JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Dan O'meara on February 14, 2022, 02:08:56 PM
-
Arnold Rowland is mercilessly grilled during his WC testimony with a view to discrediting him as a witness. His private life is investigated and reports are drawn up, again, with the sole purpose of discrediting him as a witness. No-one else in this case, other than Oswald, is subject to this level of scrutiny.
But why?
The WC wanted Oswald up on the 6th floor with his rifle just before the assassination and here is Rowland handing them exactly that on a plate, but they do everything in their power to undermine him.
I've noticed that it's LNers on this forum who can't wait to discredit him but surely he should be the poster boy for the Oswald-Did-It crew.
Why is Rowland perceived as such a threat to the LNer narrative?
-
Two reasons. He saw a gunman in the "wrong" window, and he saw a second person (who couldn't have been Oswald) in the "right" window.
-
Two reasons. He saw a gunman in the "wrong" window, and he saw a second person (who couldn't have been Oswald) in the "right" window.
I know what you mean John but that doesn't necessarily go against the WC narrative - BRW having his lunch until unaware that at the other end of the building the sneaky assassin waited quietly until he'd left, then stepped into the SN.
If they needed to they could've smoothed over any inconsistencies that arose (like BRW not going down to the 5th floor until 2 or 3 minutes before the shooting - something Rowland supports with his observation that the man in the SN window disappeared minutes before the motorcade arrived.
Rowland should be the perfect witness for the WC narrative, they went to such extreme lengths to make out Givens was the last man to see Oswald on the 6th floor over half an hour before the shooting (ignoring Piper's consistent statements that he saw Oswald on the first floor around 12:00pm), and here they have a white slender male with short hair holding a rifle on the 6th floor 15 minutes before the assassination.
There's something else, I reckon.
-
I know what you mean John but that doesn't necessarily go against the WC narrative - BRW having his lunch until unaware that at the other end of the building the sneaky assassin waited quietly until he'd left, then stepped into the SN.
If they needed to they could've smoothed over any inconsistencies that arose (like BRW not going down to the 5th floor until 2 or 3 minutes before the shooting - something Rowland supports with his observation that the man in the SN window disappeared minutes before the motorcade arrived.
Rowland should be the perfect witness for the WC narrative, they went to such extreme lengths to make out Givens was the last man to see Oswald on the 6th floor over half an hour before the shooting (ignoring Piper's consistent statements that he saw Oswald on the first floor around 12:00pm), and here they have a white slender male with short hair holding a rifle on the 6th floor 15 minutes before the assassination.
There's something else, I reckon.
Perhaps it's the fact that the dark-complected man at the southeast window described by Mr Rowland is not even close to a match for Mr Bonnie Ray Williams?
-
It may be because Rowland described seeing a rifle that he thought resembled a 30.06 hunting rifle with a LARGE scope. Such description does not favorably match with an MC rifle the WC claims was the murder weapon used.
Rowland’s description does not favorably match an MC rifle because
A. The stock of the typical 30.06 hunting rifle is usually shorter allowing 12” or more length of metal barrel extended past the end of the stock vs the longer wooden stock of the MC rifle which allow only about 5” of metal barrel extended.
B. The typical center mounted scope on a 30.06 hunting rifle would be probably easier to see from a distance of approx 150 ft than would be a left hand side mounted scope on an MC rifle, especially if the rifle was held “at the ready position” by a SW 6th floor man standing at the window facing towards Rowland.
In the Backyard Photos of Oswald holding the MC rifle, taken from
About 10ft away and on the same level, the scope is not quite easy to see. So imagine distance 15 times farther away and at an angle looking upwards to the 72ft height window , it’s seems even less probable to have seen this type left mounted scope.
I’ve offered the idea the rifleRowland saw may have been an FN-FAL semi auto rifle (7,62), which could have been mistaken as a hunting rifle because of having typically a centermounted scope with larger diameter than the small diameter scope of the MC rifle and the FN-FAL barrel typically extended about 10-12” past the end of the stock.
I’ve speculated a theory that a single professional shooter used an accurate semi auto rifle with a good quality scope and the gunman (with help by an accomplice) used the east elevator to descend the 2nd floor lunchroom approx 50 sec post shots.
After this gunman exited into the 2nd floor storage area, the east elevator is returned by the accomplice to the 5th floor and locked there by 75 sec post shots were it would appear to be when observed by Truly looking up the elevator shaft.
This professional shooter possibly originally planned to shoot from the SW 6th story window because the angle allows a clear LOS shot to JFK even if SS agents were riding in the rear of the limo as they should have been.
The SW window gunman may have changed his mind after he noted the trees were a potential obstacle and also after seeing Bonnie Ray Williams at the SE window. It’s possible the gunman received radio info that the JFK limo was absent any SS agents riding the limo and so took advantage of the SE window angle as a more direct LOS with less lateral tracking necessary to aim at the moving target.
-
It may be because Rowland described seeing a rifle that he thought resembled a 30.06 hunting rifle with a LARGE scope. Such description does not favorably match with an MC rifle the WC claims was the murder weapon used.
Rowland’s description does not favorably match an MC rifle because
A. The stock of the typical 30.06 hunting rifle is usually shorter allowing 12” or more length of metal barrel extended past the end of the stock vs the longer wooden stock of the MC rifle which allow only about 5” of metal barrel extended.
B. The typical center mounted scope on a 30.06 hunting rifle would be probably easier to see from a distance of approx 150 ft than would be a left hand side mounted scope on an MC rifle, especially if the rifle was held “at the ready position” by a SW 6th floor man standing at the window facing towards Rowland.
In the Backyard Photos of Oswald holding the MC rifle, taken from
About 10ft away and on the same level, the scope is not quite easy to see. So imagine distance 15 times farther away and at an angle looking upwards to the 72ft height window , it’s seems even less probable to have seen this type left mounted scope.
I’ve offered the idea the rifleRowland saw may have been an FN-FAL semi auto rifle (7,62), which could have been mistaken as a hunting rifle because of having typically a centermounted scope with larger diameter than the small diameter scope of the MC rifle and the FN-FAL barrel typically extended about 10-12” past the end of the stock.
I’ve speculated a theory that a single professional shooter used an accurate semi auto rifle with a good quality scope and the gunman (with help by an accomplice) used the east elevator to descend the 2nd floor lunchroom approx 50 sec post shots.
After this gunman exited into the 2nd floor storage area, the east elevator is returned by the accomplice to the 5th floor and locked there by 75 sec post shots were it would appear to be when observed by Truly looking up the elevator shaft.
This professional shooter possibly originally planned to shoot from the SW 6th story window because the angle allows a clear LOS shot to JFK even if SS agents were riding in the rear of the limo as they should have been.
The SW window gunman may have changed his mind after he noted the trees were a potential obstacle and also after seeing Bonnie Ray Williams at the SE window. It’s possible the gunman received radio info that the JFK limo was absent any SS agents riding the limo and so took advantage of the SE window angle as a more direct LOS with less lateral tracking necessary to aim at the moving target.
The Warren Commission would have no problem arguing that the rifle Rowland saw was the MC. Not that there would be much arguing as the hearings were a "trial" at which only the prosecution presented it's case. Rowland describes the man wearing a light coloured/ white shirt, as do Edwards, Fischer and Brennan. This is clothing Oswald did not wear that day and did not own. How did the WC deal with this inconvenient fact? - they just ignored it as there was no-one there to present a case in defense of Oswald.
Getting back to John's point - the WC narrative was that around noon BRW went up to the 6th floor and ate his lunch, the remains of which were photographed located by a small trolley about 30ft away from the SN. While BRW was having his lunch Oswald was already positioned in the SN waiting quietly. Rowland's observations obviously blew this narrative out of the water and, as John pointed out, this may have been the reason it was imperative for the WC to discredit Rowland.
It is worth noting that every officer interviewed by the WC who arrived at the SN before Fritz, reported seeing the lunch remains on top of the SN itself and not 30ft away on the little trolley. This meant BRW had his lunch in the SN. The evidence of all 5 officers was ignored as it supported Rowland's observation of a black male in the SN at the same time BRW was on the 6th floor having his lunch, the remains of which were found at the SN.
-
Arnold Rowland is mercilessly grilled during his WC testimony with a view to discrediting him as a witness. His private life is investigated and reports are drawn up, again, with the sole purpose of discrediting him as a witness. No-one else in this case, other than Oswald, is subject to this level of scrutiny.
But why?
The WC wanted Oswald up on the 6th floor with his rifle just before the assassination and here is Rowland handing them exactly that on a plate, but they do everything in their power to undermine him.
I've noticed that it's LNers on this forum who can't wait to discredit him but surely he should be the poster boy for the Oswald-Did-It crew.
Why is Rowland perceived as such a threat to the LNer narrative?
To begin with, Rowland wasn't "mercilessly grilled." He was questioned with about the same intensity as any of the other witnesses. That being said, Rowland isn't "a threat" to anything but verisimilitude.
Initially, I didn't have an issue with what Rowland said. Then again, I was relying on the story second hand, only taking in what different authors had to say on the matter.
Then I actually bothered to read Rowland's testimony. On his own, he raised a number of red flags. His claims: to have super human vision, to have conducted fairly advance experiments in gunfire acoustics, to be taking "post-graduate" classes at a local high school, 147 IQ etc, etc, stretched credulity to the limit. I then read his wife's testimony. Her word deflated his puffery: he wasn't a straight "a" student, by any means. He hadn't graduated from high school, as he'd claimed. In fact, her testimony gives the impression that she really didn't believe him, either in as to the "gunman", or just in general. There were no special lesions or experiments in echo acoustics (for that matter, Rowland failed his basic physics class).
Rowland's statements raised the same red flags with the WC staff that it did for me. A few days after his deposition, they asked for a background check to be run against the various claims he'd made about himself. The result is interesting reading, to say the least. None of his grandiose claims were true. Once the balloon had been punctured, it shriveled into the shape of a big dreamer was was noting more than an itinerant high school dropout. A young man who flitted from school to school after wearing out his welcome, who did the same from job to job and from one domicile to another. A young man whom others had learned not to believe long before November 22.
