
black car pacing Bowers, and him runniong off the road after having coffee
and it being the morning and him being a reasonably careful guy. The talk
of the EMTs and the doctor all suggest that Bowers was drugged. And the
JFK case and Bowers' position of viewing would make him a person ready to
be eliminated. Not because he could identify the 2 gunmen he saw, but
because he could prove it was a conspiracy, which it was critical to keep
quiet. And look how well they managed the information. To this day there
are suckers stil swearing that Oswald was the 'lone nut' killer.

> >
> >
> > > > Based on your word, Bowers' insurance company saw an "angle" and used
> > > > it. Now what was the angle? It was a suspicious death. Suicide was far
> > > > from Bowers mind, yet they saw the possibility. There was also the talk
> > > > of a black car that might have run Bowers off the road and into the cement
> > > > abutment.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Suspicious deaths are payable. Suicides are not. When a car runs off a
> > > road it could an accident or it could be the driver trying to kill
> > > himself. Which one do you think an insurance company would argue for?
> > >
> >
> >
> > The one they thought was phony after checking it out. Which they did
> > after complaints from the family. The death was suspicious. He had no
> > reason to kill himself.
> >
>
> The insurance company wouldn't have cared if it was a suspicious death
> unless the suspicion was that it was a suicide. If murder was suspected,
> it wouldn't have mattered to them. They would have had to pay anyway.
>

Doesn't matter, as I said it was a suspicious death either way for my
purposes.

> > > > > > his accident happened in the morning, after he had stopped for a cup of
> > > > > > coffee, and gotten on the road. He veered off the road and ran directly
> > > > > > into a concrete abutment and was injured badly. It was said that during
> > > > > > his being taken to the hospital he had acted drugged, and a doctor said he
> > > > > > was in a strange state. He died of his injuries that day.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A guy crashes into a bridge abutment and you thing it is odd he would be
> > > > > disoriented?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG as usual. The EMTs and a doctor thought it was odd when they saw
> > > > him. I'm just repeating their concern. Try and get it together and not
> > > > jump so foolishly.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you don't look at witness statements critically. We already knew that.
> >
> >
> >
> > For EMTs and a doctor to say the same type of thing that they saw in
> > Bowers, it's corroboration, and needs to be paid attention to. Bowers
> > wasn't a loser, he was a stable guy with a good job and a future.
> > Suicide was not in his future. And letting himself lose concentration and
> > run off the road after having coffee and it being in the morning, a more
> > wakeful time, I'm not a believer in that either.
> >
>
> I'm not the one who argued it was a suicide. That issue was raised by the
> insurance company because it was to their benefit if it was. I believe
> Bowers probably fell asleep at the wheel and went off the road at a bad

Ridiculous! It was morning and he had just had a cup of coffee. He was
also a quiet, careful guy. Why would he lose it at that time?

> place. That sort of thing is not uncommon. I don't like admitting this but
> it happened to me a few years ago. I was driving from the Oregon coast
> through the mountains toward Eugene when I suddenly became drowsy. I knew
> I needed to get off the road but it was a two lane highway with a very
> narrow shoulder. If I pulled off my left wheels would have been in the
> roadway. I decided I would pull off at the first place where I could park
> safely but I never made it. All of a sudden the car was plowing through
> the brush into a ditch. I was very lucky. It could have been a tree. If I
> had veered to the left I could have hit somebody head on. Bowers
> apparently wasn't as lucky as I was.

Bowers was a careful person, and he had just had a cup of coffee, and
it was morning, and he hadn't had time to get sleepy. Your personal
experience doesn't have any bearing. and you forgot to mention what time
of day it was for you, and whether you had just had a cup of coffee.


Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Suspected? Wouldn't they have to investigate and prove?
Would it cost more to investigate than what the policy pays?

> There are policies that will pay on suicide but those are the exception
> and generally the exception doesn't kick in until the policy has been held
> for two years. Insurance companies aren't stupid. They aren't going to let
> a guy buy a policy that pays off on suicide knowing that he could blow his
> brains out as soon as the premium check cleared and they would be on the
> hook. Of course that is irrelevant to the Bowers case. If his policy had
> that exception there would have been no grounds for the insurance company
> denying payment. And just so you know, I am not relying on my own
> expertise in this area because I have none. I got this information by
> doing a google search.
>
>>
>>
>>>> Based on your word, Bowers' insurance company saw an "angle" and used
>>>> it. Now what was the angle? It was a suspicious death. Suicide was far
>>>> from Bowers mind, yet they saw the possibility. There was also the talk
>>>> of a black car that might have run Bowers off the road and into the cement
>>>> abutment.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Suspicious deaths are payable. Suicides are not. When a car runs off a
>>> road it could an accident or it could be the driver trying to kill
>>> himself. Which one do you think an insurance company would argue for?
>>>
>>
>>
>> The one they thought was phony after checking it out. Which they did
>> after complaints from the family. The death was suspicious. He had no
>> reason to kill himself.
>>
>
> The insurance company wouldn't have cared if it was a suspicious death
> unless the suspicion was that it was a suicide. If murder was suspected,
> it wouldn't have mattered to them. They would have had to pay anyway.
>

If they could prove it was a government conspiracy they could make the
government pay and the family could sue the government.

[bigdog]

I'm not the one who argued it was a suicide. That was the insurance
company. You tried to use their reluctance to pay as an indication they
believed it was murder. There reluctance to pay indicated they believed,
or at least argued, that it was a suicide. There is nothing that indicates
they believed it was a murder but the is the impression you tried to
create.

>
>
> >
> > There are policies that will pay on suicide but those are the exception
> > and generally the exception doesn't kick in until the policy has been held
> > for two years.
>
>
>
> and you think Bowers had a policy for less than 2 years? I'm sure glad
> you're pretending to be an insurance expert. And you know of course, that
> Bowers was perfectly able to make a policy including suicide and may have
> held it for 4or more years. right?
>

You get a Marshie award for your mangled interpretation of what I said.

>
>
> Insurance companies aren't stupid. They aren't going to let
> > a guy buy a policy that pays off on suicide knowing that he could blow his
> > brains out as soon as the premium check cleared and they would be on the
> > hook. Of course that is irrelevant to the Bowers case. If his policy had
> > that exception there would have been no grounds for the insurance company
> > denying payment. And just so you know, I am not relying on my own
> > expertise in this area because I have none. I got this information by
> > doing a google search.
> >
>
>
> Ah, you used a Google search to pretend you're an insurance agent.

No, I do a google search when I want to get information on a subject. You
should try it sometime. I could follow your practice and just pull
assumptions out of my ass but I prefer to get good information.

> I
> see. Either case, as I said, the death was suspicious.

Suspicious that it might be suicide. Not suspicious that it was murder.

> The talk of a
> black car pacing Bowers, and him runniong off the road after having coffee
> and it being the morning and him being a reasonably careful guy.

A driver can get drowsy at any time of the day and a lot of people have
made the mistake of thinking a cup of coffee is going to keep them awake.
The lucky ones just end up in a ditch. The unlucky ones hit something
hard. Like Bowers.

> The talk
> of the EMTs and the doctor all suggest that Bowers was drugged.

It suggests that to people with vivid imaginations.

> And the
> JFK case and Bowers' position of viewing would make him a person ready to
> be eliminated.

Why eliminate him. He had already testified he didn't see anybody back
there. But you want to claim he perjured himself because you didn't like
his testimony.

> Not because he could identify the 2 gunmen he saw, but
> because he could prove it was a conspiracy, which it was critical to keep
> quiet. And look how well they managed the information. To this day there
> are suckers stil swearing that Oswald was the 'lone nut' killer.
>

So your proof of a conspiracy is that no one has found evidence of a
conspiracy.

