Thanks much All fur the photos of the 6th floor showing the perspective approx from the SW corner window looking eastward along the south wall row of windows.
There appears to be approx 3ft wide east-west aisle along the south facing windows where the LOS is unobstructed all the way to the SN such that 2 persons closer than 3ft to any of the south wall windows (except for SE corner window) could easily have seen each other if both persons were within 3ft of a south window.
There’s a possibility that some person on the east side of the stacked box wall of the SN window could be seen thru the cracks from
The west side.
Rowland and BRW accounts cannot be reconciled unless there was ANOTHER black man at the SE window at 12:15 who was hanging out the windows and was wearing a red and green plaid shirt. Somehow BRW did not see or hear the other black man at the SE window, just as BRW did not see or hear a gunman who was theoretically in the LOS 3ft zone close enough to the SW window that Rowland could see a rifle with large scope in the hands of the gunman.
It is inconsistent to discredit Rowland seeing an elderly black man yet credit Rowlands observation of a gunman, since both men were seen by Rowland at the same time of 12:15 on the same floor.
There is no possibility of mistaken ID by Rowland of Norman or Jarman on the 5th floor as they were not on the 5th or 6th floor at 12:15
Therefore it’s a choice to totally discredit Rowland entirely or suspect that BRW was possibly coerced to place himself on the 6th floor from 12:05-12:20.
…if both persons were within 3ft of a south window.BRW testified that he was sitting on the cart. The cart isn’t located within the 3-foot aisle. Therefore, if BRW was sitting were he testified that he was, then he wasn’t located within 3-feet of a south window.
…a gunman who was theoretically in the LOS 3ft zone close enough to the SW window that Rowland could see a rifle with large scope in the hands of the gunman.And Arnold Rowland’s same day affidavit indicates that he thought the man with the rifle was standing well back from the windows.
….I saw what I thought was a man
standing back about 15 feet from the windows and was holding in his arms what appeared to be a hi [sic] powered rifle because it looked like it had a scope on it.
Arnold Rowland later revised his estimate in his WC testimony:
MR. ROWLAND - He wasn't next to the window, but he wasn't very far back. I would say 3 to 5 feet back from the window.
Based on Arnold Rowland’s detailed description of what he saw, which was elicited from him by Spector in his WC testimony, and Rowland’s viewpoint as seen in my 3-D computer model, it appears to me that the man with the rifle would have been at least 6-feet back from the windows (and perhaps a bit more).
It is inconsistent to discredit Rowland seeing an elderly black man yet credit Rowlands observation of a gunman, since both men were seen by Rowland at the same time of 12:15 on the same floorReasons why it is easy for me to discredit the elderly black man story:
1. No one else observed this. Barbara Rowland and Howard Brennan testified that they saw no one else on the sixth floor.
2. Arnold Rowland didn’t include this in his same day affidavit, or say anything about it to anyone (including his wife). The first time we know of that Arnold Rowland told anyone about it is in his WC testimony.
3. Arnold Rowland apparently didn’t tell the truth regarding some of his background information.
4. Witnesses are sometimes accurate about some aspects and inaccurate about other aspects. There is no reason why we would have to believe that a witness must be accurate about all aspects of his account.
5. Barbara Rowland testified that her husband was prone to exaggerate in order to try to make himself appear more important.
Reasons why I think Arnold Rowland probably did see a man with a rifle in the southwest corner of the sixth floor:
1. Arnold Rowland’s detailed description elicited by Spector is consistent with what it appears that he could have seen from his viewpoint (based on my 3-D computer model).
2. Arnold Rowland’s same-day affidavit description appears to me to be consistent with a sighting of LHO in his t-shirt.
3. Arnold Rowland’s sighting of a man with a rifle is consistent with what his wife says he told her (at the time of the sighting) that he saw.
4. Arnold Rowland appeared to become upset when questioned (in his WC testimony) about why he didn’t immediately report (at ~12:15) the man with the rifle to a nearby policeman.
5. (Some speculation): If LHO was on the west end of the sixth floor when BRW came back up to eat his lunch, (even though I believe that his plan was to shoot from the southeast corner) he might have just decided to stay out of sight and keep quiet. That is, until he heard the siren and commotion involving the epileptic. And, upon hearing the siren, LHO might have thought it could have been part of the motorcade and he decided to stand up where he could at least see what was going on out there. I believe that, if it actually was the motorcade, LHO probably would have fired his shots from the open windows on the southwest corner. And, if BRW was still on the sixth floor, that BRW probably wouldn’t have even noticed anything until he heard the sound of the shots. By the time BRW could have reacted, the dirty deed would have already been done. Since it turned out that the epileptic activity wasn’t a part of the motorcade, and BRW subsequently left the sixth floor, LHO then had the opportunity to use his original plan and the southeast corner. The rest is history…
Therefore it’s a choice to totally discredit Rowland entirely or suspect that BRW was possibly coerced to place himself on the 6th floor from 12:05-12:20.As I said earlier, there is no real reason why we must totally discredit Arnold Rowland. It is reasonable to believe that part of his account could be accurate. And that another part of it could be inaccurate.
