When the SN was built

[John Iacoletti]

No, you have not. Where was the gunman when he “saw BRW leave the sixth floor” and why didn’t BRW see him?

[Zeon Mason]

Where was the gunman when BRW leaves the floor?

The gunman after retreating from the SW window , went around behind BRW all the way over to the east aisle leading to the SE window.

The gunman did not go all the way down the east aisle to the SE window. He stopped at some point along that aisle where he could have LOS to the elevators and rear staircase.

That exact point must be near the corner of row of boxes along that east aisle that would allow the gunman to be able to peek around without exposing his whole body or even much of his head. This theoretical point was less than 100 ft from the SE window, and probably within 70 ft.

So when BRW did leave from the middle aisle, the    Rows of boxes that run north south provide the gunman with  cover.

As BRW exits the middle aisle he is looking in the direction of the elevator and this is when it’s possible for the gunman peeking just around edge of some boxes on the east aisle to see BRW, while BRW missed seeing the gunman.

It’s basically the same  theory as at the SW window, that the angle of the gunmans position peeking at BRW was just outside of the peripheral vision of BRW when BRW approached the rear elevators.

[Jack Nessan]

Arnold states the person with the rifle is 15 feet back, (not 4 feet,) from the window and holding the rifle both in his arms and then changes it to “at a Parade Rest position” in the next sentence. 


Arnold's view from his position on the east side of Houston Street would make it difficult to accurately say exactly how far back from the window he was. Arnold did revise his original estimate in his WC testimony to 3'-5'. And I had to look up the names and related images of the military rifle positions. I imagine most folks who were not actively involved in the military and it's lingo would have to look the positions up also. I think that this is a good example of Arnold Rowland trying to make himself look smarter (thought he knew something, but didn't) than he really was.


The 3D Model is nothing more than an artist’s depiction of a man in the window, without regard for the description of the man and the rifle in the window, or the subsequent dimensions of the window.

I don't think that you fully understand the utility or value of the 3D models.  Here are some images from my model without the lighting effects of the position of the sun at 12:15 on 11/22/63.


First is a screen shot of the application-in-use that shows the sixth floor with the sniper's nest on the left corner and the man with the rifle standing about six feet back from the SW corner window. It is simple to move objects around and simple to move the "camera" around to see what things look like from various locations.






Next is an areal view from above that shows the seventh floor of the TSBD (no roof) and a portion of the Dealey Plaza area without all the structures, etc. I have drawn a red arrow to a figure that is at a position ~210' "south" and ~62' "east" of the SE corner of the TSBD. This is the approximate position of Arnold Rowland according to my measurements on the Don Roberdeau map. This figure is at the street level, about 61' below the window sill on the sixth floor of the TSBD. The windows on the TSBD are mostly generic but resized to the approximate size of the TSBD windows.





Here is what the camera view, of the (5'-9") man with the rifle at ~6' back from the window, looks like from the position of the Arnold Rowland character as I described above. The rifle is not a Carcano but is the same length as the Carcano model in evidence.





And a camera view, of the (5'-9") man with the rifle standing ~10' back from the window, from Arnold Rowland's viewpoint.





I hope that you can begin to see what a valuable tool the 3D models are. Mine is rather crude compared to James' and Jerry's. But it has served many purposes for me. The first purpose was for me to get an idea of what Howard Brenan could see. There have been many more. You might have noticed a compass in the first image that allows proper orientation of the building so that the various views can be seen at a particular time of day (ie: 11/22/63 @ 12:30 pm). The positions of the shadows cast, due to the correct position of the sun at any particular time, have helped determine the time of day of some photos taken that day. The models are valuable tools, take considerable time and effort to create, but worth it in my opinion.

The model is no better than the info placed into it. The window opening is a maximum 30 inches when opened. The window starts 14 inches from the floor and the total opening referenced by LHO is 44 inches off of the floor. LHO was a full 25 inches taller than the window opening. Maybe a trip to Dealey Plaza and actually view someone in the widow would help you.

Read all of the testimony instead of just the parts you like.

[Charles Collins]

The model is no better than the info placed into it. The window opening is a maximum 30 inches when opened. The window starts 14 inches from the floor and the total opening referenced by LHO is 44 inches off of the floor. LHO was a full 25 inches taller than the window opening. Maybe a trip to Dealey Plaza and actually view someone in the widow would help you.

Read all of the testimony instead of just the parts you like.

The model is no better than the info placed into it.

Agreed.



The window opening is a maximum 30 inches when opened.

Yes, approximately. So is mine, I have made it visible for you.



The window starts 14 inches from the floor and the total opening referenced by LHO is 44 inches off of the floor.

Yes, approximately. So does mine.



LHO was a full 25 inches taller than the window opening.

Yes, approximately. However you do not appear to take into account the angle upwards from Arnold Rowland's POV. Here are some images from my 3D model that might clue you in...


Here is a view from Arnold's POV that has the windows made visible.





This image is looking west at the window and the man with the rifle with some lines drawn at an angle to demonstrate the concept.





And this image shows the view back towards Arnold Rowland from the man with the rifle's point of view. Note the height of the windows off the floor, it is about 14". I have drawn a red arrow to the figure at Arnold Rowland's estimated position.





Maybe a trip to Dealey Plaza and actually view someone in the widow would help you.


Maybe a little experimenting with an actual 3D model would help you.

[Jack Nessan]

The model is no better than the info placed into it.

Agreed.



The window opening is a maximum 30 inches when opened.

Yes, approximately. So is mine, I have made it visible for you.



The window starts 14 inches from the floor and the total opening referenced by LHO is 44 inches off of the floor.

Yes, approximately. So does mine.



