Did Captain Fritz show Mr Oswald a Mauser?

[Walt Cakebread]

Robert Harris always has this thing where he prefaces  a baseless assertion by leading off with the work "'obvious[ly]" in a vain attempt to avoid having to support is Shinola. Apparently, he's been rubbing off on you.

How is it obvious? The primary source of light in those photos is the photographers rig, whether it be due to speed lights or a flash bulb. Anyway, the sun at 12:15 is almost directly from due South. While the TSBD isn't oriented exactly N-S-E-W, it's fairly close, and what little sliver of direct light through the west windows would be cast towards the North side of the building.

The link below contains a photo taken later on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, from a perspective fairly close to what Rowland would have seen from his position. Since it's later on in the afternoon, the sun is shining from a much more Westerly direction than it would have a few minutes after noon. There should be a great deal more light coming through the West windows  than at 12:15. So where is all that glorious, rifleman-bathing natural light seen through SW corner window? And where in his testimony, affidavits, and interviews does Rowland describe the influence of such light?

http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/2013/11/john-f-kennedy-anniversary-a-look-at-images-from-his-lifetime/president-kennedy-gallery-9/#PhotoSwipe1613588479229

There should be a great deal more light coming through the West windows  than at 12:15

True...But the fact remains the west window was also illuminating the area where Arnold Rowland saw the light clothing clad ma with the HUNTING rifle was standing.

[Walt Cakebread]

No, Mr. F....  The clock is proof that Lt Day was a liar..... And Lee's reply during the interrogation of..."I  saw this rifle and two other's the day before yesterday",  is accurate.....

Where had Lt Day been with that Carcano?....   Isn't it true that he had just taken the rifle to display to Marina Oswald?.....And didn't he ask her if she'd ever seen the rifle ......  So doesn't it make sense that he would also have taken the rifle to be displayed to Lee?

[Alan Ford]

Where had Lt Day been with that Carcano?....   Isn't it true that he had just taken the rifle to display to Marina Oswald?.....And didn't he ask her if she'd ever seen the rifle ......  So doesn't it make sense that he would also have taken the rifle to be displayed to Lee?

At 3:15pm?

[Jack Nessan]

Does she have to pay extra for that?

You couldn't be more wrong.
The basic description of the rifleman he gives to his wife is the same as the one he gives in his affidavit is the same one he gives to the WC.

Don't forget, you also think his head is lower than his waist. 

A slender heavy 200lb man that weighs 140lbs:

Mr. ROWLAND - He was rather slender in proportion to his size. I couldn't tell for sure whether he was tall and maybe, you know heavy, say 200 pounds, but tall whether he would be and slender or whether he was medium and slender, but in proportion to his size his build was slender.

Mr. SPECTER - Were you able to form any opinion as to the weight of the man in addition to the line of proportion which you have already described?
Mr. ROWLAND - I would say about 140 to 150 pounds

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

That picture was of the window facing the west parking lot. It is the only time Walt Cakebread has ever been right. You have to give it to him.

 Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.

Mr. SPECTER - Which half of the window was open, the bottom half or the top half?
Mr. ROWLAND - It was the bottom half.
Mr. SPECTER - And how much, if any, of his body was obscured by the window frame from that point down to the floor?
Mr. ROWLAND - From where I was standing I could see from his head to about 6 inches below his waist, below his belt.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you see as far as his knees?
Mr. ROWLAND - No.
---------------

Mr. SPECTER - And from that point how far up his body were you able to see without any obstruction of a window between you and him?
Mr. ROWLAND - To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.

----------------------------
LHO had the rifle slightly tipped in the wrong direction to his right but almost verticle ROWLAND - The entire rifle was in my view.
Mr. SPECTER - In the open part of the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.

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

His head was always below his waist. Every time they asked him a question he proved it. Today it would be called a lifestyle. Describing a rifle as a "thirty odd size six" would be a good example of his head being below his waist. If he really was attempting to reference a 30-06, calling it an import rifle would also be a good example of his head being below his waist.

[Walt Cakebread]

At 3:15pm?

Yes ...Day had just came from the TSBD  and brought the carcano into police headquarters.......

[Mitch Todd]

From your previous post:

"Apparent gap between top of "rifleman" head to top of window opening (30" and 36" per A. Rowland WC testimony)"

This is an erroneous parameter. Rowland misunderstands the question about the space between the rifleman's head and the top of the window as meaning the distance of his head away from the top of the window. The answer he gives is consistent with his estimation of how far in the building the rifleman is stood.
He is hardly describing the top half of the man's body plus another 36" seen through a 30" inch gap of the open window. Below is a very rough graphic meant to illustrate a basic principle. The gap between sill and the centre of the full window is represented by a red line. The same redline is overlaid on the middle of the trio to give a very basic idea of what someone looking through the window should see.
Obviously the further away from the window the man is stood the more of him would be visible as the angle of LoS from Rowland is a lot more shallow than that shown in the image.
It's basic and meant to convey a basic idea.

Let's go back to what Rowland said:

Mr. SPECTER - And from that point how far up his body were you able to see without any obstruction of a window between you and him?
Mr. ROWLAND - To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.

Specter asks how far up Rowland can see the man in the TSBD. Rowland says not only that he can see the top of the man's head, but also that there was empty space above the man's head through which he could see the wall behind the man. That space would necessarily be bordered by the top of the man's head and the raised window sash.  Specter immediately follows up, asking Rowland how much space there was between the "top of his head" (the exact phrase Rowland used) and the "open window." Given that Rowland had just brought the subject up, and repeats Rowland's phrasing, there's no reason to claim Rowland was confused about the nature of the question.

Even if we assume, arguendo, that Rowland was confused and simply told Specter the distance between the top of the man's head and the wall in front of him, it's still highly problematic. He's already put the distance at 3 to 5 feet; you'd have us believe that he then decided it was really 2.5 to 3 feet. Assuming your contention makes an Arnold Rowland an easily confused boy too dumb to properly answer what should be a straightforward question and unable to keep his own story straight through the deposition. If that's the best you can do, you need to stop trying before he gets the chair under your defense.

[Alan Ford]

Let's go back to what Rowland said:

Mr. SPECTER - And from that point how far up his body were you able to see without any obstruction of a window between you and him?
Mr. ROWLAND - To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.

Specter asks how far up Rowland can see the man in the TSBD. Rowland says not only that he can see the top of the man's head, but also that there was empty space above the man's head through which he could see the wall behind the man. That space would necessarily be bordered by the top of the man's head and the raised window sash.  Specter immediately follows up, asking Rowland how much space there was between the "top of his head" (the exact phrase Rowland used) and the "open window." Given that Rowland had just brought the subject up, and repeats Rowland's phrasing, there's no reason to claim Rowland was confused about the nature of the question.

Even if we assume, arguendo, that Rowland was confused and simply told Specter the distance between the top of the man's head and the wall in front of him, it's still highly problematic. He's already put the distance at 3 to 5 feet; you'd have us believe that he then decided it was really 2.5 to 3 feet. Assuming your contention makes an Arnold Rowland an easily confused boy too dumb to properly answer what should be a straightforward question and unable to keep his own story straight through the deposition. If that's the best you can do, you need to stop trying before he gets the chair under your defense.

~Grin~

We all know that if Mr Rowland had said
a) the man at the window was Mr Oswald
b) he was holding a rifle that looked like the Carcano
c) he was the only man he saw on that floor
the WC would have given him a laudation and you & Mr Nessan wouldn't now be working up a McAdamsite sweat to find pseudo-problems with his testimony.