When the SN was built

[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.

[Alan Ford]

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.

"Pretty accurate"? LOL. They were extraordinarily accurate. Even Mr. Bugliosi (or whoever wrote that portion of his book) acknowledged this.

So your theory is that the guy who showcases brilliant memory about even the tiniest verifiable details bizarrely turns into a fantasist/hallucinator/liar when it comes to the 'elderly Negro'.

And why do you put forward this ridiculous theory, Mr. Collins? One reason and one reason alone: because the Warren Report tells you to. And we all know why you're here: to defend the Warren Report version of events at all costs, even if it means debasing your own intellectual and ethical dignity (as you have been doing here on the Rowland issue).

Was Mrs. Rowland asked whether Mr. Rowland ever talked to her about all the other non-rifle-holding people he remembered in the area that day? And if her answer had been no, what significance should be given to that circumstance? Answer: none. Mr. Rowland's big preoccupation-------------not unreasonably-------------was with the man with the rifle whom he had seen.

 

[Charles Collins]

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

Who were they? And how many of them said so on 11/22/63.

[Charles Collins]

"Pretty accurate"? LOL. They were extraordinarily accurate. Even Mr. Bugliosi (or whoever wrote that portion of his book) acknowledged this.

So your theory is that the guy who showcases brilliant memory about even the tiniest verifiable details bizarrely turns into a fantasist/hallucinator/liar when it comes to the 'elderly Negro'.

And why do you put forward this ridiculous theory, Mr. Collins? One reason and one reason alone: because the Warren Report tells you to. And we all know why you're here: to defend the Warren Report version of events at all costs, even if it means debasing your own intellectual and ethical dignity (as you have been doing here on the Rowland issue).

Was Mrs. Rowland asked whether Mr. Rowland ever talked to her about all the other non-rifle-holding people he remembered in the area that day? And if her answer had been no, what significance should be given to that circumstance? Answer: none. Mr. Rowland's big preoccupation-------------not unreasonably-------------was with the man with the rifle whom he had seen.

 

They were extraordinarily accurate.


No, not all of them. If you want to insist that Rowland had the time of the motorcade at Main & Ervay “extremely accurate”, then I submit that he was about eight minutes off…

[Alan Ford]

They were extraordinarily accurate.


No, not all of them. If you want to insist that Rowland had the time of the motorcade at Main & Ervay “extremely accurate”, then I submit that he was about eight minutes off…

The extraordinary accuracy pertains to the fact that he not just had the presence of mind to take note of the broadcast at the time, he also recalls it perfectly. This allows the event under description to be reliably timestamped:

Mr. SPECTER - How do you fix the time that he was there until the procession reached the intersection of Commerce and Ervay?
Mr. ROWLAND - The police motorcycle was almost in front of me with the speaker on very loud, giving the relative position about every 15 or 20 seconds of the motorcade, and this is how I was able to note that.

I can't think of any civilian witness in the case with this level of attentiveness and recall. Indeed, I suspect Mr. Rowland may have been on the autism spectrum: he gives the impression of that highly developed 'left brain' aptitude that one encounters in some talented scientists, mathematicians, engineers, tech people.

If his testimony were favorable to the official story, rather than a disaster for it, you would be singing his praises. You would be feting him as the greatest witness ever!