LHO was a full 25 inches taller than the window opening.

Yes, approximately. However you do not appear to take into account the angle upwards from Arnold Rowland's POV. Here are some images from my 3D model that might clue you in...


Here is a view from Arnold's POV that has the windows made visible.





This image is looking west at the window and the man with the rifle with some lines drawn at an angle to demonstrate the concept.





And this image shows the view back towards Arnold Rowland from the man with the rifle's point of view. Note the height of the windows off the floor, it is about 14". I have drawn a red arrow to the figure at Arnold Rowland's estimated position.





Maybe a trip to Dealey Plaza and actually view someone in the widow would help you.


Maybe a little experimenting with an actual 3D model would help you.

Maybe a little experimenting with an actual 3D model would help you.

I will stay with real life experience of viewing a real person actually standing in the window.

The mistakes in the 3D model views could not be more obvious. Looks more 1 Dimensional.

You really need to read Rowland's varuious descriptions of the imaginary person. These views in no way represent his testimony.

[Charles Collins]

Maybe a little experimenting with an actual 3D model would help you.

I will stay with real life experience of viewing a real person actually standing in the window.

The mistakes in the 3D model views could not be more obvious. Looks more 1 Dimensional.

You really need to read Rowland's varuious descriptions of the imaginary person. These views in no way represent his testimony.

I will stay with real life experience of viewing a real person actually standing in the window.

Building a 3D model is not for everyone. One reason is that most people do not have the patience. However, having confidence in something that you built, and know the details of, is easier than it is when trusting the details to others. And the flexibility to experiment with various views from many different locations is much greater than a visit to Dealey Plaza.


The mistakes in the 3D model views could not be more obvious. Looks more 1 Dimensional.

Are you suggesting a problem with the model? If so, lease explain.


You really need to read Rowland's varuious descriptions of the imaginary person. These views in no way represent his testimony.

I have read his descriptions several times. The 3D model images show the details of Rowland’s basic description of the man with the rifle to be possible.

Even Bugliosi says in note 835 of “Reclaiming History”:

835​ Rowland’s exaggerating and embroidering the story: Are we to conclude, then, that everything Arnold Rowland testified to was untrue? The answer is no. …


You can believe that Arnold Rowland made everything up if you want to. There are many people who do. I am not claiming that Arnold Rowland definitely did see the man with the rifle. But I do believe that it is possible.

[Jack Nessan]

I will stay with real life experience of viewing a real person actually standing in the window.

Building a 3D model is not for everyone. One reason is that most people do not have the patience. However, having confidence in something that you built, and know the details of, is easier than it is when trusting the details to others. And the flexibility to experiment with various views from many different locations is much greater than a visit to Dealey Plaza.


The mistakes in the 3D model views could not be more obvious. Looks more 1 Dimensional.

Are you suggesting a problem with the model? If so, lease explain.


You really need to read Rowland's varuious descriptions of the imaginary person. These views in no way represent his testimony.

I have read his descriptions several times. The 3D model images show the details of Rowland’s basic description of the man with the rifle to be possible.

Even Bugliosi says in note 835 of “Reclaiming History”:

835​ Rowland’s exaggerating and embroidering the story: Are we to conclude, then, that everything Arnold Rowland testified to was untrue? The answer is no. …


You can believe that Arnold Rowland made everything up if you want to. There are many people who do. I am not claiming that Arnold Rowland definitely did see the man with the rifle. But I do believe that it is possible.

Everything that came out of Arnold’s mouth was made up. The actual rifle, description of the man with a rifle, his grades, eyesight, person in SN, on and on. It seems unfathomable to want to pay homage to him with a pseudo 3D model by pretending there are snippets of his testimony that if combined just right makes him look credible.  We have all met someone like Arnold. Unfortunately, Arnold took center stage in the JFK Assassination.

[Charles Collins]

Everything that came out of Arnold’s mouth was made up. The actual rifle, description of the man with a rifle, his grades, eyesight, person in SN, on and on. It seems unfathomable to want to pay homage to him with a pseudo 3D model by pretending there are snippets of his testimony that if combined just right makes him look credible.  We have all met someone like Arnold. Unfortunately, Arnold took center stage in the JFK Assassination.

It is difficult for me to believe that Arnold Rowland made everything up. He got the basic descriptions mostly correct (if he saw LHO). This was before he had any way of knowing these things other than his own eyes. He also said something to his wife before the shots and before he told the police.

Timing? Yes I believe it is possible for LHO to have been on the west end of the sixth floor at that time.

At approximately 12:10 PM today, … It must have been 5 or 10 minutes later …


Position? Partially correct, because he would have had to have been standing back from the window. But only about 5-6 feet back instead of 12-feet. However, from Rowland’s position, this distance could have only been a wild ass guess. And he later revised it to 3’-5’.

upon looking I saw what I thought was a man standing back about 15 feet from the windows



Rifle? I believe he got this right. The position that the rifle was being held in was revised after Rowland had had time to find out what the various military positions really looked like (I had to look them up myself). And his “sort of” in that sentence appears to show that he was unsure on 11/22/63.

… was holding in his arms what appeared to be a hi [sic] powered rifle because it looked like it had a scope on it. He appeared to be holding this at a parade rest sort of position.


Description of the man with the rifle? I believe that if it was LHO, he got the brief, basic description right. I believe that LHO was probably in his t-shirt at the time.

This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light colored shirt on, open at the neck. He appeared to be of slender build and appeared to have dark hair.


So, if you think that Arnold Rowland “made everything up,” then you have to believe that he arbitrarily got all these things right. I think the odds of that being the case are astronomical. Reason enough for me to believe that he might have seen a man with a rifle.