>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Based on your word, Bowers' insurance company saw an "angle" and used
> > > > > it. Now what was the angle? It was a suspicious death. Suicide was far
> > > > > from Bowers mind, yet they saw the possibility. There was also the talk
> > > > > of a black car that might have run Bowers off the road and into the cement
> > > > > abutment.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Suspicious deaths are payable. Suicides are not. When a car runs off a
> > > > road it could an accident or it could be the driver trying to kill
> > > > himself. Which one do you think an insurance company would argue for?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The one they thought was phony after checking it out. Which they did
> > > after complaints from the family. The death was suspicious. He had no
> > > reason to kill himself.
> > >
> >
> > The insurance company wouldn't have cared if it was a suspicious death
> > unless the suspicion was that it was a suicide. If murder was suspected,
> > it wouldn't have mattered to them. They would have had to pay anyway.
> >
>
>
> Doesn't matter, as I said it was a suspicious death either way for my
> purposes.
>

For your purposes? Well that does say a lot. For your purposes you argue
that because they suspected suicide you can claim it was murder.

>
>
> > > > > > > his accident happened in the morning, after he had stopped for a cup of
> > > > > > > coffee, and gotten on the road. He veered off the road and ran directly
> > > > > > > into a concrete abutment and was injured badly. It was said that during
> > > > > > > his being taken to the hospital he had acted drugged, and a doctor said he
> > > > > > > was in a strange state. He died of his injuries that day.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A guy crashes into a bridge abutment and you thing it is odd he would be
> > > > > > disoriented?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG as usual. The EMTs and a doctor thought it was odd when they saw
> > > > > him. I'm just repeating their concern. Try and get it together and not
> > > > > jump so foolishly.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So you don't look at witness statements critically. We already knew that.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For EMTs and a doctor to say the same type of thing that they saw in
> > > Bowers, it's corroboration, and needs to be paid attention to. Bowers
> > > wasn't a loser, he was a stable guy with a good job and a future.
> > > Suicide was not in his future. And letting himself lose concentration and
> > > run off the road after having coffee and it being in the morning, a more
> > > wakeful time, I'm not a believer in that either.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not the one who argued it was a suicide. That issue was raised by the
> > insurance company because it was to their benefit if it was. I believe
> > Bowers probably fell asleep at the wheel and went off the road at a bad
>
>
>
> Ridiculous! It was morning and he had just had a cup of coffee. He was
> also a quiet, careful guy. Why would he lose it at that time?
>

If all it took was a cup of coffee to keep someone from falling asleep at
the wheel and running off the road it would be an extremely rare
occurrence. Coffee might help you stay awake but doesn't guarantee you
will stay awake.

>
>
> > place. That sort of thing is not uncommon. I don't like admitting this but
> > it happened to me a few years ago. I was driving from the Oregon coast
> > through the mountains toward Eugene when I suddenly became drowsy. I knew
> > I needed to get off the road but it was a two lane highway with a very
> > narrow shoulder. If I pulled off my left wheels would have been in the
> > roadway. I decided I would pull off at the first place where I could park
> > safely but I never made it. All of a sudden the car was plowing through
> > the brush into a ditch. I was very lucky. It could have been a tree. If I
> > had veered to the left I could have hit somebody head on. Bowers
> > apparently wasn't as lucky as I was.
>
>
> Bowers was a careful person, and he had just had a cup of coffee, and
> it was morning, and he hadn't had time to get sleepy. Your personal
> experience doesn't have any bearing. and you forgot to mention what time
> of day it was for you, and whether you had just had a cup of coffee.
>

Keep those silly assumptions coming. My accident occurred early afternoon.
I had just eaten lunch and had a Coke which also contains caffeine. It
didn't keep me awake.

[mainframetech]

Just to get you straightened out, I was suspicious of the death from
what the story tells. When EMS techs and a doctor find it odd, then I
find it suspicious. They tell that Bowers himself said he was drugged.
He had coffee that morning, and it was morning and he was a regular guy
with no indications of having gone out drinking recently. It was s
suspicious accident.

> >
> >
> > >
> > > There are policies that will pay on suicide but those are the exception
> > > and generally the exception doesn't kick in until the policy has been held
> > > for two years.
> >
> >
> >
> > and you think Bowers had a policy for less than 2 years? I'm sure glad
> > you're pretending to be an insurance expert. And you know of course, that
> > Bowers was perfectly able to make a policy including suicide and may have
> > held it for 4or more years. right?
> >
>
> You get a Marshie award for your mangled interpretation of what I said.
>
> >
> >
> > Insurance companies aren't stupid. They aren't going to let
> > > a guy buy a policy that pays off on suicide knowing that he could blow his
> > > brains out as soon as the premium check cleared and they would be on the
> > > hook. Of course that is irrelevant to the Bowers case. If his policy had
> > > that exception there would have been no grounds for the insurance company
> > > denying payment. And just so you know, I am not relying on my own
> > > expertise in this area because I have none. I got this information by
> > > doing a google search.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Ah, you used a Google search to pretend you're an insurance agent.
>
> No, I do a google search when I want to get information on a subject. You
> should try it sometime. I could follow your practice and just pull
> assumptions out of my ass but I prefer to get good information.
>

Strange that you use that method and keep losing arguments with
ridiculous excuses. Including your gimmick to pretend to fall asleep to
get away from a diffficult question.

> > I
> > see. Either case, as I said, the death was suspicious.
>
> Suspicious that it might be suicide. Not suspicious that it was murder.
>

I feel that it was suspicious and was a murder. There was plenty of
reason for it. Since he had seen more than he testified to, he might come
out with it at any time. So he had to go.

> > The talk of a
> > black car pacing Bowers, and him runniong off the road after having coffee
> > and it being the morning and him being a reasonably careful guy.
>
> A driver can get drowsy at any time of the day and a lot of people have
> made the mistake of thinking a cup of coffee is going to keep them awake.
> The lucky ones just end up in a ditch. The unlucky ones hit something
> hard. Like Bowers.
>

LOL! Keep at it! You'll try anything to try to resurrect the tired
old WCR.

> > The talk
> > of the EMTs and the doctor all suggest that Bowers was drugged.
>
> It suggests that to people with vivid imaginations.
>

When the talk of drugging comes from the victim himself, it looks like
murder.

> > And the
> > JFK case and Bowers' position of viewing would make him a person ready to
> > be eliminated.
>
> Why eliminate him. He had already testified he didn't see anybody back
> there. But you want to claim he perjured himself because you didn't like
> his testimony.
>

WRONG again! I heard Walter Riscel's story that he got from Bowers,
and THAT said that Bowers had more to say to the authorities if he got the
nerve. He also told his friend Charles Good, the highway Patrolman there
was more than his testimony.

> > Not because he could identify the 2 gunmen he saw, but
> > because he could prove it was a conspiracy, which it was critical to keep
> > quiet. And look how well they managed the information. To this day there
> > are suckers stil swearing that Oswald was the 'lone nut' killer.
> >
>
> So your proof of a conspiracy is that no one has found evidence of a
> conspiracy.
>

WRONG! My proof is clear, and though I see conspiracy, many do not,
and therefore the gimmicks they worked out worked on some folks.

> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Based on your word, Bowers' insurance company saw an "angle" and used
> > > > > > it. Now what was the angle? It was a suspicious death. Suicide was far
> > > > > > from Bowers mind, yet they saw the possibility. There was also the talk
> > > > > > of a black car that might have run Bowers off the road and into the cement
> > > > > > abutment.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Suspicious deaths are payable. Suicides are not. When a car runs off a
> > > > > road it could an accident or it could be the driver trying to kill
> > > > > himself. Which one do you think an insurance company would argue for?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The one they thought was phony after checking it out. Which they did
> > > > after complaints from the family. The death was suspicious. He had no
> > > > reason to kill himself.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The insurance company wouldn't have cared if it was a suspicious death
> > > unless the suspicion was that it was a suicide. If murder was suspected,
> > > it wouldn't have mattered to them. They would have had to pay anyway.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Doesn't matter, as I said it was a suspicious death either way for my
> > purposes.
> >
>
> For your purposes? Well that does say a lot. For your purposes you argue
> that because they suspected suicide you can claim it was murder.
>

No, it was murder in either case.

When it's morning and the beginning of the day, and you've had coffee,
which is a stimulant, you have a better chance to stay awake. But the
victim spoke of being drugged, so I'm going with that as suspicious and
suggestive of murder.

> >
> >
> > > place. That sort of thing is not uncommon. I don't like admitting this but
> > > it happened to me a few years ago. I was driving from the Oregon coast
> > > through the mountains toward Eugene when I suddenly became drowsy. I knew
> > > I needed to get off the road but it was a two lane highway with a very
> > > narrow shoulder. If I pulled off my left wheels would have been in the
> > > roadway. I decided I would pull off at the first place where I could park
> > > safely but I never made it. All of a sudden the car was plowing through
> > > the brush into a ditch. I was very lucky. It could have been a tree. If I
> > > had veered to the left I could have hit somebody head on. Bowers
> > > apparently wasn't as lucky as I was.
> >
> >
> > Bowers was a careful person, and he had just had a cup of coffee, and
> > it was morning, and he hadn't had time to get sleepy. Your personal
> > experience doesn't have any bearing. and you forgot to mention what time
> > of day it was for you, and whether you had just had a cup of coffee.
> >
>
> Keep those silly assumptions coming. My accident occurred early afternoon.
> I had just eaten lunch and had a Coke which also contains caffeine. It
> didn't keep me awake.

Eating can cause sleepiness.

Chris

[bigdog]

You don't suppose Bowers at breakfast?

You are great at suspecting things. You aren't very good at providing
evidence to support your suspicions. But what conspiracy hobbyist is?

[Anthony Marsh]

Where's your proof of your Single-Bullet THEORY?
Why can't you just pick one frame and stay with it?

[Bud]

How accurate is it? The first post in this thread contains contradictory
information uncovered by David Perry.

> When EMS techs and a doctor find it odd, then I
> find it suspicious.

But it doesn`t matter if you are suspicious. It only matters if you can
go somewhere with the information. This issue has been dead in the water
for quite some time now.

> They tell that Bowers himself said he was drugged.
> He had coffee that morning, and it was morning and he was a regular guy
> with no indications of having gone out drinking recently. It was s
> suspicious accident.

You can establish nothing this way. You need a toxicology report. You
need science, not "someone said".

https://youtu.be/cxhwM06lLUs

> There was plenty of
> reason for it. Since he had seen more than he testified to, he might come
> out with it at any time. So he had to go.

Hobbyist figuring counts for nothing, especially when it is predicated
on empty claims.

>
>
> > > The talk of a
> > > black car pacing Bowers, and him runniong off the road after having coffee
> > > and it being the morning and him being a reasonably careful guy.
> >
> > A driver can get drowsy at any time of the day and a lot of people have
> > made the mistake of thinking a cup of coffee is going to keep them awake.
> > The lucky ones just end up in a ditch. The unlucky ones hit something
> > hard. Like Bowers.
> >
>
>
> LOL! Keep at it! You'll try anything to try to resurrect the tired
> old WCR.

All you need to do is firm up one of the thousands of things the
hobbyists find suspicious and you might have something.

>
>
> > > The talk
> > > of the EMTs and the doctor all suggest that Bowers was drugged.
> >
> > It suggests that to people with vivid imaginations.
> >
>
>
> When the talk of drugging comes from the victim himself, it looks like
> murder.

Some witnesses said he was never conscious.

>
>
> > > And the
> > > JFK case and Bowers' position of viewing would make him a person ready to
> > > be eliminated.
> >
> > Why eliminate him. He had already testified he didn't see anybody back
> > there. But you want to claim he perjured himself because you didn't like
> > his testimony.
> >
>
>
> WRONG again! I heard Walter Riscel's story that he got from Bowers,
> and THAT said that Bowers had more to say to the authorities if he got the
> nerve. He also told his friend Charles Good, the highway Patrolman there
> was more than his testimony.

Pretend evidence doesn`t take you anywhere. You can`t just assume or
figure all the time, at some point you need actual evidence that can be
examined.

>
>
> > > Not because he could identify the 2 gunmen he saw, but
> > > because he could prove it was a conspiracy, which it was critical to keep
> > > quiet. And look how well they managed the information. To this day there
> > > are suckers stil swearing that Oswald was the 'lone nut' killer.
> > >
> >
> > So your proof of a conspiracy is that no one has found evidence of a
> > conspiracy.
> >
>
> WRONG! My proof is clear,

So clear it`s invisible.

> and though I see conspiracy, many do not,
> and therefore the gimmicks they worked out worked on some folks.
>
>
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Based on your word, Bowers' insurance company saw an "angle" and used
> > > > > > > it. Now what was the angle? It was a suspicious death. Suicide was far
> > > > > > > from Bowers mind, yet they saw the possibility. There was also the talk
> > > > > > > of a black car that might have run Bowers off the road and into the cement
> > > > > > > abutment.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Suspicious deaths are payable. Suicides are not. When a car runs off a
> > > > > > road it could an accident or it could be the driver trying to kill
> > > > > > himself. Which one do you think an insurance company would argue for?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The one they thought was phony after checking it out. Which they did
> > > > > after complaints from the family. The death was suspicious. He had no
> > > > > reason to kill himself.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The insurance company wouldn't have cared if it was a suspicious death
> > > > unless the suspicion was that it was a suicide. If murder was suspected,
> > > > it wouldn't have mattered to them. They would have had to pay anyway.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Doesn't matter, as I said it was a suspicious death either way for my
> > > purposes.
> > >
> >
> > For your purposes? Well that does say a lot. For your purposes you argue
> > that because they suspected suicide you can claim it was murder.
> >
>
>
> No, it was murder in either case.

This might be meaningful in a world where hobbyist figuring counted for
something. And this is how the hobbyists figure the WC failed, because
they didn`t come back with unsupportable nonsense like "We figure Lee
Bowers was killed to shut him up".

Goes nowhere, establishes nothing. Just the kind of thing that seems to
appeal to a conspiracy hobbyists.

[mainframetech]

It wasn't mentioned that he did, he only had coffee.

> You are great at suspecting things. You aren't very good at providing
> evidence to support your suspicions. But what conspiracy hobbyist is?

LOL! That's a riot! Given that you almost never show ANY backup or
proof of anything, you're a fine one to talk. I've provided evidence or
proof of my contentions without being asked most times, and when I'm
asked, EVERY time. Are you trying to do a Trump and phony your way
through ignoring the truth?

Chris

[bigdog]

I see. So every unknown factor gives you license to assume what you
please?

>
>
> > You are great at suspecting things. You aren't very good at providing
> > evidence to support your suspicions. But what conspiracy hobbyist is?
>
> LOL! That's a riot! Given that you almost never show ANY backup or
> proof of anything, you're a fine one to talk. I've provided evidence or
> proof of my contentions without being asked most times, and when I'm
> asked, EVERY time. Are you trying to do a Trump and phony your way
> through ignoring the truth?
>

I see. Like you just did with your proof they Bowers didn't eat breakfast.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/28/2016 11:06 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 5:01:53 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 9:46:01 AM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 2:54:12 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Eating can cause sleepiness.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You don't suppose Bowers at breakfast?
>>>
>>
>>
>> It wasn't mentioned that he did, he only had coffee.
>>
>
> I see. So every unknown factor gives you license to assume what you
> please?
>

So you create a void and then complain when people have to speculate to
fill it. Just stop the cover-up.

