Bowers - A Hypothesis

[Bernice Moore]

your welcome albert,i knew i had something tucked away, re hoffman's book, and was pleased it popped up, thanks for bringing Bowers to light,in a thread and phil thanks also for your added information, like the cream in the coffee.....b

[Albert Doyle]

I think it's obvious that Lane and the director of his video knew Bowers wasn't telling the whole story. That's why they arranged Bower's statement the way they did. I think Bowers was basically an honest man who couldn't lie so he phrased his statement in a way that said he "couldn't really say now or then".

So there's two things that fascinate me about this video. The first is that it suddenly becomes clear Bowers is a major witness who saw the whole thing from his perspective behind the picket fence. He had his finger cut-off mob style to shut him up. There would be no investigation from the Dallas police side because they were under the direct control of FBI/CIA.


Second, and this is what fascinates me, is Mark Lane was right on top of the real evidence and web of conspiracy in 1965-67. Much more than I previously realized. He was a lawyer so he didn't want to give them the ammunition to destroy him with like they did Garrison, so he didn't say directly what he was thinking with Bowers. He made it obvious by letting Bowers speak for himself. So obvious Bowers met a strange fate a few months later.


The Kennedy Assassination was a Coup D'etat by CIA and the military and they killed United States citizens who were witnesses to their crimes therefore overthrowing our Constitutional/legal form of government. This was basically a Nazi action by right-wing elements in positions of power in the US.


It's time to take our Democracy back and do justice on traitors. Their position is that we can't or won't do it.

[Charles Drago]

Two Bowers-related points, Albert.

Why, if Bowers were in possession of such vital and incriminating information, was he simply disfigured by the Cleaners rather than "accidented" quickly?

Wouldn't the disfigurement amount to compelling evidence for the veracity of a suddenly talkative Bowers's accusations?

Finally, I read your statement, "The Kennedy Assassination was a Coup D'etat by CIA and the military and they killed United States citizens who were witnesses to their crimes therefore overthrowing our Constitutional/legal form of government. This was basically a Nazi action by right-wing elements in positions of power in the US" as a non sequitur within the context of this thread.

Further, I draw the inference -- and please correct me if I'm being a dunderhead here -- that you place on the Sponsorship level of the assassination "CIA and the military" and "right-wing elements in positions of power in the US".

If so, we profoundly disagree; I see these suspects as False Sponsors. They are properly situated on the Facilitator level: They are architects, carpenters, and tools, but not the clients who own the property and commissioned the project.

[Albert Doyle]

Two Bowers-related points, Albert.

Why, if Bowers were in possession of such vital and incriminating information, was he simply disfigured by the Cleaners rather than "accidented" quickly?

Because it would have been too obvious. The way these people work is they do a personality profile of their target. If they thought Bowers was the "all business" authority-respecting, straight-shooter he was said to be by his acquaintances, they might take the risk that a finger-chopping might be good enough to shut him up. This had to be done very carefully. The modus operandi of the perpetrators was to camp-out at the gate-keeping end. You can tell who they were by their methods. Typically they used legal means by which to prevent evidence. The Warren Commission being the all-encompassing control apparatus.

In my opinion Bowers was doomed from the start. He saw the whole thing and stood to reveal the operation. Like DeMohrenschildt he was too honest and would have eventually been questioned by Assassination researchers. When the tide was in favor enough of being safe to talk - like it is now, Bowers would have most likely talked. Eventually he would have gotten to a forum where he had to account for what he said to Degough and Holland.

I personally think Bowers got on the short list when the highly intelligent 'literary' planners saw his "could not say then nor could I say now" and knew people would figure it out. Especially with a chopped-finger.

Wouldn't the disfigurement amount to compelling evidence for the veracity of a suddenly talkative Bowers's accusations?

Finger-cutting is a strictly mafia form of intimidation. Again, the form of what we are seeing here is indicative of who the players are. Legal gate-keeping and finger-cutting are forms that are speaking loudly a mob/government alliance - which is exactly the culprits that have been isolated by researchers.

Finally, I read your statement, "The Kennedy Assassination was a Coup D'etat by CIA and the military and they killed United States citizens who were witnesses to their crimes therefore overthrowing our Constitutional/legal form of government. This was basically a Nazi action by right-wing elements in positions of power in the US" as a non sequitur within the context of this thread.

I guess if you ignore all the evidence people like Douglass have accrued and come to the exact same conclusion over, OK. I believe Bowers was murdered by CIA. In that case it would not be a 'Non-Sequitur'.

Further, I draw the inference -- and please correct me if I'm being a dunderhead here -- that you place on the Sponsorship level of the assassination "CIA and the military" and "right-wing elements in positions of power in the US".

If so, we profoundly disagree; I see these suspects as False Sponsors. They are properly situated on the Facilitator level: They are architects, carpenters, and tools, but not the clients who own the property and commissioned the project.