The biggest issue I have is, someone who wishes to assassinate the President is not going stand up and proudly show off his rifle to everyone in Dealey Plaza 15 minutes before the act. After all, the first rule of covert action club is to keep the action covert. And, there is the way the gunman starts out 15 feet behind the window, then systematically moves closer and closer once Rowland realizes that someone so far inside the building would be lost in the shadows. Then he tries to come back in the WC deposition and claim that he didn't say the rifle guy was that far back. I guess he forgot he said differently, first to the Dallas Sheriff's Department, then to the FBI. There is the mysterious, late appearance of the "elderly negro," who only appears in his WC deposition. I know that a lot of people want to believe that this man was Bonnie Ray Williams, but Williams was only 20 in 1963. How did he age so fast? Nessan also has a good point about Rowland's description of the bottom of the window appearing to be 18" above the rifle guy's head. Given the low window sill, and the limited height the sash could be raised, Rowland's description is best described as, "impossible".
-
To begin with, Rowland wasn't "mercilessly grilled." He was questioned with about the same intensity as any of the other witnesses. That being said, Rowland isn't "a threat" to anything but verisimilitude.
Initially, I didn't have an issue with what Rowland said. Then again, I was relying on the story second hand, only taking in what different authors had to say on the matter.
Then I actually bothered to read Rowland's testimony. On his own, he raised a number of red flags. His claims: to have super human vision, to have conducted fairly advance experiments in gunfire acoustics, to be taking "post-graduate" classes at a local high school, 147 IQ etc, etc, stretched credulity to the limit. I then read his wife's testimony. Her word deflated his puffery: he wasn't a straight "a" student, by any means. He hadn't graduated from high school, as he'd claimed. In fact, her testimony gives the impression that she really didn't believe him, either in as to the "gunman", or just in general. There were no special lesions or experiments in echo acoustics (for that matter, Rowland failed his basic physics class).
Rowland's statements raised the same red flags with the WC staff that it did for me. A few days after his deposition, they asked for a background check to be run against the various claims he'd made about himself. The result is interesting reading, to say the least. None of his grandiose claims were true. Once the balloon had been punctured, it shriveled into the shape of a big dreamer was was noting more than an itinerant high school dropout. A young man who flitted from school to school after wearing out his welcome, who did the same from job to job and from one domicile to another. A young man whom others had learned not to believe long before November 22.
The biggest issue I have is, someone who wishes to assassinate the President is not going stand up and proudly show off his rifle to everyone in Dealey Plaza 15 minutes before the act. After all, the first rule of covert action club is to keep the action covert. And, there is the way the gunman starts out 15 feet behind the window, then systematically moves closer and closer once Rowland realizes that someone so far inside the building would be lost in the shadows. Then he tries to come back in the WC deposition and claim that he didn't say the rifle guy was that far back. I guess he forgot he said differently, first to the Dallas Sheriff's Department, then to the FBI. There is the mysterious, late appearance of the "elderly negro," who only appears in his WC deposition. I know that a lot of people want to believe that this man was Bonnie Ray Williams, but Williams was only 20 in 1963. How did he age so fast? Nessan also has a good point about Rowland's description of the bottom of the window appearing to be 18" above the rifle guy's head. Given the low window sill, and the limited height the sash could be raised, Rowland's description is best described as, "impossible".
You are a believer in the Miracle On Elm Street.
Arnold Rowland describes a man on the 6th floor of the TSBD carrying a high-powered, scoped rifle.
He describes the man as a white male, slender in proportion to his size, short hair, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Ronald Fischer describes a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Robert Edwards describes a white male, slender, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Howard Brennan describes a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a light coloured/dingy white shirt.
Wow Mr Rowland! Take a bow.
By some incredible coincidence you've managed to describe the man in a way totally consistent with other witnesses.
If you were making up a Secret Service Agent, why not have him in a black suit?
Barbara Rowland reports that Arnold told her about the man with the rifle before the assassination.
Roger Craig reports Rowland telling him about a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
As does D V Harkness.
As does F M Turner.
As does Forest V Sorrels.
So, you believe that Arnold Rowland is running around telling everyone he can that there was a man on the 6th floor with a scoped rifle and that this was just a figment of his imagination and that it was just some unbelievably miraculous coincidence that there was indeed a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a light coloured/white open-necked shirt carrying a high-powered, scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
Not the 5th floor.
Or the fourth floor.
Have a think about that.
You believe that Rowland just happened to describe, by sheer luck, a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD, whose description perfectly fits that of other witnesses!
Is that what you actually believe?
-
You are a believer in the Miracle On Elm Street.
Arnold Rowland describes a man on the 6th floor of the TSBD carrying a high-powered, scoped rifle.
He describes the man as a white male, slender in proportion to his size, short hair, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Ronald Fischer describes a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Robert Edwards describes a white male, slender, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Howard Brennan describes a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a light coloured/dingy white shirt.
Wow Mr Rowland! Take a bow.
By some incredible coincidence you've managed to describe the man in a way totally consistent with other witnesses.
If you were making up a Secret Service Agent, why not have him in a black suit?
Barbara Rowland reports that Arnold told her about the man with the rifle before the assassination.
Roger Craig reports Rowland telling him about a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
As does D V Harkness.
As does F M Turner.
As does Forest V Sorrels.
So, you believe that Arnold Rowland is running around telling everyone he can that there was a man on the 6th floor with a scoped rifle and that this was just a figment of his imagination and that it was just some unbelievably miraculous coincidence that there was indeed a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a light coloured/white open-necked shirt carrying a high-powered, scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
Not the 5th floor.
Or the fourth floor.
Have a think about that.
You believe that Rowland just happened to describe, by sheer luck, a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD, whose description perfectly fits that of other witnesses!
Is that what you actually believe?
BRW who was actually on the 6th floor states he could see all the way to the west wall and could see no one.
Barbara Rowland when she looks could not see anyone standing there. Rowland gives a description of a person framed in the window that is not even remotely possible given the construction of the window starting 14 inches off the ground. He made the whole story up for whatever his reasons were.
Barbara only stated Arnold told her this story for whatever his reason was but basically based on the conversation about Mr Stevenson"s visit. What she confirmed, which is what Specter suspicioned and BRW confirmed, was there was no person there and never was a person in the window.
------------------
Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, my husband and I were talking about Mr. Stevenson's visit and the way the people had acted, and we were talking about security measures, and he said he saw a man on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, and when I looked up there I didn't see the man, because I didn't know exactly what window he was talking about at first.
And when I found out which window it was, the man had apparently stepped back, because I didn't see him.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean "generally agree"? Did you see the man?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No; I didn't see the man but I said I guess that was what it was.
Mr. BALL. Did you see anyone else up there that day?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, I did not.
Mr. DULLES. How much of the room could you see as you finished your lunch there? Was your view obstructed by boxes of books, or could you see a good bit of the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I couldn't see too much of the sixth floor, because the books at the time were stacked so high. I could see only in the path that I was standing--as I remember, I could not possibly see anything to the east side of the building. But just one aisle, the aisle I was standing in I could see just about to the west side of the building. So far as seeing to the east and behind me, I could only see down the aisle behind me and the aisle to the west of me.
Mitch Todd gives an excellent analysis of who A. Rowland was, and how he fabricated a number of stories. Even his wife doesn't believe him. Maybe you shouldn't either. A Rowland when asked if he looked back at the window after hearing the shots cannot even give a straight answer to the question. He tells them first No, then Yes, then Maybe. The WC knew who he was, and Specter just allowed him to show it in his answers.
-
You are a believer in the Miracle On Elm Street.
Arnold Rowland describes a man on the 6th floor of the TSBD carrying a high-powered, scoped rifle.
He describes the man as a white male, slender in proportion to his size, short hair, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Ronald Fischer describes a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Robert Edwards describes a white male, slender, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Howard Brennan describes a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a light coloured/dingy white shirt.
Wow Mr Rowland! Take a bow.
By some incredible coincidence you've managed to describe the man in a way totally consistent with other witnesses.
If you were making up a Secret Service Agent, why not have him in a black suit?
Barbara Rowland reports that Arnold told her about the man with the rifle before the assassination.
Roger Craig reports Rowland telling him about a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
As does D V Harkness.
As does F M Turner.
As does Forest V Sorrels.
So, you believe that Arnold Rowland is running around telling everyone he can that there was a man on the 6th floor with a scoped rifle and that this was just a figment of his imagination and that it was just some unbelievably miraculous coincidence that there was indeed a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a light coloured/white open-necked shirt carrying a high-powered, scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
Not the 5th floor.
Or the fourth floor.
Have a think about that.
You believe that Rowland just happened to describe, by sheer luck, a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD, whose description perfectly fits that of other witnesses!
Is that what you actually believe?
Rowland #ownz# you
-
BRW who was actually on the 6th floor states he could see all the way to the west wall and could see no one.
Barbara Rowland when she looks could not see anyone standing there. Rowland gives a description of a person framed in the window that is not even remotely possible given the construction of the window starting 14 inches off the ground. He made the whole story up for whatever his reasons were.
Barbara only stated Arnold told her this story for whatever his reason was but basically based on the conversation about Mr Stevenson"s visit. What she confirmed, which is what Specter suspicioned and BRW confirmed, was there was no person there and never was a person in the window.
------------------
Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, my husband and I were talking about Mr. Stevenson's visit and the way the people had acted, and we were talking about security measures, and he said he saw a man on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, and when I looked up there I didn't see the man, because I didn't know exactly what window he was talking about at first.
And when I found out which window it was, the man had apparently stepped back, because I didn't see him.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean "generally agree"? Did you see the man?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No; I didn't see the man but I said I guess that was what it was.
Mr. BALL. Did you see anyone else up there that day?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, I did not.