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 11:06:45 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 5:01:53 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 9:46:01 AM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 2:54:12 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eating can cause sleepiness.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You don't suppose Bowers at breakfast?
> > >
> >
> >
> > It wasn't mentioned that he did, he only had coffee.
> >
>
> I see. So every unknown factor gives you license to assume what you
> please?
>

WRONG! You're losing it. I know he had coffee, and he was a regular
guy, and that it was morning, when most people are wakeful. Not only did
the EMTs hear oddities from Bowers, but so did the doctor. They thought
it was odd, and that makes me think the same, particularly because I know
that Bowers hadn't said everything he knew. That made him a target. He
might have decided to talk at any time, and it would completely kill the
'lone nut' scenario,. which was crucial to th conspirators, so they could
escape any punishment and enjoy their ill-gotten situation.

Bowers' testimony up to that time was already causing trouble in that
it said conspiracy, so that he had to be eliminated in any event. Notice
how it has come around to the point where a few suckers are acting like
there was no one behind the fence, though various people saw them,
including Bowers.

> >
> >
> > > You are great at suspecting things. You aren't very good at providing
> > > evidence to support your suspicions. But what conspiracy hobbyist is?
> >
> > LOL! That's a riot! Given that you almost never show ANY backup or
> > proof of anything, you're a fine one to talk. I've provided evidence or
> > proof of my contentions without being asked most times, and when I'm
> > asked, EVERY time. Are you trying to do a Trump and phony your way
> > through ignoring the truth?
> >
>
> I see. Like you just did with your proof they Bowers didn't eat breakfast.

I didn't prove that. I have nothing that said he ate breakfast, so I
repeated that. Naturally he might have had breakfast, or he might have
eaten at home, or he might have not liked to eat in the morning like some
people. No telling which of the possibilities are true.

Chris

[bigdog]

Your figuring is evidence of nothing especially given your biases that
tells you to spin everything toward a conspiracy. Bowers gave no
indication he had been drugged but you want to believe that. It seems
rather silly that your conspirators would wait almost three years to bump
Bowers off after he had already testified before the WC and the
investigation was closed. Even sillier they would try to do it by drugging
him. How did they know he was going to stop to get coffee at that
particular place. How did they manage to slip the drugs in his coffee. Or
maybe you think they gave it to him another way. Like in his breakfast.
It's also a very iffy way to kill someone. It was Bowers lousy luck that
he happened to go off the road where there was a bridge abutment. The
greater likelihood was that he would go off the road into a ditch like I
did. Most people who fall asleep at the wheel don't end up getting killed.
Speaking from experience I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone try it, but
if it happens, most likely you will survive.

[mainframetech]

You're a fine one to talk about spinning stuff. You try to spin
everything you hear into some bit of fluff from the WCR. Naturally
misguiding many peoople that accidentally hear you.

Chris

[bigdog]

So you really have no rebuttal to the main point that it would have been
very stupid to try to kill Bowers by drugging him so he fell asleep at the
wheel given that most people who fall asleep at the wheel aren't killed.
Bowers was just very unlucky.

[mainframetech]

As usual you leave out something. There was also talk of a black car
that ran Bowers off the road. Which would be easier if he were drugged
and made sleepy and not concentrating.

And do you have some statistics somewhere that proves that people that
fall asleep while driving usually live through it? I would doubt that, so
I need to see your cites and links for that, please. Until you can prove
that, I would suggest that sleepiness behind the wheel leads to accidents,
some of which kill the driver. Going at 50 miles per hour, is dangerous
if you go off the road, and sleeping people go off the road. There are
curves all over and they make a sleeping driver go off the road. It's
worse if a black car pushes you off the road.

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

mainframetech
- show quoted text -

As usual you leave out something. There was also talk of a black car
that ran Bowers off the road.

"There was talk of" an alien spacecraft landing on the White House lawn.
There's always "talk" of something, especially on Jerry Springer, in the
National Enquirer, and on certain Internet sites.

Perhaps you should rethink where you're getting your information from.

[Anthony Marsh]

Leave out the phantom car. Just being drugged would be enough.

> And do you have some statistics somewhere that proves that people that
> fall asleep while driving usually live through it? I would doubt that, so
> I need to see your cites and links for that, please. Until you can prove

Falling asleep while driving is an all too common occurrence. According
to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), each
year, more than 100,000 police-reported car accidents result from
drivers who fall asleep. Of those, more than 1,600 cause fatalities, and
more than 72,000 cause serious injuries. Because not everyone reports
all sleep-caused accidents, the actual number is probably much higher.
Also read the CDC study.

> that, I would suggest that sleepiness behind the wheel leads to accidents,
> some of which kill the driver. Going at 50 miles per hour, is dangerous
> if you go off the road, and sleeping people go off the road. There are
> curves all over and they make a sleeping driver go off the road. It's
> worse if a black car pushes you off the road.
>

Have have someone who claimed a black car pushed him off the road.
Let's see your source and your quote.
Is a black car more likely than a white car? Is that racism?

> Chris
>

[BOZ]

It was a 1958 Plymouth Fury named Christine.

[bigdog]

Oh there was talk about a black car running Bowers off the road? Who
talked about that. Oh, yeah. Conspiracy hobbyists. Any witnesses? Didn't
think so.

> And do you have some statistics somewhere that proves that people that
> fall asleep while driving usually live through it? I would doubt that, so
> I need to see your cites and links for that, please. Until you can prove
> that, I would suggest that sleepiness behind the wheel leads to accidents,
> some of which kill the driver. Going at 50 miles per hour, is dangerous
> if you go off the road, and sleeping people go off the road. There are
> curves all over and they make a sleeping driver go off the road. It's
> worse if a black car pushes you off the road.
>

Worse than if a red car pushes you off the road? You don't have to tell me
sleepy people go off the road but I can tell you one thing. You wake up in
a hurry. I woke up to the sight of the hood of my car plowing through the
bushes.

I do have statistics because I checked some references before I stated
what I did. Estimates are that about 1.5% of drivers who fall asleep at
the wheel are killed. It can only be estimated because many of the
fatalities don't live long enough to tell anyone they fell asleep at the
wheel. You can read the article yourself or do like you do with the WCR
and just disparage it without reading it.

http://drowsydriving.org/about/facts-and-stats/

Also if you look at the picture in the heading you will see just the kind
of road I was on when I became drowsy. The only difference was there was a
steep mountain to my right with a ditch between the mountain and the road.
As you can see, the shoulder was so narrow there was no way to pull off
without leaving half my car in the roadway which is why I try to push on
until I found a place to pull off. About two miles beyond where I went off
the road was a post office and a general store with a parking lot. I
didn't quite make it.

[Anthony Marsh]

And some people never wake up. Like WC defenders. Stay asleep. We're
running things for you and there is nothing for you to worry about.
Just drink the water, it's safe. Lead is good for you, makes you smarter.

> I do have statistics because I checked some references before I stated
> what I did. Estimates are that about 1.5% of drivers who fall asleep at

Source?
Cite?
Quote?

> the wheel are killed. It can only be estimated because many of the
> fatalities don't live long enough to tell anyone they fell asleep at the
> wheel. You can read the article yourself or do like you do with the WCR
> and just disparage it without reading it.
>

You mean they don't even have the common courtesy to talk to the victims
are they're dead?

