The Curious Case Of Arnold Rowland

[Dan O'meara]

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?

[John Iacoletti]

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.

[Dan O'meara]

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.

[Alan Ford]

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?

[Zeon Mason]

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.

[Dan O'meara]

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.

[Mitch Todd]

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".

[Dan O'meara]

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?