Mr. DULLES. How much of the room could you see as you finished your lunch there? Was your view obstructed by boxes of books, or could you see a good bit of the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I couldn't see too much of the sixth floor, because the books at the time were stacked so high. I could see only in the path that I was standing--as I remember, I could not possibly see anything to the east side of the building. But just one aisle, the aisle I was standing in I could see just about to the west side of the building. So far as seeing to the east and behind me, I could only see down the aisle behind me and the aisle to the west of me.
Mitch Todd gives an excellent analysis of who A. Rowland was, and how he fabricated a number of stories. Even his wife doesn't believe him. Maybe you shouldn't either. A Rowland when asked if he looked back at the window after hearing the shots cannot even give a straight answer to the question. He tells them first No, then Yes, then Maybe. The WC knew who he was, and Specter just allowed him to show it in his answers.
So you too believe in the Miracle On Elm Street.
You believe that Rowland makes up a description of a man on the 6th floor that is almost exactly the same as three other eye-witnesses.
That he makes up a story about a man holding a scoped rifle on the 6th floor and by some miraculous coincidence there is indeed a man on the 6th floor with a scoped rifle.
You really believe that?
-
Rowland #ownz# you
It must be nice to believe in miracles.
-
Rowland describes the man wearing a light coloured/ white shirt, as do Edwards, Fischer and Brennan. This is clothing Oswald did not wear that day and did not own. How did the WC deal with this inconvenient fact? - they just ignored it
Mr Rowland describes the other man wearing a bright plaid shirt. This is clothing Mr Bonnie Ray Williams did not wear that day. How do you deal with this inconvenient fact? - you just ignore it
-
You are a believer in the Miracle On Elm Street.
You keep repeating this, like it's some comforting mantra. Unfortunately it proves nothing.
Arnold Rowland describes a man on the 6th floor of the TSBD carrying a high-powered, scoped rifle.
He describes the man as a white male, slender in proportion to his size, short hair, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Ronald Fischer describes a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Robert Edwards describes a white male, slender, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Howard Brennan describes a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a light coloured/dingy white shirt.
Wow Mr Rowland! Take a bow.
By some incredible coincidence you've managed to describe the man in a way totally consistent with other witnesses.
If you were making up a Secret Service Agent, why not have him in a black suit?
There are a couple more details that apply here.
Robert Edwards described the man as having "light brown" hair. Ron Fischer said that the man he and Edwards saw was "light-headed." The man whom Rowland claimed to see had "dark hair" that was "probably black." (Euins and Brennan didn't notice or remember the hair colort of the man they saw shooting from the window.)
Edwards and Fischer noted that the man they saw was hunkered down to the point that one remarked that "he must be hiding from somebody." Rowland claimed that he saw a man standing up in front of a window, proudly displaying a rifle.
Now, anyone wanting to conjure up a g-man on a special security detail in a bulding overlooking some public space isn't going to just assemble a description from random bits an pieces. The role implies certain characteristics as to the kind of person it would be, how they dressed, and what tools they used. In Rowland's case, Hollywood already did a lot of the work for him. As he noted in his deposition, "[w]e had seen in the movies before where they have security men up in windows and places like that with rifles to watch the crowds." The location and tool had already been supplied on-screen. The rest falls in place fairly quickly after that. That kind of "security agent" would be epxected to be trim (the SWAT guys are expected to be men of action; no expects the SWAT team to be corpulent or scrawny), and not be wearing a buttoned up collar (since when do the SWAT guys SWAT in 3-piece suits? Or was this to a be a strictly formal assassination?). The role Rowland set for the guy leads straight to a very narrow range of reasonable descriptions. The only range of choices involve colors: the color of the man's shirt, pants, hair, complexion. Rowland got the hair wrong. The choices for shirt color boil down to "light" and "dark" in this case, but that means any random guess would be right half the time.
In short, Where Rowland's description of the man parallels Fischer's and Edwards', it would be expected for Rowland's description to be close, even if Rowland just made the hte man up out of thin air. Rowland doesn't do so well on the aspects that would be expected to be more prone to chance. The kicker is that the man Rowland claims to have seen behaves fundamentally differently than the man that Edwards and Fischer saw. Not to mention the other issues with Rowland's story that have already been brought up.
Barbara Rowland reports that Arnold told her about the man with the rifle before the assassination.
Roger Craig reports Rowland telling him about a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
As does D V Harkness.
As does F M Turner.
As does Forest V Sorrels.
So, you believe that Arnold Rowland is running around telling everyone he can that there was a man on the 6th floor with a scoped rifle and that this was just a figment of his imagination and that it was just some unbelievably miraculous coincidence that there was indeed a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a light coloured/white open-necked shirt carrying a high-powered, scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
Not the 5th floor.
Or the fourth floor.
Have a think about that.
You might want to consider that Rowland lied repeatedly in his deposition, just in his self-description, in areas where there was no reason for him to lie. That is to say, he repeatedly perjured himself, and did so on the biggest stage for it that can be imagined. At least he's pretty bold about it. Someone who will do that will lie to anyone. And telling the same lie to 10 or 100 or 1000 people doesn't put the lie any closer to the truth.
You believe that Rowland just happened to describe, by sheer luck, a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD, whose description perfectly fits that of other witnesses!
Is that what you actually believe?
As I've said before, there really isn't all that much luck involved, if you really think about it. And in the parts where luck actually did matter, Rowland doesn't do so well.
And there are still the issues with Rowland moving the gunman, adding the "elderly negro" late in the game, and the impossible 18" gap between the man's head and the bottom of the window sill.
-
Arnold Rowland's voluntary statement.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338653/m1/1/high_res/)
-
So you too believe in the Miracle On Elm Street.
You believe that Rowland makes up a description of a man on the 6th floor that is almost exactly the same as three other eye-witnesses.
That he makes up a story about a man holding a scoped rifle on the 6th floor and by some miraculous coincidence there is indeed a man on the 6th floor with a scoped rifle.
You really believe that?
It doesn’t matter if you like the WC or not, it is absolutely appalling to read his testimony and realize he thought so little of the whole affair that he felt he could make up whatever he wanted and waste everyone’s time. He screws the description of the man with the rifle in the frame of the window so bad that he is asked if he was ever in the TSBD. The WC members knew the configuration of the windows and knew how totally wrong his description was. The window starts 14 inches above the floor.
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.
----------------------------------------------
Rowland does not describe anyone. He describes this person as a heavy 200 lb slender man that weighs approximately 140 lbs and he is either tall or maybe not. He describes an individual standing with his left hand on the upper rifle stock with both his left hand and elbow at shoulder height. He then goes on to describe the rifle as pointing to the wall. Which is impossible because the wall is to his right not left. Rowland describes the man holding the rifle entirely different but states he held it that way the whole time.
“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”
Mr. SPECTER - Could you give us an estimate on his height?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; I couldn't. That is why I said I can't state what height he would be. He was just slender in build in proportion with his width. This is something I find myself doing all the time, comparing things in perspective.
Mr. SPECTER - Was he a white man or a Negro or what?
Mr. ROWLAND - Seemed, well, I can't state definitely from my position because it was more or less not fully light or bright in the room. He appeared to be fair complexioned, not fair, but light complexioned, but dark hair.
Mr. SPECTER - What race was he then?
Mr. ROWLAND - I would say either a light Latin or a Caucasian.
The thing that should be remembered is there are pictures of the witnesses were together at the Dallas Sheriff's office and could hear each other give statements.
-
It's a waste of time going through the desperate distortions of Rowland's witness testimony LNers have to apply to try and make the almost miraculous coincidence of the man with the rifle go away. The feigned objectivity on show is a joke as there is a bottom line - LNers need Rowland to go away. His testimony completely undermines the established narrative to such an extent it would completely unravel. That is the light in which the last posts must be viewed.
But there is a potentially a way to resolve the issue - from my perspective at least. Unlike the LNers on display, I actually want to know what really happened that day and am willing to have my working hypothesis tested in such a way I believe it will resolve the issue of Rowland's witness testimony.
Unfortunately, the test I have in mind is way beyond my skill-set and I would call on those with the requisite 3D modelling skills to undertake this challenge if willing.
It is my opinion the man with the rifle is Jack Dougherty.
On his draft card it states Dougherty is 6 feet, one and a half inches in height at the age of 18.
For argument's sake, let's say Dougherty is 6' 2" at the time of the assassination.
In his testimony Rowland states that the sun "hit him [the man with the rifle] about from the shoulders down".
Using 3D modelling, the test is as follows:
At 12:15 pm the sun is slanting through the south-west window of the 6th floor of the TSBD at a specific angle.
How far back from the window would a man of 6' 2" be stood when the sun was "from the shoulders down"?
More importantly, what would Rowland be seeing from his location through the open window (assuming the man is placed in such a position that he is in Rowland's LoS)?
If this situation can be successfully modeled it would throw light on some very important issues regarding Rowland's testimony, the LN narrative and, less importantly, my own opinions.
I acknowledge it is an imposition on other forum members to undertake this task but, as I say, it is way beyond my own ability.
-
It's a waste of time going through the desperate distortions of Rowland's witness testimony LNers have to apply to try and make the almost miraculous coincidence of the man with the rifle go away. The feigned objectivity on show is a joke as there is a bottom line - LNers need Rowland to go away. His testimony completely undermines the established narrative to such an extent it would completely unravel. That is the light in which the last posts must be viewed.
But there is a potentially a way to resolve the issue - from my perspective at least. Unlike the LNers on display, I actually want to know what really happened that day and am willing to have my working hypothesis tested in such a way I believe it will resolve the issue of Rowland's witness testimony.
Unfortunately, the test I have in mind is way beyond my skill-set and I would call on those with the requisite 3D modelling skills to undertake this challenge if willing.
Specter made Rowland's testimony go away by keeping him talking and asking him questions. Rowland did the rest. BRW did not see a soul there. No one. He was as close as you were going to get. Rowland's testimony just proved BRW was correct.
It is my opinion the man with the rifle is Jack Dougherty.
