When the SN was built

[Alan Ford]

Brenan’s wife wasn’t with him.


However, consider Kellerman’s testimony that he heard JFK say that he had been hit. All the other occupants of the limo were questioned to test the accuracy of Kellerman’s testimony.

Did Mr. Rowland mention to his wife at the time or afterwards all the other non-rifle-carrying people he noticed in the area prior to the motorcade? As far as he knew, the 'elderly Negro' was no more germane to the case than any of them.

[Alan Ford]

Five people said they saw the rifle. Only Arnold Rowland said he saw a man with the rifle in the SW corner window. And only Kellerman said he heard JFK speak after being shot through the neck.

Great point. And the same reasoning led to Ms. Sandra Styles being called as a witness by the WC

[Alan Ford]

Had Mr. Rowland been on the sixth floor of the Depository prior to 11/22/63?

If not, then he cannot have known from the outside that it was one single open floor.

It's the converse of someone not familiar with the fourth floor seeing a person at the southwest window and another person at the southeast window. The observer wouldn't know that the person at the southwest window cannot see the person at the southeast window.

Mr. Rowland cannot have understood at the time the potential significance of the simultaneity of the two men's presence at opposite ends of the sixth floor

 

[Alan Ford]

FBI were VERY worried by Mr. Rowland's description of the bald(ing) bright-plaid-shirt-wearing 'elderly Negro'. They called in Messrs. Eddie Piper and Troy West, even taking photographs of both men.

Their conclusion after establishing----------to their own satisfaction at least------------that neither man could have been the man seen by Mr. Rowland? As no Depository employee fits the description, Mr. Rowland must not have seen what he says he saw.

This is hilarious! As though an alternative conclusion didn't exist: the man seen by Mr. Rowland was not a Depository employee, duh!

This nonsense is of course replicated by our Warren Gullibles here: 'As no conspiracy-favoring explanation can possibly be entertained, the most logical explanation of X is Y'

 

[Jack Nessan]

There is no reason for the shooter to approach the SW window with a rifle at the ready position unless he was intending in take up a position at that window to prepare to shoot from that window.

Just because Rowland doesn’t see a gunman at the SW window again after about 30 secs does not mean necessarily the gunman left the window and never returned. He might have just moved out of LOS by hiding in the corner just right of the SW window which placed him in total shade.

If this is the scenario, then the  bald elderly negro at the SE window was probably not BRW , but more likely a 2nd gunman, and was in process of preparing that window by placing a box and then lowering the window to the 15.5 inch height. He was 1st glimpsed at 12:15 and then at 12:20 by Rowland. At 12:25  when Rowland looked again, there’s no black man anymore.

Could this indicate that at 12:25  the box has been placed , the window lowered , and the black man is hiding or sitting on the floor and out of LOS?

If he is a 2nd gunman, however , ( to shoot the MC rifle to frame Oswald?) then surely Brennan and Euins would have IDd the shooter as a “dark completed” male with a noticeable bald head?

Only Euins comes close by describing a bald spot, and there’s some controversy as to whether or not Euins ever made an initial statement  that the man as a black man.

Or Rowland just made it all up for whatever reason, which his fabrication is easily distinguishable in his testimony. Unless you think the man with the rifle, described by Rowland, was about 3 to 4 feet tall. Charles Collin could not accurately place the man and his rifle, as described by Arnold, into his 3D model.

The fabrications in Arnold’s testimony did not end with the man and his rifle. The fabrications pervaded his testimony throughout.

[Charles Collins]

Or Rowland just made it all up for whatever reason, which his fabrication is easily distinguishable in his testimony. Unless you think the man with the rifle, described by Rowland, was about 3 to 4 feet tall. Charles Collin could not accurately place the man and his rifle, as described by Arnold, into his 3D model.

The fabrications in Arnold’s testimony did not end with the man and his rifle. The fabrications pervaded his testimony throughout.

Unless you think the man with the rifle, described by Rowland, was about 3 to 4 feet tall. Charles Collin could not accurately place the man and his rifle, as described by Arnold, into his 3D model.