While it is important to get the classification of perpetrators correct I think we are well past the point of incriminating evidence here as far as general criminal complicity. No matter who the controllers were the actors are still prone to their legal accountability as far as their actions. No matter what the case, the idea of members of government organizations like CIA having an active participatory role in the assassination of a president has profound implications that have to be related, and assigned their proper significance, accordingly.


In short I think the Egyptians have proven you get more done in the streets than the china shops. Something our founding fathers didn't shy from.

[Charles Drago]

The way these people work is they do a personality profile of their target. If they thought Bowers was the "all business" authority-respecting, straight-shooter he was said to be by his acquaintances, they might take the risk that a finger-chopping might be good enough to shut him up. This had to be done very carefully. The modus operandi of the perpetrators was to camp-out at the gate-keeping end. You can tell who they were by their methods. Typically they used legal means by which to prevent evidence. The Warren Commission being the all-encompassing control apparatus.

In my opinion Bowers was doomed from the start. He saw the whole thing and stood to reveal the operation. Like DeMohrenschildt he was too honest and would have eventually been questioned by Assassination researchers. When the tide was in favor enough of being safe to talk - like it is now, Bowers would have most likely talked. Eventually he would have gotten to a forum where he had to account for what he said to Degough and Holland.

I personally think Bowers got on the short list when the highly intelligent 'literary' planners saw his "could not say then nor could I say now" and knew people would figure it out. Especially with a chopped-finger.

Maybe. I don't know. But there seems, at least to me, to be too many intermediate steps here. Tender mercies were in short supply in Dallas.

Finger-cutting is a strictly mafia form of intimidation.

That's quite a broad statement -- one in need of documentation. The Yakuza, for instance, cut off their own fingers as part of a membership ritual.

Again, the form of what we are seeing here is indicative of who the players are. Legal gate-keeping and finger-cutting are forms that are speaking loudly a mob/government alliance - which is exactly the culprits that have been isolated by researchers.

No. Elements of he Mob and elements of the USG worked/work together and no doubt were complicit as Facilitators in the assassination. They are hardly, as your words imply, the only culprits so identified. For example: Might not associates of the originator of the anti-Huk "vampire" tactic have conjured such an action against Bowers.

Further, I draw the inference -- and please correct me if I'm being a dunderhead here -- that you place on the Sponsorship level of the assassination "CIA and the military" and "right-wing elements in positions of power in the US".

If so, we profoundly disagree; I see these suspects as False Sponsors. They are properly situated on the Facilitator level: They are architects, carpenters, and tools, but not the clients who own the property and commissioned the project.

While it is important to get the classification of perpetrators correct I think we are well past the point of incriminating evidence here as far as general criminal complicity.

The only ways to effect justice in this case, at this late date, are to expose the structure of the plot and, as a consequence, to indicate that while most of the human Sponsors and Facilitators of the JFK hit are beyond earthly justice, the systems they owned and served exist and remain in power.

In short I think the Egyptians have proven you get more done in the streets than the china shops. Something our founding fathers didn't shy from.

Nor should we.

[Dawn Meredith]

CD, I know all those who you do not think were sponsers but mere faciliators, including, surprisingly to me, the CIA, military, right wingers in the US.
Then just who do you believe the sponsers were/are?

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

Beats me. For now.

Process of elimination.

Pun intended.

[Jim DiEugenio]

THis is new to me about COnway interviewing this Holland guy.

I guess then that this is what Al Navis was talking about when he said that Bowers wrote him a letter about what he really saw that day but chose not to tell the Commission about.

What is the actual evidence about Bowers getting his finger cut off?

Finally, CD, how can you profoundly disagree with someone when you don't know what you think yourself?

[Charles Drago]

Further, I draw the inference -- and please correct me if I'm being a dunderhead here -- that you place on the Sponsorship level of the assassination "CIA and the military" and "right-wing elements in positions of power in the US".

If so, we profoundly disagree; I see these suspects as False Sponsors. They are properly situated on the Facilitator level: They are architects, carpenters, and tools, but not the clients who own the property and commissioned the project.

Jim,

Please reread my post. I profoundly disagree with Albert in terms of his apparent assignment to Sponsor status of the "CIA and the military ... [and] right wing elements in positions of power in the US."

I know precisely what I know (known knowns) about the roles of these and other Facilitators/False Sponsors. As for True Sponsors ...

To the degree that I didn't make this distinction clear, I apologize for my less than artful language.

[Bernice Moore]

albert; I came upon this....

Go to Previous message | Go to Next message | Back to Messages
Mark as Unread | Print

the portion of Bowers' interview with Mark Lane from the videotape Rush To Judgment:"At the time of the shooting, ah, in the vicinity of where the two men I've described were, there was a flash of light or, ah, something which occurred which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. And what this was I could not state at that time and, ah, at this time I could not, ah, identify it other than there was some unusual occurrence, a flash of light, or smoke, or, or something, ah, which, ah, caused me to, hmm, feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there."