On his draft card it states Dougherty is 6 feet, one and a half inches in height at the age of 18.
For argument's sake, let's say Dougherty is 6' 2" at the time of the assassination.
In his testimony Rowland states that the sun "hit him [the man with the rifle] about from the shoulders down".
Using 3D modelling, the test is as follows:
At 12:15 pm the sun is slanting through the south-west window of the 6th floor of the TSBD at a specific angle.
How far back from the window would a man of 6' 2" be stood when the sun was "from the shoulders down"?
More importantly, what would Rowland be seeing from his location through the open window (assuming the man is placed in such a position that he is in Rowland's LoS)?
If this situation can be successfully modeled it would throw light on some very important issues regarding Rowland's testimony, the LN narrative and, less importantly, my own opinions.
I acknowledge it is an imposition on other forum members to undertake this task but, as I say, it is way beyond my own ability.
-
To begin with, Rowland wasn't "mercilessly grilled." He was questioned with about the same intensity as any of the other witnesses.
How would you know? By your own admission, you haven't even read the testimony of the witnesses.
Initially, I didn't have an issue with what Rowland said. Then again, I was relying on the story second hand, only taking in what different authors had to say on the matter. Then I actually bothered to read Rowland's testimony. On his own, he raised a number of red flags. His claims: to have super human vision
You mean after 60 years you just now got around to reading the Warren Report? And where did Rowland claim to have 'super human' vision? You red flag gaslighter with your second hand copy of 'Case Closed' you :D
Mr. SPECTER - What is the condition of your eyesight?
Mr. ROWLAND - Very good.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you wear glasses at any time?
Mr. ROWLAND - No.
Mr. SPECTER - When, most recently, have you had an eye test, if at all?
Mr. ROWLAND - About 7 months ago.
Mr. SPECTER - And you know the results of that test?
Mr. ROWLAND - Very good vision.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you know what classification the doctor placed on it?
Mr. ROWLAND - No: I don't remember it.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you recollect if it was 2020?
Mr. ROWLAND - He said it was much better than that.
Mr. SPECTER - And what doctor examined your eyes?
Mr. ROWLAND - This was the firm of doctors Finn and Finn.
Mr. SPECTER - F-i-n-n and F-i-n-n?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Where are they located?
Mr. ROWLAND - The Fidelity Union Life Building in Dallas.
Mr. SPECTER - Approximately how long ago was that examination?
Mr. ROWLAND - About 6 months.
And what was the doctor's nurse's name? How old was the doctor? How long was he in practice.......????? I can gaslight too.
What other witness were so grilled about their vision?
Rick Plant thinks we are all blind [by the size of his link] so I will reduce it for him.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338653/m1/1/high_res/)
I see that Mr Organ has gone back in his time machine to visually recreate everything for us.
-
To begin with, Rowland wasn't "mercilessly grilled." He was questioned with about the same intensity as any of the other witnesses.
Bull. I don't recall them questioning Howard Brennan's wife about his reliability or pulling his school records. Or challenging anything he said during his testimony.
-
And there are still the issues with Rowland moving the gunman, adding the "elderly negro" late in the game, and the impossible 18" gap between the man's head and the bottom of the window sill.
And yet none of this same skepticism applied to Brennan seeing a man in firing position for the head shot "from the belt up".
-
It's a waste of time going through the desperate distortions of Rowland's witness testimony LNers have to apply to try and make the almost miraculous coincidence of the man with the rifle go away. The feigned objectivity on show is a joke as there is a bottom line - LNers need Rowland to go away. His testimony completely undermines the established narrative to such an extent it would completely unravel. That is the light in which the last posts must be viewed.
But there is a potentially a way to resolve the issue - from my perspective at least. Unlike the LNers on display, I actually want to know what really happened that day and am willing to have my working hypothesis tested in such a way I believe it will resolve the issue of Rowland's witness testimony.
Unfortunately, the test I have in mind is way beyond my skill-set and I would call on those with the requisite 3D modelling skills to undertake this challenge if willing.
It is my opinion the man with the rifle is Jack Dougherty.
On his draft card it states Dougherty is 6 feet, one and a half inches in height at the age of 18.
For argument's sake, let's say Dougherty is 6' 2" at the time of the assassination.
In his testimony Rowland states that the sun "hit him [the man with the rifle] about from the shoulders down".
Using 3D modelling, the test is as follows:
At 12:15 pm the sun is slanting through the south-west window of the 6th floor of the TSBD at a specific angle.
How far back from the window would a man of 6' 2" be stood when the sun was "from the shoulders down"?
More importantly, what would Rowland be seeing from his location through the open window (assuming the man is placed in such a position that he is in Rowland's LoS)?
If this situation can be successfully modeled it would throw light on some very important issues regarding Rowland's testimony, the LN narrative and, less importantly, my own opinions.
I acknowledge it is an imposition on other forum members to undertake this task but, as I say, it is way beyond my own ability.
Dan, here is my 3D model analysis. Since I don’t know which window of the pair Rowland’s man was supposed to stand I made a clone of the 6’2” man 3 feet east (DZ) for comparison. The solar time was set to 12:15. The simulation starts with the man outside the building to show that his feet are at floor level. It appears to me that the man could only be 1.5-2.5 feet north (DX) of the window when his head is sunlit shadowed to the shoulders. The man would have a pretty good view of the plaza from that short distance from the window.
(https://i.imgur.com/RlcXGWd.gif)
-
Married in high school? That must've been a thing back then.
-
Bull. I don't recall them questioning Howard Brennan's wife about his reliability or pulling his school records. Or challenging anything he said during his testimony.
By "challenge", I assume you must mean that he was asked for more detail when he brought some subject up. That's normal, and expected. The only thing particularly challenging about the process is all in your own febrile imagination. As for Brennan's wife, unless you can show us that she was in Dealey Plaza along with her husband there is no basis for comparison.
-
How would you know? By your own admission, you haven't even read the testimony of the witnesses.You mean after 60 years you just now got around to reading the Warren Report? And where did Rowland claim to have 'super human' vision? You red flag gaslighter with your second hand copy of 'Case Closed' you :DAnd what was the doctor's nurse's name? How old was the doctor? How long was he in practice.......????? I can gaslight too.
You aren't reading too well this morning. You missed this bit: "Then I actually bothered to read Rowland's testimony." I didn't put a specific time frame on it, and you apparently found it confusing. So, to clarify, I read all the way through the Rowland's testimony in full about 12-15 years ago.
What other witness were so grilled about their vision?
Howard Brennan, at least:
Mr. BELIN. By the way, Mr. Brennan, I note that you have glasses with you here today. Were you wearing glasses at the time of the incident that you related here?
Mr. BRENNAN. No. I only use glasses to see fine print and more especially the Bible and blueprint.
Mr. BELIN. And have you had your eyes checked within the past 2 or 3 years?
Mr. BRENNAN. These here were prescriptioned, I believe, a possibility less than a year before the incident.
Mr. DULLES. Does that mean you are farsighted?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Has there been anything that has happened since the time of November 22, 1963, that has changed your eyesight in any way?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What has happened?
Mr. BRENNAN. The last of January I got both eyes sandblasted.
Mr. BELIN. This is January of 1964?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. And I had to be treated by a Doctor Black, I believe, in the Medical Arts Building, through the company. And I was completely blind for about 6 hours.
Mr. BELIN. How is your eyesight today?
Mr. BRENNAN. He says it is not good.
Mr. BELIN. But this occurred January of this year, is that correct?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Compare this to the WC's treatment of Rowland on the same matter:
Mr. SPECTER - What is the condition of your eyesight?
Mr. ROWLAND - Very good.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you wear glasses at any time?
Mr. ROWLAND - No.
Mr. SPECTER - When, most recently, have you had an eye test, if at all?
Mr. ROWLAND - About 7 months ago.
Mr. SPECTER - And you know the results of that test?
Mr. ROWLAND - Very good vision.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you know what classification the doctor placed on it?
Mr. ROWLAND - No: I don't remember it.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you recollect if it was 2020?
Mr. ROWLAND - He said it was much better than that.
Mr. SPECTER - And what doctor examined your eyes?
Mr. ROWLAND - This was the firm of doctors Finn and Finn.
Mr. SPECTER - F-i-n-n and F-i-n-n?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Where are they located?
Mr. ROWLAND - The Fidelity Union Life Building in Dallas.
Mr. SPECTER - Approximately how long ago was that examination?
Mr. ROWLAND - About 6 months.
-
By "challenge", I assume you must mean that he was asked for more detail when he brought some subject up. That's normal, and expected. The only thing particularly challenging about the process is all in your own febrile imagination. As for Brennan's wife, unless you can show us that she was in Dealey Plaza along with her husband there is no basis for comparison.
What do questions about her husband's grades, or places of employment, or whether she can rely on what he tells her have to do with what she witnessed in Dealey Plaza?
-
You aren't reading too well this morning. What other witness were so grilled about their vision?
Howard Brennan, at least:
Right... because he wore glasses but Rowland didn't. Perhaps you need glasses.
-
Howard Brennan, at least:
Right... because he wore glasses but Rowland didn't. Perhaps you need glasses.
I answered your actual question, "What other witness were so grilled about their vision?" honestly and correctly.
All that's left is for you to try to move the goal posts.
Stay classy there, Freeman.
-
What do questions about her husband's grades, or places of employment, or whether she can rely on what he tells her have to do with what she witnessed in Dealey Plaza?
If it were only about all that you'd have a point. But they did ask her about what he said and what she saw (or didn't). Just as she was asked to swear out an affidavit. Just as the FBI came asking her about the matter.
And yes, they, asked her about her husband's background. That was because his previous testimony had already raised any number of read flags concerning his credibility.
-
...the "red flags" primarily being that his observations didn't fit the preconceived narrative.
-
...the "red flags" primarily being that his observations didn't fit the preconceived narrative.
Just sour grapes on your part, Kid.
Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that your unsupported assertion was true.