> http://drowsydriving.org/about/facts-and-stats/
>

Seems to me I saw that before. Like when I read it a couple of days ago.
Now just for fun let's nitpick about the difference between FEELING
drowsy and actually falling asleep.

> Also if you look at the picture in the heading you will see just the kind
> of road I was on when I became drowsy. The only difference was there was a

It's the road that made you drowsy, not the LSD.
Some people have made movies about that.

[Anthony Marsh]

Bad books make bad films.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/3/2016 2:59 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> mainframetech
> - show quoted text -
> As usual you leave out something. There was also talk of a black car
> that ran Bowers off the road.
>
>
>
> "There was talk of" an alien spacecraft landing on the White House lawn.

No, there wasn't. Stop making up things from your imagination.
You are thinking about Central Park.

> There's always "talk" of something, especially on Jerry Springer, in the
> National Enquirer, and on certain Internet sites.
>

Or Fox or the New York Times. They plant a rumor then get it published,
then cite the published story as proof of the "fact."

[mainframetech]

I got it from an article in McAdams' files. I'm sure he'll be pleased
that you asociated him with Jerry Springer.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG. I hope you're not going to be foolish again. It's not good for your ego. Here's the information for the person that spoke about a 'black car' following Bowers on the road:

"Next assassination researcher Robert Groden appeared. He
remarked, "Lee Bowers was heading west here on highway sixty-seven
heading from Midlothian down to Cleburne and according to an
eyewitness he was driven off the road by a black car. Drove him
into this bridge abutment. He didn't die immediately, he held on
for four hours and during that time he was talking to the ambulance
people and told them that he felt he had been drugged when he
stopped for coffee back there a few miles in Midlothian."

And:

"I discovered Fort Worth, Texas researcher Gary Mack interviewed Good several
years ago. He indicates Good [Charles Good, highway patrolman]
did tell him the story of a black car, forcing Bowers off the road."
From: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bowers.txt

> > And do you have some statistics somewhere that proves that people that
> > fall asleep while driving usually live through it? I would doubt that, so
> > I need to see your cites and links for that, please. Until you can prove
> > that, I would suggest that sleepiness behind the wheel leads to accidents,
> > some of which kill the driver. Going at 50 miles per hour, is dangerous
> > if you go off the road, and sleeping people go off the road. There are
> > curves all over and they make a sleeping driver go off the road. It's
> > worse if a black car pushes you off the road.
> >
>
> Worse than if a red car pushes you off the road? You don't have to tell me
> sleepy people go off the road but I can tell you one thing. You wake up in
> a hurry. I woke up to the sight of the hood of my car plowing through the
> bushes.
>

That was you, but I'm guessing no one drugged your coffee.

> I do have statistics because I checked some references before I stated
> what I did. Estimates are that about 1.5% of drivers who fall asleep at
> the wheel are killed. It can only be estimated because many of the
> fatalities don't live long enough to tell anyone they fell asleep at the
> wheel. You can read the article yourself or do like you do with the WCR
> and just disparage it without reading it.
>
> http://drowsydriving.org/about/facts-and-stats/
>

Gosh! That's amazing! A link to information from bd! Something new under heaven!

> Also if you look at the picture in the heading you will see just the kind
> of road I was on when I became drowsy. The only difference was there was a
> steep mountain to my right with a ditch between the mountain and the road.
> As you can see, the shoulder was so narrow there was no way to pull off
> without leaving half my car in the roadway which is why I try to push on
> until I found a place to pull off. About two miles beyond where I went off
> the road was a post office and a general store with a parking lot. I
> didn't quite make it.

Is that the story of your WCR reading? "didn't quite make it?

Chris

[BOZ]

Good books are sometimes turned into bad films by leftwing directors.

[BOZ]

Walter Duranty!

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh

On 2/3/2016 2:59 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> mainframetech
> - show quoted text -
> As usual you leave out something. There was also talk of a black car
> that ran Bowers off the road.
>
>
>
> "There was talk of" an alien spacecraft landing on the White House lawn.

No, there wasn't. Stop making up things from your imagination.

I see you're picking up a lot from reading my posts. But it's really
better to be original, Anthony. Just parroting back what others say is
kind of juvenile.

[bigdog]

McAdams' website contains articles from LNs and CTs alike. The fact he
posts these opinions is not an indication he endorses them.

[John McAdams]

There are the only two pages on my site that come up in a search for
"alien spacecraft."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ayton2.htm

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

In neither is anybody propounding any such theory.

So I don't know why Mainfame was saying that.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[bigdog]

So this is your way of backing up your claims? Citing second and third
hand accounts". Groden wasn't a witness to a black car. Good wasn't a
witness to a black car. Neither names a witness who did see a black car.
So you have just confirmed what I said that this is just something
conspiracy hobbyists have dreamed up based on nothing at all.

Is that the best you can do?

[Anthony Marsh]

Thank you Pee Wee Herman.
That's your real name, isn't it?

[Anthony Marsh]

Only leftwing directors? What about Clint Eastwood. He is rightwing
enough for you?

[bigdog]

On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 1:14:42 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>

> "I discovered Fort Worth, Texas researcher Gary Mack interviewed Good several
> years ago. He indicates Good [Charles Good, highway patrolman]
> did tell him the story of a black car, forcing Bowers off the road."
> From: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bowers.txt
>

You really should take the time to read the entire article when you cite
something. Had you done so, you would have discovered this article pretty
much debunks everything you are claiming. My guess is you read only as far
as the part that stated what you wanted to believe, then skipped the rest
which pretty much tears the two stories to shreds, both the Groden version
and the Penn Jones version.

As to the specific claim of a second car, that seems to be Good's
invention. The only witness to the accident never mentioned a second car.

"Midlothian is a small town. After some research there, I
concluded R.V. Edwards was one, if not the only witness. Roy Virgil
Edwards died on January 26, 1986. Dr. Bohl verified that Edwards
witnessed the accident. Bohl's medical office is in Midlothian.
Edwards was one of his patients. Additional corroboration came from
Mrs. Coward (both she and her husband knew him) and Barham
Alderdice, publisher of "The Midlothian Mirror." Bohl and Alderdice
acknowledge Edwards maintained he was driving a tractor in a nearby
field at the time of the accident.

Dr. Bohl claims Edwards said, "The car simply drove into the
abutment." Mrs. Coward only knew Edwards was a witness. Mr.
Alderdice related Edwards told him the car hit the abutment so hard
it was ". . . like it was pulled into it (the abutment)." Good is
the only one I can find who mentions a second car."

[slats]

Maybe I'm dim, but why kill someone who insisted he saw no shooter?

"Ah, but the conspiracists KNEW he was lying, and therefore had to be
eliminated before he grew a backbone and told the truth!"

Oh, I see.

[Anthony Marsh]

He's just trying to be cheeky.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Correct.
My website contains articles from LNs and CTs alike. The fact I post
these opinions is not an indication I endorse them.

It's called OPEN RESEARCH.

[mainframetech]

Bowers had told his friend Walter Rischel the full story, but he was
scared to tell it all to the WC. Which was a mistake, but that's the way
he decided to go. There were indications that he also told a few other
people, and once that word got around, Bowers was toast. He might even
have been in a postion to identify someone and that would be a disaster
for the conspirators.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 11:39:23 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 1:14:42 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> >
> > "I discovered Fort Worth, Texas researcher Gary Mack interviewed Good several
> > years ago. He indicates Good [Charles Good, highway patrolman]
> > did tell him the story of a black car, forcing Bowers off the road."
> > From: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bowers.txt
> >
>
> You really should take the time to read the entire article when you cite
> something. Had you done so, you would have discovered this article pretty
> much debunks everything you are claiming. My guess is you read only as far

WRONG! I read the full article and I refer to that type of article as
a 'hit piece', but it gives some of the information in the Walter Rischel
and Le Bowers story, so I used it. There was a nice video of Rischel, but
it's been deleted. I know you won't be able to figure out where the
author of the 'hit piece' is telling the truth and just 'hitting' the
people in the story, but that's not my problem.

