The Curious Case Of Arnold Rowland

[Alan Ford]

Nobody's buying your Multiracial-Assassination-Death squad [MAD] theory 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

[Dan O'meara]

~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.

[Alan Ford]

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! 

[Dan O'meara]

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! 

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.

[Zeon Mason]

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.

[Alan Ford]

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

[Zeon Mason]

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?

[Dan O'meara]

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.