The Curious Case Of Arnold Rowland

[Mitch Todd]

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.

[John Iacoletti]

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?

[Jerry Freeman]

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.

[Mitch Todd]

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.

[Mitch Todd]

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.

[John Iacoletti]

...the "red flags" primarily being that his observations didn't fit the preconceived narrative.

[Mitch Todd]

...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.

[John Iacoletti]

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.