> as the part that stated what you wanted to believe, then skipped the rest
> which pretty much tears the two stories to shreds, both the Groden version
> and the Penn Jones version.
>

See above.

> As to the specific claim of a second car, that seems to be Good's
> invention. The only witness to the accident never mentioned a second car.
>

So you automatically take the author's negative viewpoint, which suits
your theories. It was expected.

> "Midlothian is a small town. After some research there, I
> concluded R.V. Edwards was one, if not the only witness. Roy Virgil
> Edwards died on January 26, 1986. Dr. Bohl verified that Edwards
> witnessed the accident. Bohl's medical office is in Midlothian.
> Edwards was one of his patients. Additional corroboration came from
> Mrs. Coward (both she and her husband knew him) and Barham
> Alderdice, publisher of "The Midlothian Mirror." Bohl and Alderdice
> acknowledge Edwards maintained he was driving a tractor in a nearby
> field at the time of the accident.
>
> Dr. Bohl claims Edwards said, "The car simply drove into the
> abutment." Mrs. Coward only knew Edwards was a witness. Mr.
> Alderdice related Edwards told him the car hit the abutment so hard
> it was ". . . like it was pulled into it (the abutment)." Good is
> the only one I can find who mentions a second car."

As I repeat bcause it needs to be repeated, I said 'there was talk of
a black car forcing Bowers off the road'. You've only backed me up by
your efforts that came to nothing. There was nothing to prove other than
there was 'talk' of a black car. :)

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! I didn't back up a claim. I mentioned that there was 'talk' of
a black car that forced Bowers off the road'. I showed you where I saw
that info. Try and get it straight and not add incorrectly to my
statements.

In any event, I've shown you the full run of information on the
subject. You'll make of it what you will.

Chris

[mainframetech]

John, if you look back in the thread we're in, you'll see that bd said

"Perhaps you should rethink where you're getting your information from."

And then made a disparaging remark that included Jerry Springer. I
responded that I got the info from your files and sarcastically said that
you would be happy to see that he was relating you to Jerry Springer. My
comment had nothing to do with UFOs, that came from bd.

The topic at the time he got sidetracked was on the story of Lee
Bowers and Walter Rischel's addition to Bowers' story.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Now you're a defender for McAdams. Is there no end to your talents?

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/6/2016 11:42 PM, slats wrote:
>
>
> Maybe I'm dim, but why kill someone who insisted he saw no shooter?
>

Yes, yes you are.
But we don't know what you are talking about, Yahoo.

> "Ah, but the conspiracists KNEW he was lying, and therefore had to be
> eliminated before he grew a backbone and told the truth!"
>

Did someone invent that straw man argument for you, or did you think it
up all by yourself?

> Oh, I see.
>

No, you DON'T see.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 10:31:27 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 11:39:23 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 1:14:42 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > >
> > > "I discovered Fort Worth, Texas researcher Gary Mack interviewed Good several
> > > years ago. He indicates Good [Charles Good, highway patrolman]
> > > did tell him the story of a black car, forcing Bowers off the road."
> > > From: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bowers.txt
> > >
> >
> > You really should take the time to read the entire article when you cite
> > something. Had you done so, you would have discovered this article pretty
> > much debunks everything you are claiming. My guess is you read only as far
>
>
> WRONG! I read the full article and I refer to that type of article as
> a 'hit piece', but it gives some of the information in the Walter Rischel
> and Le Bowers story, so I used it. There was a nice video of Rischel, but
> it's been deleted. I know you won't be able to figure out where the
> author of the 'hit piece' is telling the truth and just 'hitting' the
> people in the story, but that's not my problem.
>
>
>
> > as the part that stated what you wanted to believe, then skipped the rest
> > which pretty much tears the two stories to shreds, both the Groden version
> > and the Penn Jones version.
> >
>
>
> See above.
>
>
>
> > As to the specific claim of a second car, that seems to be Good's
> > invention. The only witness to the accident never mentioned a second car.
> >
>
>
> So you automatically take the author's negative viewpoint, which suits
> your theories. It was expected.
>

You can prove the author wrong. All you have to do is cite a witness who
says there was another car on the road with Bowers at the time he crashed.
Citing a witness means naming that witness and quoting his words.

>
>
> > "Midlothian is a small town. After some research there, I
> > concluded R.V. Edwards was one, if not the only witness. Roy Virgil
> > Edwards died on January 26, 1986. Dr. Bohl verified that Edwards
> > witnessed the accident. Bohl's medical office is in Midlothian.
> > Edwards was one of his patients. Additional corroboration came from
> > Mrs. Coward (both she and her husband knew him) and Barham
> > Alderdice, publisher of "The Midlothian Mirror." Bohl and Alderdice
> > acknowledge Edwards maintained he was driving a tractor in a nearby
> > field at the time of the accident.
> >
> > Dr. Bohl claims Edwards said, "The car simply drove into the
> > abutment." Mrs. Coward only knew Edwards was a witness. Mr.
> > Alderdice related Edwards told him the car hit the abutment so hard
> > it was ". . . like it was pulled into it (the abutment)." Good is
> > the only one I can find who mentions a second car."
>
>
>
> As I repeat bcause it needs to be repeated, I said 'there was talk of
> a black car forcing Bowers off the road'.

The only talk of a black car was by a guy who wasn't there.

> You've only backed me up by
> your efforts that came to nothing. There was nothing to prove other than
> there was 'talk' of a black car. :)
>

I never disputed there was talk of a black car. Conspiracy hobbyists talk
about all kinds of silly stuff. The hard part is substantiating what they
talk about.

[bigdog]

Well good. We both agree there is no evidence of a black car forcing
Bowers off the road.

[bigdog]

Rischel is the only source for this. Nobody in Bowers family knew anything
about Rischel.

[bigdog]

McAdams needs no defense from me. He does pretty well on his own.

[bigdog]

Your confused again. I never made the statement you attributed to me. I
don't know who wrote that but it wasn't me. I've never mentioned Jerry
Springer in this thread. I don't recall ever mentioning Jerry Springer in
any thread, but I've been on this forum since 2008 so maybe I did and it
slipped my mind. It certainly hasn't been recently.

[slats]

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in news:56b7839b$1
@mcadams.posc.mu.edu:

> On 2/6/2016 11:42 PM, slats wrote:
>>
>>
>> Maybe I'm dim, but why kill someone who insisted he saw no shooter?
>>
>
> Yes, yes you are.
> But we don't know what you are talking about, Yahoo.

It's a good question, which you apparently don't have a good answer for.

>> "Ah, but the conspiracists KNEW he was lying, and therefore had to be
>> eliminated before he grew a backbone and told the truth!"
>>
>
> Did someone invent that straw man argument for you, or did you think it
> up all by yourself?

Well why kill a witness who testified that he saw nothing? Why not bump
off Zapruder, Sitzman and the Newmans while you're at it? And why let
Holland, who DID see something, LIVE?

>> Oh, I see.
>>
>
> No, you DON'T see.

I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.

[BOZ]

Is Michael Moore leftwing enough for you?Is Konstantinos Gavras leftwing
enough for you? Oliver Stone?