Would that mean that Rowland's IQ really was 147, as he claimed? No.
Would it mean that Rowland kept good grades, as he claimed? No.
Would it mean that Rowland had graduated from High School by the time he testified, as he claimed? No.
Would it mean that Rowland had been accepted to SMU, as he claimed? No.
Would it mean that Rowland had performed "a long study of sound and study of echo effects [...] in physics in the past three years," as he claimed? No.
Would it mean that Rowland's eyesight had been judged to be "much better than" 2020 by the "firm of doctors" Finn and Finn, as he claimed? No.
Would it mean that the curious addition of the "elderly negro" in the sniper's nest isn't a curious and unexpected addition? No.
Any assertion that the WC had it in for Rowland doesn't change what Rowland said nor the truthfulness and trustworthiness (or lack thereof) of what Rowland said.
-
Just sour grapes on your part, Kid.
Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that your unsupported assertion was true.
Would that mean that Rowland's IQ really was 147, as he claimed? No.
Would it mean that Rowland kept good grades, as he claimed? No.
Would it mean that Rowland had graduated from High School by the time he testified, as he claimed? No.
Would it mean that Rowland had been accepted to SMU, as he claimed? No.
Would it mean that Rowland had performed "a long study of sound and study of echo effects [...] in physics in the past three years," as he claimed? No.
Would it mean that Rowland's eyesight had been judged to be "much better than" 2020 by the "firm of doctors" Finn and Finn, as he claimed? No.
Would it mean that the curious addition of the "elderly negro" in the sniper's nest isn't a curious and unexpected addition? No.
Any assertion that the WC had it in for Rowland doesn't change what Rowland said nor the truthfulness and trustworthiness (or lack thereof) of what Rowland said.
Do any of these things have the slightest thing to do with the JFK assassination? No.
Did the Warren Commission subject witnesses who supported their version of events to the same scrutiny about unrelated matters? No.
-
To begin with, Rowland wasn't "mercilessly grilled." He was questioned with about the same intensity as any of the other witnesses. That being said, Rowland isn't "a threat" to anything but verisimilitude.
Initially, I didn't have an issue with what Rowland said. Then again, I was relying on the story second hand, only taking in what different authors had to say on the matter.
Then I actually bothered to read Rowland's testimony. On his own, he raised a number of red flags. His claims: to have super human vision, to have conducted fairly advance experiments in gunfire acoustics, to be taking "post-graduate" classes at a local high school, 147 IQ etc, etc, stretched credulity to the limit. I then read his wife's testimony. Her word deflated his puffery: he wasn't a straight "a" student, by any means. He hadn't graduated from high school, as he'd claimed. In fact, her testimony gives the impression that she really didn't believe him, either in as to the "gunman", or just in general. There were no special lesions or experiments in echo acoustics (for that matter, Rowland failed his basic physics class).
Rowland's statements raised the same red flags with the WC staff that it did for me. A few days after his deposition, they asked for a background check to be run against the various claims he'd made about himself. The result is interesting reading, to say the least. None of his grandiose claims were true. Once the balloon had been punctured, it shriveled into the shape of a big dreamer was was noting more than an itinerant high school dropout. A young man who flitted from school to school after wearing out his welcome, who did the same from job to job and from one domicile to another. A young man whom others had learned not to believe long before November 22.
The biggest issue I have is, someone who wishes to assassinate the President is not going stand up and proudly show off his rifle to everyone in Dealey Plaza 15 minutes before the act. After all, the first rule of covert action club is to keep the action covert. And, there is the way the gunman starts out 15 feet behind the window, then systematically moves closer and closer once Rowland realizes that someone so far inside the building would be lost in the shadows. Then he tries to come back in the WC deposition and claim that he didn't say the rifle guy was that far back. I guess he forgot he said differently, first to the Dallas Sheriff's Department, then to the FBI. There is the mysterious, late appearance of the "elderly negro," who only appears in his WC deposition. I know that a lot of people want to believe that this man was Bonnie Ray Williams, but Williams was only 20 in 1963. How did he age so fast? Nessan also has a good point about Rowland's description of the bottom of the window appearing to be 18" above the rifle guy's head. Given the low window sill, and the limited height the sash could be raised, Rowland's description is best described as, "impossible".
Kinda interesting you say "To begin with, Rowland wasn't "mercilessly grilled." ... and then proceed to tell us all about his human flaws and wreck his psychological profile.
-
Kinda interesting you say "To begin with, Rowland wasn't "mercilessly grilled." ... and then proceed to tell us all about his human flaws and wreck his psychological profile.
Two different things, Mr Reeves. This is like watching a nine year old trying to make a lego house out of curlers and turnips.
Had the WC staff wanted to "mercilessly grill" Rowland, they would have done the backgrounder first, then confronted him with it during his testimony.
It's Rowland's improbable claims and additions in his testimony that prompted them to look into his background and see if it matched what he had told them. TL;DR: it didn't.
-
Do any of these things have the slightest thing to do with the JFK assassination? No.
Did the Warren Commission subject witnesses who supported their version of events to the same scrutiny about unrelated matters? No.
More sour grapes from you, kid.
You know as well as anyone else that the epic string of fanciful tales spouted by Mr Rowland's in his testimony negatively affects his credibility quite a bit. Especially since he went out of his way to put them in there.
-
Two different things, Mr Reeves. This is like watching a nine year old trying to make a lego house out of curlers and turnips.
Had the WC staff wanted to "mercilessly grill" Rowland, they would have done the backgrounder first, then confronted him with it during his testimony.
It's Rowland's improbable claims and additions in his testimony that prompted them to look into his background and see if it matched what he had told them. TL;DR: it didn't.
"It's Rowland's improbable claims and additions in his testimony that prompted them to look into his background..."
This is not true.
The reason the FBI take the unprecedented step of investigating Rowland is his claim about the black male in the SN window.
The first part of their report is to discredit this aspect of his testimony, the rest is character assassination.
It is noteworthy that when they visit the TSBD they are only interested in Eddie Piper and Troy West as possible candidates for the man in the SN window when they already know Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor having his lunch at the time in question and that the remains of his lunch were found on top of the SN!
Go figure.
There can be no doubt the young Mr Rowland is a bit of a bullsh%tter and this does no favour for his trustworthiness or credibility as a witness. But there is a simple way to assess the accuracy of his observations regarding the man with the rifle - are they corroborated by other witness testimony or evidence.
That Rowland's description of the man with the rifle is confirmed by three other eye witnesses is solid corroboration.
That a scoped rifle is found on the 6th floor is solid corroboration.
As far as the black male in the SN window is concerned - Bonnie Ray Williams is known to be having his lunch on the 6th floor at that time, the remains of which were found on top of the SN and not 30ft away on a trolley. Rowland's observation that this man disappears about 5 minutes before the motorcade arrives corresponds with BRW's movements around this time.
Obviously this destroys the LNer narrative and must be discredited at all costs but that involves believing in an almost miraculous coincidence.
Barbara Rowland's testimony is telling, it is almost exclusively about her husband and culminates in a very personal question to which she gives a curt reply:
Mr BELIN: ...just from your general experience, do you feel you can rely on everything that your husband says?
Mrs. ROWLAND: I don't feel that I can rely on everything anybody says.
Belin is almost apologetic:
Mr. BELIN. Well, this is really an unfair question for me to ask any wife about her husband, and I am not asking it very correctly, but---
Mrs Rowland then reveals an important aspect of her husband's character:
Mrs. ROWLAND: At times my husband is prone to exaggerate. Does that answer it?
Mr. BELIN:I think it does.
Is there anything else you want to add to that, or not?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Usually his exaggerations are not concerned with anything other than himself. They are usually to boast his ego. They usually say that he is really smarter than he is, or he is a better salesman than he is, something like that.
Arnold Rowland is prone to bigging himself up, particularly his intelligence. This is exactly what the FBI investigation reveals. Nearly every aspect of what is regarded as false in his testimony relates to this aspect of his character.
But this is a far cry from making up false claims in a murder investigation involving the president of the United States. Claims that could put him in some real trouble if proven false.
Rowland's claims about the men on the 6th floor can be solidly corroborated by other witness testimony and physical evidence. His character has no bearing on the matter.
One final note - LNers like to make the point that Rowland's man in the SN is some kind of late addition but the fact is that Roger Craig reports Rowland talking about two men on the 6th floor. I'm not sure if Rowland makes the same point to Harkness, Turner and Sorrels but the main interest of the investigating authorities would be the man with the rifle.
It is only later that evening Rowland understands the importance of the man in the SN which is why he raises the issue with the FBI agents who visit him SaPersonay morning. Interestingly, these agents have no interest in the man in the SN window and basically tell him to forget about it. It's almost as if it's been decided there was only one person involved in the assassination by SaPersonay morning.
Go figure.
-
Two different things, Mr Reeves. This is like watching a nine year old trying to make a lego house out of curlers and turnips.
It's like watching a guy who thinks insults and condescending nicknames make his arguments any better.
-
"It's Rowland's improbable claims and additions in his testimony that prompted them to look into his background..."
This is not true.
The reason the FBI take the unprecedented step of investigating Rowland is his claim about the black male in the SN window.
The first part of their report is to discredit this aspect of his testimony, the rest is character assassination.
It is noteworthy that when they visit the TSBD they are only interested in Eddie Piper and Troy West as possible candidates for the man in the SN window when they already know Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor having his lunch at the time in question and that the remains of his lunch were found on top of the SN!
Go figure.
You're got this backwards, Mr O'Meara. The reason they are only interested in Mr Piper and Mr West as possible candidates is they know full well that Mr Williams simply does not fit the description given by Mr Rowland. This has the consequence that Mr Rowland must be discredited----------------he is a witness to the presence in the SN window of a non-employee
-
You're got this backwards, Mr O'Meara. The reason they are only interested in Mr Piper and Mr West as possible candidates is they know full well that Mr Williams simply does not fit the description given by Mr Rowland. This has the consequence that Mr Rowland must be discredited----------------he is a witness to the presence in the SN window of a non-employee
Nobody's buying your Multiracial-Assassination-Death squad [MAD] theory BS: Alan, so go sell crazy some place else.