Mr. SPECTER - How much, if any, or all of that rifle could you see?
Mr. ROWLAND - All of it.
Mr. SPECTER - You could see from the base of the stock down to the tip of the end of the rifle?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
.
.
.
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.
.
.
.
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. ROWLAND - He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. . . . He had on dark slacks or blue jeans, I couldn't tell from that I didn't see but a small portion.
.
.
.
Mr. SPECTER - Which half of the window was open, the bottom half or the top half?
Mr. ROWLAND - It was the bottom half.
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.
.
.
.
Mr. SPECTER - How much of the rifle was separated from your line of vision by the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - The entire rifle was in my view.
Mr. SPECTER - In the open part of the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And how much of his body, if any, was in the open view where there was no window between your eyes and the object of his body?
Mr. ROWLAND - Approximately two-thirds of his body just below his waist.
Mr. SPECTER - Up to what point?
Mr. ROWLAND - Mid point between the waist and the knees, this is again in my proportion to his height that I make that judgment.
Mr. SPECTER - So from the waist, some point between his knees and his waist, you started to see hi clear in the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And from that point how far up his body were you able to see without any obstruction of a window between you and him?
Mr. ROWLAND - To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.


I underlined the part that I think Jack is referring to as incorrect and would require the man with the rifle to be a midget. However, Arnold Rowland does seem to be unsure about it. And if we include what can be seen through the upper half of the window, it appears to be correct. The rest of it appears to me to be remarkably good. The figure in my 3D model is 5’-9” tall and about 5’ back from the window.

Yes, Arnold Rowland does start “remembering” a lot of things that are obviously wrong. Especially about who was in which window, etc. This is a major reason that I think he probably misremembered when and where he saw the elderly black man.

I think that Arnold Rowland’s associations of the radioed positions of the motorcade with the timing of his sightings appear, for the most part, pretty accurate. And our memories do work mostly by association rather than “instant replay” with all details accurately recorded.

Could Arnold Rowland have made up the man with the rifle? Maybe, but I find it hard to believe that, if he did make it up, that he got so many details right. Plus he gave the basic description of the man with the rifle to his wife before the shots were fired. And he gave a reasonable basic description in his 11/22/63 affidavit and other interviews in the few days after the assassination.

[John Iacoletti]

Five people said they saw the rifle. Only Arnold Rowland said he saw a man with the rifle in the SW corner window. And only Kellerman said he heard JFK speak after being shot through the neck.

Five people said they saw two men on the sixth floor.

[Jack Nessan]

Unless you think the man with the rifle, described by Rowland, was about 3 to 4 feet tall. Charles Collin could not accurately place the man and his rifle, as described by Arnold, into his 3D model.





There is way more wrong with Rowland’s statements than just that. You are just trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. If you want and need to have Rowland’s statements in your conversation for whatever reason just do it, but there is no justifying it by picking and choosing the parts of his statements you want and claiming you have proven something somehow. What his fabrications, in his statement, prove is he made up the additional person in the SN just like everything else.

 



Mr. SPECTER - How much, if any, or all of that rifle could you see?
Mr. ROWLAND - All of it.
Mr. SPECTER - You could see from the base of the stock down to the tip of the end of the rifle?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
.
.
.
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.
.
.
.
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. ROWLAND - He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. . . . He had on dark slacks or blue jeans, I couldn't tell from that I didn't see but a small portion.
.
.
.
Mr. SPECTER - Which half of the window was open, the bottom half or the top half?
Mr. ROWLAND - It was the bottom half.
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.
.
.
.
Mr. SPECTER - How much of the rifle was separated from your line of vision by the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - The entire rifle was in my view.
Mr. SPECTER - In the open part of the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And how much of his body, if any, was in the open view where there was no window between your eyes and the object of his body?
Mr. ROWLAND - Approximately two-thirds of his body just below his waist.
Mr. SPECTER - Up to what point?
Mr. ROWLAND - Mid point between the waist and the knees, this is again in my proportion to his height that I make that judgment.
Mr. SPECTER - So from the waist, some point between his knees and his waist, you started to see hi clear in the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And from that point how far up his body were you able to see without any obstruction of a window between you and him?
Mr. ROWLAND - To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.


I underlined the part that I think Jack is referring to as incorrect and would require the man with the rifle to be a midget. However, Arnold Rowland does seem to be unsure about it. And if we include what can be seen through the upper half of the window, it appears to be correct. The rest of it appears to me to be remarkably good. The figure in my 3D model is 5’-9” tall and about 5’ back from the window.

Yes, Arnold Rowland does start “remembering” a lot of things that are obviously wrong. Especially about who was in which window, etc. This is a major reason that I think he probably misremembered when and where he saw the elderly black man.

I think that Arnold Rowland’s associations of the radioed positions of the motorcade with the timing of his sightings appear, for the most part, pretty accurate. And our memories do work mostly by association rather than “instant replay” with all details accurately recorded.

Could Arnold Rowland have made up the man with the rifle? Maybe, but I find it hard to believe that, if he did make it up, that he got so many details right. Plus he gave the basic description of the man with the rifle to his wife before the shots were fired. And he gave a reasonable basic description in his 11/22/63 affidavit and other interviews in the few days after the assassination.