[Anthony Marsh]

Jesus Christ, yes I defended him personally from being killed at the
conference. It wasn't just a Christian belief, but also I didn't want
her to go to jail.
BTW, yes there are ends to my talents. I can't cook and I can't sew.
I can't even boil water. The last time I tried to boil water I set off
the smoke alarm!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/8/2016 5:33 PM, slats wrote:
> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in news:56b7839b$1
> @mcadams.posc.mu.edu:
>
>> On 2/6/2016 11:42 PM, slats wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm dim, but why kill someone who insisted he saw no shooter?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, yes you are.
>> But we don't know what you are talking about, Yahoo.
>
> It's a good question, which you apparently don't have a good answer for.
>

Silly, maybe he didn't say anything publicly, but knew something
dangerous and had to be killed before he could talk about it.
Like Giancana and Rosselli.

>>> "Ah, but the conspiracists KNEW he was lying, and therefore had to be
>>> eliminated before he grew a backbone and told the truth!"
>>>
>>
>> Did someone invent that straw man argument for you, or did you think it
>> up all by yourself?
>
> Well why kill a witness who testified that he saw nothing? Why not bump
> off Zapruder, Sitzman and the Newmans while you're at it? And why let
> Holland, who DID see something, LIVE?
>

None of them said they actually SAW the shooter shooting. Maybe he would
have.
Do you understand the concept of perspective?

[BOZ]

Bertrand Russell couldn't make tea. Typical liberal.

[BOZ]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 10:34:18 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

THE CIA SET OFF THE SMOKE ALARM.

[mainframetech]

Bowers saw enough to actually describe someone, and he was a credible
witness. If he decided to tell the truth at some time in the future, it
would be devastating to the conspiracy. The most critical thing in the
conspiracy was to maintain the fiction that Oswald did everything alone,
so that all plotters could go live their lives and have no one chasing
them for murder.

The others mentioned did not see anything that others did NOT see.
Hundreds of people saw what each saw. They couldn't kill them all.

Chris

[mainframetech]

If that's true, then my comment was for whoever made that statement.

Chris

[mainframetech]

I'm sure everyone knows that, but you volunteered. So what's on your
mind? Sucking up to a senior LN?

Chris

[mainframetech]

Like Bowers, his family wanted no connection with anything that might
bring down grief on them, so they said they didn't know Rischel so that
they could easily pretend he had told them nothing because they didn't
even know him. Yet for Rischel to tell a story like his, was very strange
indeed, since he made no effort toward fame or fortune and never tried to
get extra attention. He told his story and he went quietly back to his
life.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! We did NOT agree on anything. The 'black car' was mentioned
during the telling of the story by one of the witnesses, and if true,
would make for a good reason for Bowers running off the road. It would
fit with the stories of the EMTs and the doctor saying that he was stating
that he thought he was drugged and that he was acting a bit strangely.

Chris

[mainframetech]

I said there was 'talk' of a black car running him off the road. I did
NOT say anything about any witness, but what Bowers said to the EMTs and
the doctor seem to point to some nasty business with drugging his
coffee.

> >
> >
> > > "Midlothian is a small town. After some research there, I
> > > concluded R.V. Edwards was one, if not the only witness. Roy Virgil
> > > Edwards died on January 26, 1986. Dr. Bohl verified that Edwards
> > > witnessed the accident. Bohl's medical office is in Midlothian.
> > > Edwards was one of his patients. Additional corroboration came from
> > > Mrs. Coward (both she and her husband knew him) and Barham
> > > Alderdice, publisher of "The Midlothian Mirror." Bohl and Alderdice
> > > acknowledge Edwards maintained he was driving a tractor in a nearby
> > > field at the time of the accident.
> > >
> > > Dr. Bohl claims Edwards said, "The car simply drove into the
> > > abutment." Mrs. Coward only knew Edwards was a witness. Mr.
> > > Alderdice related Edwards told him the car hit the abutment so hard
> > > it was ". . . like it was pulled into it (the abutment)." Good is
> > > the only one I can find who mentions a second car."
> >
> >
> >

> > As I repeat because it needs to be repeated, I said 'there was talk of

> > a black car forcing Bowers off the road'.
>
> The only talk of a black car was by a guy who wasn't there.
>

I've copied out to you the text where the 'black car' is mentioned, so
you're WRONG as usual.

> > You've only backed me up by
> > your efforts that came to nothing. There was nothing to prove other than
> > there was 'talk' of a black car. :)
> >
>
> I never disputed there was talk of a black car. Conspiracy hobbyists talk
> about all kinds of silly stuff. The hard part is substantiating what they
> talk about.

I'll take care of the substantiation myself. I backed up the stating
of a 'black car' in the story, but not the fact of the car itself, since
the story did NOT offer enough information. I DID mention the fact that
the highway patrolman (Charles Good) noted that Bowers told others that he
had not given ALL of his story to authorities. So the story of Walter
Rischel carries more corroboration.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

So you are afraid to answer my questions and ask me similar questions.
So should I reciprocate and be afraid to answer your questions?
I think not. Let's make up a scale of like or dislike where 0 is dislike
and 10 is like a lot.
Clint Eastwood 0
Michael Moore 6
Oliver Stone 7
Garvas 7
Spielberg 11

[Anthony Marsh]

I tried to prank a few people yesterday with a paranoid conspiracy theory,
but they didn't fall for it. I had told them last week there there was
going to be a meteorite strike that would kill someone and they didn't
believe that could happen. But it did happen last weekend. So I told them
that it was an assassination plot aimed at me, but they hit the wrong bus
driver. They almost fell for it then.

[slats]

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in news:56b92139
@mcadams.posc.mu.edu:

> On 2/8/2016 5:33 PM, slats wrote:
>> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in news:56b7839b$1
>> @mcadams.posc.mu.edu:
>>
>>> On 2/6/2016 11:42 PM, slats wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I'm dim, but why kill someone who insisted he saw no shooter?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, yes you are.
>>> But we don't know what you are talking about, Yahoo.
>>
>> It's a good question, which you apparently don't have a good answer
for.
>>
>
> Silly, maybe he didn't say anything publicly, but knew something
> dangerous and had to be killed before he could talk about it.
> Like Giancana and Rosselli.
>
>>>> "Ah, but the conspiracists KNEW he was lying, and therefore had to
be
>>>> eliminated before he grew a backbone and told the truth!"
>>>>
>>>
>>> Did someone invent that straw man argument for you, or did you think
it
>>> up all by yourself?
>>
>> Well why kill a witness who testified that he saw nothing? Why not
bump
>> off Zapruder, Sitzman and the Newmans while you're at it? And why let
>> Holland, who DID see something, LIVE?
>>
>
> None of them said they actually SAW the shooter shooting.

Neither did Bowers, unless you're gullibly relying on hearsay.

> Maybe he would
> have.
> Do you understand the concept of perspective?

Zapruder and Sitzman were in an even better position to see the alleged
shooter, yet they lived. Imagine that.

[Anthony Marsh]

You can't make sense. Typical Tea Party.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/9/2016 3:30 PM, BOZ wrote:

THAT's what I was trying to do, boil water for tea.
So now I have to buy bottled tea. Gold Peak.

[bigdog]

So everyone lied except the one person you need to believe.

Rishel made an effort toward fame but found out nobody but a few gullible
people believed his bullshit story. There is absolutely no corroboration
for what he says. What he says conflicts with Bowers sworn testimony. What
he says conflicts with what Bowers family has said. What he says conforms
with what you want to believe. That's the only reason there is for you to
believe him.

[bigdog]

Name the witness who saw the black car and tell us exactly what he/she
said. Name the EMTs and exactly what they said. Name the doctor and
exactly what he said.