-
Nobody's buying your Multiracial-Assassination-Death squad [MAD] theory BS: Alan, so go sell crazy some place else.
~Grin~
So in the O'Meara World of Double Standards, the description of the white man's open-necked shirt/tshirt rules out Mr Oswald but the description of the dark-complected man's plaid shirt does not rule out Mr Williams. Got it
-
~Grin~
So in the O'Meara World of Double Standards, the description of the white man's open-necked shirt/tshirt rules out Mr Oswald but the description of the dark-complected man's plaid shirt does not rule out Mr Williams. Got it
In my world, when four eye-witnesses observe the same garment Oswald wasn't wearing or didn't own I find it meaningful.
I know such standards are not up to your own fantastical ones.
Also, in my world, I have to weigh up the known evidence that BRW was on the sixth floor having his lunch at the moment of Rowland's observation and that his lunch remains were found on the SN.
I know this means nothing to you or your unicorn but we are bound by different rules.
-
In my world, when four eye-witnesses observe the same garment Oswald wasn't wearing or didn't own I find it meaningful.
Ah, so you're throwing your key witness Mr Rowland under a bus: his description of the bald or balding 'elderly Negro' in the plaid shirt was wildly off.
All because Mr Dan O'Meara doesn't feel the need to consider a scenario that Mr Dan O'Meara doesn't feel the need to consider.
Got it! Thumb1:
-
Ah, so you're throwing your key witness Mr Rowland under a bus: his description of the bald or balding 'elderly Negro' in the plaid shirt was wildly off.
All because Mr Dan O'Meara doesn't feel the need to consider a scenario that Mr Dan O'Meara doesn't feel the need to consider.
Got it! Thumb1:
I'm throwing a key witness under the bus because his description of the man with the rifle is confirmed by three other eye-witnesses??
Alan, you never acknowledge that BRW is having his lunch on the 6th floor at the time of Rowland's observation.
You never acknowledge that seven police officers place BRW's lunch remains at the SN.
Regardless of Rowland's observations this places BRW in or next to the SN at the same moment Rowland observes a black male in the SN. How can you not accept all this evidence?
Rowland's observation of the man in the SN must be viewed in the light of all the evidence placing BRW there at that moment.
Because of your ridiculous theories you cannot do that and must reject all this evidence in favour of any aspects of Rowland's descriptions that are inaccurate.
The evidence placing BRW in the southeast corner at that time, along with Rowland's observation of a black male in the SN lead me to conclude that Bonnie Ray Williams was eating his lunch, inside the SN, at the same time the man with the rifle was at the west end of the building.
This is the most obvious interpretation of all this evidence and it is the evidence that determines my opinion.
-
It seems strange the gunman didn’t check for the presence of other persons on the 6th floor before he takes a rifle and walks right across 100 ft of floor to the SW window.
Seems a very risky thing to do for a professional gunman, especially since he might get photographed with rifle in hand standing at the SW window.
None of the witnesses said anything about seeing a mask so either the gunman is stupid /careless or the gunman has some reason to expose himself.
1. If the gunman is an Oswald impersonator in a preplan to frame an unsuspecting Oswald, then The question is would it be necessary to prevent the Patsy Oswald from establishing an alibi for himself at the time of the shooting?
2. Or was the plan simply to cause maximum confusion, the gunman using a semi auto rifle with large diameter centermounted scope presented at the SW window, while hiding a rusty barrel MC rifle with defective/misaligned scope with paper trail and P.O. Box ti implicate Oswald.
If no.2, then an unsuspecting Oswald was left free to roam , stand at the front entrance , be in the Domino room or 2nd floor lunchroom , at time of shots fired and it was purposeful and not an accident.
-
I'm throwing a key witness under the bus because his description of the man with the rifle is confirmed by three other eye-witnesses??
No, because you're saying he was such a cr@ppy witness that he described Mr Bonnie Ray Williams as a bald or balding "elderly Negro" wearing a bright plaid shirt. Why, you're just one step away from the stock Warren Gullible argument that he musta got the floor wrong too!
Alan, you never acknowledge that BRW is having his lunch on the 6th floor at the time of Rowland's observation.
Because it never happened.
Did Mr Rowland see food and a soda bottle in the "elderly Negro's" hand? Can you prove Mr Williams was there at that time? Can you find consistency across Mr Williams' own accounts?
The FBI and Warren Commission knew it wasn't Mr Williams, and so they let the investigative hounds loose on Mr Rowland. And you've fallen for the scam!
You never acknowledge that seven police officers place BRW's lunch remains at the SN.
Mr Tom Alyea says otherwise. And can you prove the lunch remains belonged to Mr Williams? Thought not!
Regardless of Rowland's observations this places BRW in or next to the SN at the same moment Rowland observes a black male in the SN. How can you not accept all this evidence?
Rowland's observation of the man in the SN must be viewed in the light of all the evidence placing BRW there at that moment.
Because of your ridiculous theories you cannot do that and must reject all this evidence in favour of any aspects of Rowland's descriptions that are inaccurate.
The evidence placing BRW in the southeast corner at that time, along with Rowland's observation of a black male in the SN lead me to conclude that Bonnie Ray Williams was eating his lunch, inside the SN, at the same time the man with the rifle was at the west end of the building.
This is the most obvious interpretation of all this evidence and it is the evidence that determines my opinion.
No, the only thing determining your opinion is your wholly irrational, Warren Gullible-light feeling that it would be better not to consider any scenario that would involve non-employees carrying out the assassination. Hence your irrational, Warren Gullible-light throwing of Mr Rowland under the bus
-
Well there might be a slim chance that Mrs Rowland was covering for Mr.Rowland by confirming that he told her about seeing the man with rifle at 12:15..
However, if she’s taking this big a risk of perjury to protect her husband then why would she ever suggest Mr Arnold had a tendency to exaggerate?
-
No, because you're saying he was such a cr@ppy witness that he described Mr Bonnie Ray Williams as a bald or balding "elderly Negro" wearing a bright plaid shirt. Why, you're just one step away from the stock Warren Gullible argument that he musta got the floor wrong too!
Because it never happened.
Did Mr Rowland see food and a soda bottle in the "elderly Negro's" hand? Can you prove Mr Williams was there at that time? Can you find consistency across Mr Williams' own accounts?
The FBI and Warren Commission knew it wasn't Mr Williams, and so they let the investigative hounds loose on Mr Rowland. And you've fallen for the scam!
Mr Tom Alyea says otherwise. And can you prove the lunch remains belonged to Mr Williams? Thought not!
No, the only thing determining your opinion is your wholly irrational, Warren Gullible-light feeling that it would be better not to consider any scenario that would involve non-employees carrying out the assassination. Hence your irrational, Warren Gullible-light throwing of Mr Rowland under the bus
"The FBI and Warren Commission knew it wasn't Mr Williams, and so they let the investigative hounds loose on Mr Rowland. And you've fallen for the scam!"
There is no point asking you to justify the twisted logic behind this statement as you will only come up with more deranged nonsense.
The FBI investigation of Rowland had two purposes - the first, and most urgent, was to undermine the claim he saw a black male in the window of the SN. They used the exact method you constantly use on this issue. They ignored all the physical and witness evidence putting William's there at that time and focused on a two aspects of his witness testimony they knew Rowland had gotten wrong - that the man he observed was "elderly" and that he had a brightly colored plaid shirt on. They ignored that he described a very slender, black male who had lighter skin than his co-workers. They ignored that this man had disappeared from the window minutes before the motorcade arrived (mirroring William's movements), they ignored that William's had stated he was on the 6th floor at that time having his lunch and they ignored the actual lunch remains, the only lunch remains, found on the 6th floor, located on/at the SN by eight different officers.
Instead they determined it could only have been Piper or West (after talking to Bill Shelley). Once it was determined it was neither of these men it was concluded Rowland was wrong or lying about the black male in the SN window who was there until just before the motorcade showed up.
The WC and the FBI knew it was Williams, that's why they had to undermine Rowland.
The rest of the FBI investigation was pure character assassination.
Your utterly ludicrous, deluded notion that the WC and the FBI were covering for a Multiracial-Assassination-Death squad is too embarrassing to even consider.
You look such a fool in the eyes of anyone with even a modicum of common sense.
-
"The FBI and Warren Commission knew it wasn't Mr Williams, and so they let the investigative hounds loose on Mr Rowland. And you've fallen for the scam!"
There is no point asking you to justify the twisted logic behind this statement as you will only come up with more deranged nonsense.
The FBI investigation of Rowland had two purposes - the first, and most urgent, was to undermine the claim he saw a black male in the window of the SN. They used the exact method you constantly use on this issue. They ignored all the physical and witness evidence putting William's there at that time
There is no physical evidence and no witness evidence putting Mr Williams in the SN window at that time
and focused on a two aspects of his witness testimony they knew Rowland had gotten wrong - that the man he observed was "elderly" and that he had a brightly colored plaid shirt on.
And bald or nearly bald. All of which descriptive details rule out Mr Williams Thumb1:
They ignored that he described a very slender, black male who had lighter skin than his co-workers. They ignored that this man had disappeared from the window minutes before the motorcade arrived (mirroring William's movements), they ignored that William's had stated he was on the 6th floor at that time having his lunch
Mr Williams had stated many different things about when he was on the sixth floor
and they ignored the actual lunch remains, the only lunch remains, found on the 6th floor, located on/at the SN by eight different officers.
And never reliably traced to Mr Williams.
And---once again---you are ignoring Mr Alyea on where the lunch remains were found.
Instead they determined it could only have been Piper or West (after talking to Bill Shelley). Once it was determined it was neither of these men it was concluded Rowland was wrong or lying about the black male in the SN window who was there until just before the motorcade showed up.