Good luck.

[bigdog]

You mean the things Bowers said which you can't quote because you can't
name the EMTs or the doctor. This is all based on second hand accounts of
people who weren't actually there but heard that somebody had told
somebody something along those lines. Those are called rumors.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > "Midlothian is a small town. After some research there, I
> > > > concluded R.V. Edwards was one, if not the only witness. Roy Virgil
> > > > Edwards died on January 26, 1986. Dr. Bohl verified that Edwards
> > > > witnessed the accident. Bohl's medical office is in Midlothian.
> > > > Edwards was one of his patients. Additional corroboration came from
> > > > Mrs. Coward (both she and her husband knew him) and Barham
> > > > Alderdice, publisher of "The Midlothian Mirror." Bohl and Alderdice
> > > > acknowledge Edwards maintained he was driving a tractor in a nearby
> > > > field at the time of the accident.
> > > >
> > > > Dr. Bohl claims Edwards said, "The car simply drove into the
> > > > abutment." Mrs. Coward only knew Edwards was a witness. Mr.
> > > > Alderdice related Edwards told him the car hit the abutment so hard
> > > > it was ". . . like it was pulled into it (the abutment)." Good is
> > > > the only one I can find who mentions a second car."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As I repeat because it needs to be repeated, I said 'there was talk of
> > > a black car forcing Bowers off the road'.
> >
> > The only talk of a black car was by a guy who wasn't there.
> >
>
>
>
> I've copied out to you the text where the 'black car' is mentioned, so
> you're WRONG as usual.
>

The guy who mentioned the black car was Good who didn't witness the crash
and can't cite a witness who mentioned a black car. Again it's a second
hand account. Not first hand account by an actual witness who said they
saw a black car. So I was right when I said the black car was mentioned by
somebody who wasn't there.

>
>
> > > You've only backed me up by
> > > your efforts that came to nothing. There was nothing to prove other than
> > > there was 'talk' of a black car. :)
> > >
> >
> > I never disputed there was talk of a black car. Conspiracy hobbyists talk
> > about all kinds of silly stuff. The hard part is substantiating what they
> > talk about.
>
>
>
>
> I'll take care of the substantiation myself.

When?

> I backed up the stating
> of a 'black car' in the story, but not the fact of the car itself, since
> the story did NOT offer enough information.

So it is an unsubstantiated rumor.

> I DID mention the fact that
> the highway patrolman (Charles Good) noted that Bowers told others that he
> had not given ALL of his story to authorities. So the story of Walter
> Rischel carries more corroboration.
>

Oh, Bowers told others. So Bowers never said anything to Good so Good is
giving a second hand account. Of course Good doesn't name the EMTs or the
doctor who Bowers supposedly gave his statement to. But still you find him
credible.

[BOZ]

You claim to be a Christian. You like filmmakers who make anti-Christian
films. Why?

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. The shooter was BEHIND them. They did not have eyes in the back
of their heads. They were human beings. You're thinking about some
science fiction movie like Men in Black.
Zapruder said the shooter was BEHIND him.
And they couldn't even see Black Dog Man only a few feet in front of
them. Only one person could, little Rose Mary Willis.

[Anthony Marsh]

Such as?
What about Mel Gibson? You have to define what you think is anti-Christian.

[BOZ]

TYPICAL COMMUNIST.

[slats]

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in news:56bb771f$1
@mcadams.posc.mu.edu:

The alleged shooter wasn't always behind him. By the time of the head
shot, Zap was parallel with the wooden fence. In fact, in his infamous
film, you can see the fence as he continues to pan to the right. He and
his secretary were closer than anyone to the supposed shooter, who, as you
can clearly see, would have been about 15-20 feet immediately to his
right:

http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkdp5.jpg

If someone were to shoot a rifle that close to you, you'd notice.

[mainframetech]

Don't give me your usual crap! You know damn well that the story
doesn't name the EMTs or the doctor because I pointed you to the story
before. The person reporting some of the information was a highway
patrolman (Charles Good) which you also 'forgot' to mention. And your
welcome to find a detective that tells you that rumors aren't useful in
investigations until the guilty party is found. Anything said by anyone
in a case may have relevance.

> > > > > "Midlothian is a small town. After some research there, I
> > > > > concluded R.V. Edwards was one, if not the only witness. Roy Virgil
> > > > > Edwards died on January 26, 1986. Dr. Bohl verified that Edwards
> > > > > witnessed the accident. Bohl's medical office is in Midlothian.
> > > > > Edwards was one of his patients. Additional corroboration came from
> > > > > Mrs. Coward (both she and her husband knew him) and Barham
> > > > > Alderdice, publisher of "The Midlothian Mirror." Bohl and Alderdice
> > > > > acknowledge Edwards maintained he was driving a tractor in a nearby
> > > > > field at the time of the accident.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. Bohl claims Edwards said, "The car simply drove into the
> > > > > abutment." Mrs. Coward only knew Edwards was a witness. Mr.
> > > > > Alderdice related Edwards told him the car hit the abutment so hard
> > > > > it was ". . . like it was pulled into it (the abutment)." Good is
> > > > > the only one I can find who mentions a second car."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As I repeat because it needs to be repeated, I said 'there was talk of
> > > > a black car forcing Bowers off the road'.
> > >
> > > The only talk of a black car was by a guy who wasn't there.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > I've copied out to you the text where the 'black car' is mentioned, so
> > you're WRONG as usual.
> >
>
> The guy who mentioned the black car was Good who didn't witness the crash
> and can't cite a witness who mentioned a black car. Again it's a second
> hand account. Not first hand account by an actual witness who said they
> saw a black car. So I was right when I said the black car was mentioned by
> somebody who wasn't there.
>

Get rid of the courtroom crap! We're not in a courtroom, we're in an
investigatory mode and any info from anyone may be of use. I said that
someone mentioned a black car running Bowers off the road, and that's
info. When a guilty party is found. then the detectives can hone down the
proof for the court. Get it together.

> >
> >
> > > > You've only backed me up by
> > > > your efforts that came to nothing. There was nothing to prove other than
> > > > there was 'talk' of a black car. :)
> > > >
> > >
> > > I never disputed there was talk of a black car. Conspiracy hobbyists talk
> > > about all kinds of silly stuff. The hard part is substantiating what they
> > > talk about.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'll take care of the substantiation myself.
>
> When?
>
> > I backed up the stating
> > of a 'black car' in the story, but not the fact of the car itself, since
> > the story did NOT offer enough information.
>
> So it is an unsubstantiated rumor.
>
> > I DID mention the fact that
> > the highway patrolman (Charles Good) noted that Bowers told others that he
> > had not given ALL of his story to authorities. So the story of Walter
> > Rischel carries more corroboration.
> >
>
> Oh, Bowers told others. So Bowers never said anything to Good so Good is
> giving a second hand account. Of course Good doesn't name the EMTs or the
> doctor who Bowers supposedly gave his statement to. But still you find him
> credible.

I'LL REMIND YOU AGAIN, WE'RE NOT IN COURT, ALL INFORMATION, RUMORS OR
NOT, HAVE VALIDITY UNTIL IT'S TIME TO PRESENT THE CASE TO A JURY. When
you find a detective that will say otherwise, let me know.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Don't give me your usual crap! You know that the story didn't name the
driver of any black car, and you're pretending you know something that you
don't really know. I gave you the link to the story, and you can read it
for yourself, and I brought out some of the information anyway. The story
is located here:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bowers.txt

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! As it goes, a highway patrolman (Charles Good) stated that
Bowers had told more of the story than his testimony to a few other
people. That is corroboration with Rischel. You'll never give correct
info if you can try to cover something up.

Chris