Because to conclude otherwise would be to have a non-employee in the SN window minutes before the assassination. Unacceptable to the FBI. And--for curious emotional reasons--unacceptable to Mr Dan O'Meara
The WC and the FBI knew it was Williams, that's why they had to undermine Rowland.
The rest of the FBI investigation was pure character assassination.
Your utterly ludicrous, deluded notion that the WC and the FBI were covering for a Multiracial-Assassination-Death squad is too embarrassing to even consider.
You look such a fool in the eyes of anyone with even a modicum of common sense.
~Grin~
Anger issues, Mr O'Meara?
Thumb1:
-
"It's Rowland's improbable claims and additions in his testimony that prompted them to look into his background..."
This is not true.
The reason the FBI take the unprecedented step of investigating Rowland is his claim about the black male in the SN window.
The first part of their report is to discredit this aspect of his testimony, the rest is character assassination.
That memo sent to Hoover by the WC staffer asks the FBI to "investigate all aspects of Mr Rowland's story concerning the person alleged to have been at the southeast corner window" but also requests an investigation Rowland's more dubious claims after listing a number of them. BTW, the
It is noteworthy that when they visit the TSBD they are only interested in Eddie Piper and Troy West as possible candidates for the man in the SN window when they already know Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor having his lunch at the time in question and that the remains of his lunch were found on top of the SN!
Go figure.
There's no mystery here. Rowland describes the "elderly negro" as a 50-60 year old man who is bald, balding, or has thinning hair. Williams was 20 years old and had a full head of hair. West and Piper are the only two men who fit Rowland's description, unless you think that black people are somehow inherently interchangeable. The WC had no information as to whether either West or Piper had been on the sixth floor at the time that Rowland claimed, but they already knew what Williams had said about his time on that floor, since he'd already been interviewed and made statements about his activity there. They didn't need to interview him again about it.
BTW, where does Williams say that he was in the SN?
There can be no doubt the young Mr Rowland is a bit of a bullsh%tter and this does no favour for his trustworthiness or credibility as a witness. But there is a simple way to assess the accuracy of his observations regarding the man with the rifle - are they corroborated by other witness testimony or evidence.
That Rowland's description of the man with the rifle is confirmed by three other eye witnesses is solid corroboration.
That a scoped rifle is found on the 6th floor is solid corroboration.
As far as the black male in the SN window is concerned - Bonnie Ray Williams is known to be having his lunch on the 6th floor at that time, the remains of which were found on top of the SN and not 30ft away on a trolley. Rowland's observation that this man disappears about 5 minutes before the motorcade arrives corresponds with BRW's movements around this time.
Obviously this destroys the LNer narrative and must be discredited at all costs but that involves believing in an almost miraculous coincidence.
You are far to kind to Mr Rowland, as least as he existed then. "A bit of a bullsh%tter" is quite an understatement! Rowland repeatedly lies in a deposition. The technical term for that is "perjury," though I doubt he ever would have been prosecuted for it. Revealingly, he volunteers lies about things that are neither necessary to the matter at hand, and for no rational reason. This behavior goes by several names. "Pathological lying" is one of the more common ones, though "compulsive lying" is probably a better description of what was going on. He just couldn't help himself.
Your claim that Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan corroborates Rowland only shows that you have an interesting definition of the word "corroborate." Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan see a light-haired man wearing light-colored trousers laying low in the SE corner window. None of them see a rifle until the shooting starts; it's kept out of sight until used. Rowland said he saw a dark haired man wearing dark trousers standing in the window on the opposite side of the building. The man is proudly displaying a rifle in front of him for all to see. I'm not sure how many people other than you would think that Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan were describing the same man that Rowland said he saw. A further problem involves the older black male. Rowland has him hanging out of the SE corner window about the same time that Fischer, Edwards and Brennan see their guy. Why don't those three men see the black guy? Why doesn't Rowland see the man that Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan see?
Barbara Rowland's testimony is telling, it is almost exclusively about her husband and culminates in a very personal question to which she gives a curt reply:
Mr BELIN: ...just from your general experience, do you feel you can rely on everything that your husband says?
Mrs. ROWLAND: I don't feel that I can rely on everything anybody says.
Belin is almost apologetic:
Mr. BELIN. Well, this is really an unfair question for me to ask any wife about her husband, and I am not asking it very correctly, but---
Mrs Rowland then reveals an important aspect of her husband's character:
Mrs. ROWLAND: At times my husband is prone to exaggerate. Does that answer it?
Mr. BELIN:I think it does.
Is there anything else you want to add to that, or not?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Usually his exaggerations are not concerned with anything other than himself. They are usually to boast his ego. They usually say that he is really smarter than he is, or he is a better salesman than he is, something like that.
So, Belin first asks her about much credibility her husband has with her. Her response is, as you note, quite telling. Instead of a direct answer, her reply directs the question away from what she feels about her huband. In a roundabout way, it speaks volumes about her trust in him, or rather lack thereof. As for the followup question, note the use of the word "usually." What does that word mean? What does it not mean?
Arnold Rowland is prone to bigging himself up, particularly his intelligence. This is exactly what the FBI investigation reveals. Nearly every aspect of what is regarded as false in his testimony relates to this aspect of his character.
But this is a far cry from making up false claims in a murder investigation involving the president of the United States. Claims that could put him in some real trouble if proven false.
Rowland's claims about the men on the 6th floor can be solidly corroborated by other witness testimony and physical evidence. His character has no bearing on the matter.
Again, the claim of corroboration disintegrates under scrutiny. And the SS/FBI investigation reveals more than just self-inflating fibs. Rowland had been fingered for passing checks drawn on a fictitious account in Topeka Kansas (also, Rowland had used the aliases "Alex Johnston," "Jack Nickols," and "Jack Nickolson"[?!]). He was suspected of stealing different items from the schools he attended. Interviews with Faculty and staff at both Crozier Tech and Adamson high schools revealed that teachers and administrators completely distrusted anything that Rowland said:
"You could not believe what he told you"
"She said that she would personally not put much faith in in what Arnold said he observed at the assassination scene..."
"[Rowland] would not hesitate to fabricate a story if it were of any benefit for ROWLAND to do so."
"...she determined he could not be trusted and would not tell the truth regarding any matter. She stated he was a conniver and prevaricated whenever it was to his advantage to do so."
"...he [Rowland] requested almost on a daily basis special privileges and seemed to have the attitude that he was superior to most of the teachers and all other students"
In addition, when DPD detective Gus Rose attempted to locate Rowland, he found that Rowland had given the Dallas Independent School District a non-existent address as his place of residence. That was the second time Rowland had given the DISD an incorrect address. Rose also found that Rowland had opened a post office box using as a permanent address an apartment that Rowland had already vacated weeks before. He wasn't doing that just to "puff himself up."
Rowland's character matters, if it is in his character to repeatedly and compulsively lie. And the lying...oh, is it thick and deep with this one.
One final note - LNers like to make the point that Rowland's man in the SN is some kind of late addition but the fact is that Roger Craig reports Rowland talking about two men on the 6th floor. I'm not sure if Rowland makes the same point to Harkness, Turner and Sorrels but the main interest of the investigating authorities would be the man with the rifle.
It is only later that evening Rowland understands the importance of the man in the SN which is why he raises the issue with the FBI agents who visit him SaPersonay morning. Interestingly, these agents have no interest in the man in the SN window and basically tell him to forget about it. It's almost as if it's been decided there was only one person involved in the assassination by SaPersonay morning.
Go figure.
Roger Craig's WC testimony only creates more problems for the Rowland two-men-on-the-sixth-floor story.
In the Craig version, there are two men but only one window. In Rowland's WC testimony, there are two men in two windows.
In the Craig version, he sees the men "walking back and forth". In Rowland's WC testimony, the rifle guy is just standing in the window while the other man is hanging out of his window.
In the Craig version, the gunman holds the rifle "down to his side." In Rowland's WC testimony, the man holds the rifle up right in front of him.
In the Craig version, he first sees the two men, then looks back later but only the man with the rifle is still there. In Rowland's WC testimony, it's the other way around.
Now, I know you're likely to say, 'well, maybe Craig didn't say that there was only one window.'
OK. Then there is still the issue with the men "walking back and forth" rather than standing and hanging. And the issue with the rifleman holding the rifle down at his side instead of up in front of him. And the issue with the rifleman disappearing in on version with the unarmed man disappearing in the other.
But then, I hear you say, 'well, maybe Craig just inadvertently swapped the rifleman with the black guy when he remembered what Rowland told him.'
OK. Then there is still the issue with the men "walking back and forth" rather than standing and hanging And the issue with the rifleman holding the rifle down at his side instead of up in front of him.
Neither of those remainders are trivial issues in regards to the consistency of Rowland's story. And those are what's left after I've already spotted you the other two just for argument's sake. It's just one thing after another with Rowland. I guess you could continue with, 'well, maybe Craig didn't remember these other two points, either.' But these last two are much harder to portray as simple misremembrances on Craig's part. And maybe Craig really did correctly repeat what he'd heard that day. Or are you going to go off into the territory of, 'well, Craig got it all wrong except for that one little bit that I like?' But if Craig was really that wrong, can you really put much faith in any part of what he'd said?
Finally,
It is only later that evening Rowland understands the importance of the man in the SN which is why he raises the issue with the FBI agents who visit him SaPersonay morning
This bit is just a molehill of supposition on your part. And it doesn't make sense, given your own if Rowland didn't understand the importance of the second man until that evening why does the information not appear in any recorded interview, statement, or report until his WC testimony? The second man doesn't appear in the 11/22 DCSD affidavit, the 11/22 FBI interview (SA Heitman), 11/23 interview (SAs Rice and Almon) , the 11/24 statement that Rowland dictated to Wulff and Swinford, or the 12/10 interview (SA Kelley). You'd think that he'd have told them at some point, if he thought it were significant.
-
That memo sent to Hoover by the WC staffer asks the FBI to "investigate all aspects of Mr Rowland's story concerning the person alleged to have been at the southeast corner window" but also requests an investigation Rowland's more dubious claims after listing a number of them. BTW, the
There's no mystery here. Rowland describes the "elderly negro" as a 50-60 year old man who is bald, balding, or has thinning hair. Williams was 20 years old and had a full head of hair. West and Piper are the only two men who fit Rowland's description, unless you think that black people are somehow inherently interchangeable. The WC had no information as to whether either West or Piper had been on the sixth floor at the time that Rowland claimed, but they already knew what Williams had said about his time on that floor, since he'd already been interviewed and made statements about his activity there. They didn't need to interview him again about it.
BTW, where does Williams say that he was in the SN?
You are far to kind to Mr Rowland, as least as he existed then. "A bit of a bullsh%tter" is quite an understatement! Rowland repeatedly lies in a deposition. The technical term for that is "perjury," though I doubt he ever would have been prosecuted for it. Revealingly, he volunteers lies about things that are neither necessary to the matter at hand, and for no rational reason. This behavior goes by several names. "Pathological lying" is one of the more common ones, though "compulsive lying" is probably a better description of what was going on. He just couldn't help himself.
Your claim that Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan corroborates Rowland only shows that you have an interesting definition of the word "corroborate." Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan see a light-haired man wearing light-colored trousers laying low in the SE corner window. None of them see a rifle until the shooting starts; it's kept out of sight until used. Rowland said he saw a dark haired man wearing dark trousers standing in the window on the opposite side of the building. The man is proudly displaying a rifle in front of him for all to see. I'm not sure how many people other than you would think that Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan were describing the same man that Rowland said he saw. A further problem involves the older black male. Rowland has him hanging out of the SE corner window about the same time that Fischer, Edwards and Brennan see their guy. Why don't those three men see the black guy? Why doesn't Rowland see the man that Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan see?
So, Belin first asks her about much credibility her husband has with her. Her response is, as you note, quite telling. Instead of a direct answer, her reply directs the question away from what she feels about her huband. In a roundabout way, it speaks volumes about her trust in him, or rather lack thereof. As for the followup question, note the use of the word "usually." What does that word mean? What does it not mean?
Again, the claim of corroboration disintegrates under scrutiny. And the SS/FBI investigation reveals more than just self-inflating fibs. Rowland had been fingered for passing checks drawn on a fictitious account in Topeka Kansas (also, Rowland had used the aliases "Alex Johnston," "Jack Nickols," and "Jack Nickolson"[?!]). He was suspected of stealing different items from the schools he attended. Interviews with Faculty and staff at both Crozier Tech and Adamson high schools revealed that teachers and administrators completely distrusted anything that Rowland said:
"You could not believe what he told you"
"She said that she would personally not put much faith in in what Arnold said he observed at the assassination scene..."
"[Rowland] would not hesitate to fabricate a story if it were of any benefit for ROWLAND to do so."
"...she determined he could not be trusted and would not tell the truth regarding any matter. She stated he was a conniver and prevaricated whenever it was to his advantage to do so."
"...he [Rowland] requested almost on a daily basis special privileges and seemed to have the attitude that he was superior to most of the teachers and all other students"
In addition, when DPD detective Gus Rose attempted to locate Rowland, he found that Rowland had given the Dallas Independent School District a non-existent address as his place of residence. That was the second time Rowland had given the DISD an incorrect address. Rose also found that Rowland had opened a post office box using as a permanent address an apartment that Rowland had already vacated weeks before. He wasn't doing that just to "puff himself up."
Rowland's character matters, if it is in his character to repeatedly and compulsively lie. And the lying...oh, is it thick and deep with this one.
Roger Craig's WC testimony only creates more problems for the Rowland two-men-on-the-sixth-floor story.
In the Craig version, there are two men but only one window. In Rowland's WC testimony, there are two men in two windows.
In the Craig version, he sees the men "walking back and forth". In Rowland's WC testimony, the rifle guy is just standing in the window while the other man is hanging out of his window.
In the Craig version, the gunman holds the rifle "down to his side." In Rowland's WC testimony, the man holds the rifle up right in front of him.
In the Craig version, he first sees the two men, then looks back later but only the man with the rifle is still there. In Rowland's WC testimony, it's the other way around.
Now, I know you're likely to say, 'well, maybe Craig didn't say that there was only one window.'
OK. Then there is still the issue with the men "walking back and forth" rather than standing and hanging. And the issue with the rifleman holding the rifle down at his side instead of up in front of him. And the issue with the rifleman disappearing in on version with the unarmed man disappearing in the other.
But then, I hear you say, 'well, maybe Craig just inadvertently swapped the rifleman with the black guy when he remembered what Rowland told him.'
OK. Then there is still the issue with the men "walking back and forth" rather than standing and hanging And the issue with the rifleman holding the rifle down at his side instead of up in front of him.
Neither of those remainders are trivial issues in regards to the consistency of Rowland's story. And those are what's left after I've already spotted you the other two just for argument's sake. It's just one thing after another with Rowland. I guess you could continue with, 'well, maybe Craig didn't remember these other two points, either.' But these last two are much harder to portray as simple misremembrances on Craig's part. And maybe Craig really did correctly repeat what he'd heard that day. Or are you going to go off into the territory of, 'well, Craig got it all wrong except for that one little bit that I like?' But if Craig was really that wrong, can you really put much faith in any part of what he'd said?
Finally,
It is only later that evening Rowland understands the importance of the man in the SN which is why he raises the issue with the FBI agents who visit him SaPersonay morning
This bit is just a molehill of supposition on your part. And it doesn't make sense, given your own if Rowland didn't understand the importance of the second man until that evening why does the information not appear in any recorded interview, statement, or report until his WC testimony? The second man doesn't appear in the 11/22 DCSD affidavit, the 11/22 FBI interview (SA Heitman), 11/23 interview (SAs Rice and Almon) , the 11/24 statement that Rowland dictated to Wulff and Swinford, or the 12/10 interview (SA Kelley). You'd think that he'd have told them at some point, if he thought it were significant.
Rowland's character matters...
Rowland's character, or lack of it, has absolutely no bearing on what he witnessed. All that matters is whether or not what he witnessed can be corroborated by other witness testimony or evidence. It is clear that you need Rowland to be wrong but it leaves you in a difficult position - that you have to believe in "The Miracle On Elm Street".
You must believe that Rowland made up out of thin air a white male, slender build, short hair, wearing a very light coloured/ almost white, open-neck shirt and carrying a high powered rifle with a telescopic sight on it. All to impress his wife-to-be.
But this man wasn't really there.
It's just a miraculous coincidence that Rowland got the right floor, the right weapon (with a scope), wielded by a man whose general description is corroborated by three other witnesses. Of course there are differences in eye-witness testimony, this is to be expected, but it's the similarities that cannot be escaped.
In your zeal to undermine the accuracy of Rowland's observations you over-reach a touch.
"Your claim that Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan corroborates Rowland only shows that you have an interesting definition of the word "corroborate." Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan see a light-haired man wearing light-colored trousers laying low in the SE corner window. None of them see a rifle until the shooting starts; it's kept out of sight until used. Rowland said he saw a dark haired man wearing dark trousers standing in the window on the opposite side of the building. The man is proudly displaying a rifle in front of him for all to see. I'm not sure how many people other than you would think that Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan were describing the same man that Rowland said he saw. A further problem involves the older black male. Rowland has him hanging out of the SE corner window about the same time that Fischer, Edwards and Brennan see their guy. Why don't those three men see the black guy? Why doesn't Rowland see the man that Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan see?"
"Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan see a light-haired man wearing light-colored trousers laying low in the SE corner window."
To start with, both Fischer and Edwards only see the top half of the man so you're claim that all three men see a man wearing light-coloured trousers is a non-starter.
As for the hair:
Mr. Belin: Do you remember the color of his hair?
Mr. Brennan: No.
Mr. BELIN: Well, when you saw .the man in the window, did he appear to have light brown hair, dark brown, medium brow, n--or what kind of hair did he have?
Mr. FISCHER: Well, it wasn't dark and it wasn't light. Uh--he didn't have black hair and he didn't have blonde hair. It--uh--must have been a brown but, like I say, there are a lot of different shades of brown and I'm not--I can't--it's hard for me to say just exactly what shade of brown I saw that he had.
You're claim that all three men saw a light-haired man is also out of the window.
All four men saw a white male, slender build, short hair, wearing a very light coloured/almost white, open necked shirt.
As I say, there are bound to be some differences in the details - Brennan estimates the age of the man as early thirties (as does Rowland) but Edwards and Fischer estimate a man in his twenties. This doesn't mean they're talking about different men, it's just that there is usually some variance between a group of witnesses. In general though, Rowland's description of the man is certainly corroborated by the other three witnesses.
As is the fact a high powered rifle, fitted with a telescopic sight, was found on the 6th floor. Can there be any clearer corroboration of Rowland's observations.
To ignore this corroboration and argue that it can't be true because Rowland is a bad person is ridiculous.
Also, it leaves you in a situation where you are making really desperate claims:
"A further problem involves the older black male. Rowland has him hanging out of the SE corner window about the same time that Fischer, Edwards and Brennan see their guy. Why don't those three men see the black guy? Why doesn't Rowland see the man that Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan see?"
You are clearly not that familiar with Rowland's testimony. He states the man in the SN disappears a few minutes before the motorcade arrives in Dealey Plaza - completely in accordance with Williams' known movements. Fischer and Edwards see the white male in the SN window less than a minute before the motorcade arrives and Brennan sees him during the actual shooting. According to Rowland the black male is no longer in the SN window when Fischer, Edwards and Brennan see the white male there.
Rowland makes it clear that he only sees the man with the rifle stood back from the window for a few seconds and doesn't see him again. He also states that after noticing the black male has disappeared from the SN window he doesn't look up again as the motorcade is arriving.
It's something we'll have to agree to disagree on.
I do not accept the outrageous coincidence at the heart of your position and I do not accept that Rowland's lack of character has precedence over the corroboration of eye-witnesses and evidence. I find that absurd.