The First Shot

[Dan O'meara]

"...like believing Arnold Rowland's combed hair/ light scar, rifle make at nearly 300 feet."

Just to clear up something I've noticed Jerry doing recently regarding the testimony of Arnold Rowland.
Jerry has repeatedly made the claim Rowland could make out details about the man with the rifle on the 6th floor that would be impossible to make out from the distance between the two men. The quote above refers to Rowland being able to make out the make of the rifle, that the man had combed hair and that he had a light scar. I believe Jerry is trying his best to discredit Rowland's testimony.
The fact is, none of this is true. Rowland never made any of these claims.

Could Rowland tell what make the rifle was?
This is what he has to say about the rifle:

"He was standing and holding a rifle, This appeared to me to be a fairly high-powered rifle because of the scope and the relative proportion of the scope to the rifle, you can tell about what type of rifle it is. You can tell it isn't a .22, you know..."

He goes on to state that the rifle looked "similar" to a 30:06 deer-hunting rifle, a rifle he was familiar with.
Although Rowland describes the type of rifle the man was holding, at no point does he say what make it was.

Could Rowland tell that the man had combed hair?
This is what Rowland says about his hair:

"It didn't appear as if he had a receding hairline but I know he didn't have it hanging on his shoulders. Probably a close cut from--you know it appeared to me it was either well-combed or close cut."

Rowland is clearly not definite about the man's hair. He uses phrases like "it didn't appear", "probably" and "it appeared to me". He believes it was short and that it could have been "well-combed or close cut".
At no point does he definitively state his hair is well-combed, he merely offers it up as a possibility.

Could Rowland tell that the man had a light scar on his face?
Here's what he has to say about it:

"There was nothing dark on his face, no mustache. There could have. been a scar if it hadn't been a dark scar. If it was, you know, a blotch or such as this, there was nothing very dark about the color of his face."

Here Rowland is saying there was nothing dark on his face, no mustache and no scar. He offers up the possibility that if the man had a scar it would have to be a light scar because it didn't show on his face. It can be said with certainty that Rowland is not describing a light scar on the man's face and to suggest this is what he was saying seems to reveal a desperation to undermine Rowland's testimony.

[Jerry Organ]

The distribution of witnesses as to the shot pattern looks like this:

So you missed the class in law school about the unreliability of witnesses to unexpected events?

I am sure the FBI surveyors tried hard.  Unfortunately they did not explain why they thought z210 was the earliest the first shot could have occurred.  It shows the back of the trunk to be clear for 6 feet behind JFK. They were not even aware that this opinion conflicted with the evidence of Phil Willis.  The WC thought that the Willis photo was taken at about z210. It wasn't. It was taken at z202. 

Did the WC say the photo was taken at exactly Z210 or did they say "approximately" Z210? Does one-half second (Z202 to Z210) fall into an approximation?

Also, the FBI photos do not show where they thought z210 was in relation to the Thornton sign or the lamp post.  So we can either go with that opinion or see for ourselves where JFK was first clear of the tree using the Secret Service film.  He is clear before he passes the Thornton sign.  He passes the Thornton sign at z200.

My map shows where Z195 was in relation to the Thornton sign and the tree-trunk to signpost line, and it has the President behind foliage.

They say all the differences were accounted for.  So either there was something else they did wrong or they were not correctly accounted for.  Simply put: the May 1964 reenactment does not accord with the Secret Service film.

It doesn't accord with your lack of skill at photogrammetry when it comes to the SS reenactment film.

Jerry, you do realize that the car used in the Secret Service film was about 6 feet shorter than the President's car. 

"6 feet shorter"? Sounds like one of your porkies.

So if you line up the front of the President's car to the front of the car in the SS film, JFK will be several feet farther back.  That is what you have done.  I am only concerned with the position of JFK.  The corresponding position of the front of the car will be several feet farther along past the Thornton sign in order to have the same position of JFK as seen here:

What's wrong with using where the rear bumper is? And comparing on a map where the tree-trunk to lamp-post line is to where it is in the SS reenactment film? We then position the President on the map where he is in the Zapruder film and see where he is relative to the tree-trunk to lamp-post line which in turn show us where he is in the SS reenactment film.

What you did was just arbitrarily pick a film capture showing Kennedy clear of the foliage and associate it with Z195. You cherry-pick everything because of your Ash Heap Pet Theory.

[Jerry Organ]

"...like believing Arnold Rowland's combed hair/ light scar, rifle make at nearly 300 feet."

Just to clear up something I've noticed Jerry doing recently regarding the testimony of Arnold Rowland.
Jerry has repeatedly made the claim Rowland could make out details about the man with the rifle on the 6th floor that would be impossible to make out from the distance between the two men. The quote above refers to Rowland being able to make out the make of the rifle, that the man had combed hair and that he had a light scar.

In my quote referred to, I did not say Rowland saw combed hair and a light scar. In his testimony he seems to claim the ability to discern such detail-level (although I should have said dark scar).

I believe Jerry is trying his best to discredit Rowland's testimony.

You think Rowland is somehow credible? His same-day affidavit is one thing but the detail added months later.

The fact is, none of this is true. Rowland never made any of these claims.

Could Rowland tell what make the rifle was?
This is what he has to say about the rifle:

"He was standing and holding a rifle, This appeared to me to be a fairly high-powered rifle because of the scope and the relative proportion of the scope to the rifle, you can tell about what type of rifle it is. You can tell it isn't a .22, you know..."

He goes on to state that the rifle looked "similar" to a 30:06 deer-hunting rifle, a rifle he was familiar with.
Although Rowland describes the type of rifle the man was holding, at no point does he say what make it was.

Could Rowland tell that the man had combed hair?
This is what Rowland says about his hair:

"It didn't appear as if he had a receding hairline but I know he didn't have it hanging on his shoulders. Probably a close cut from--you know it appeared to me it was either well-combed or close cut."

Rowland is clearly not definite about the man's hair. He uses phrases like "it didn't appear", "probably" and "it appeared to me". He believes it was short and that it could have been "well-combed or close cut".
At no point does he definitively state his hair is well-combed, he merely offers it up as a possibility.

Could Rowland tell that the man had a light scar on his face?
Here's what he has to say about it:

"There was nothing dark on his face, no mustache. There could have. been a scar if it hadn't been a dark scar. If it was, you know, a blotch or such as this, there was nothing very dark about the color of his face."

Here Rowland is saying there was nothing dark on his face, no mustache and no scar. He offers up the possibility that if the man had a scar it would have to be a light scar because it didn't show on his face. It can be said with certainty that Rowland is not describing a light scar on the man's face and to suggest this is what he was saying seems to reveal a desperation to undermine Rowland's testimony.

So when Rowland says something "appears to be", he offering up a possibility. Keep that in mind when discussing the "rifle" he "appears" to have seen. He appeared to have seen women on the Underpass bridge.

[Dan O'meara]

In my quote referred to, I did not say Rowland saw combed hair and a light scar. In his testimony he seems to claim the ability to discern such detail-level (although I should have said dark scar).

While it is true that you did not say Rowland saw these things in the post I was responding to, I make it clear that this is something I've noticed you claiming in other posts, such as this one from the "Credible Witnesses" thread:

"By the time his testimony came, Rowland had the make of the rifle, was seeing comb hair and a light scar..."

Here you are explicitly stating Rowland could see these things, when the truth is that Rowland never claimed any of this.
 

You think Rowland is somehow credible? His same-day affidavit is one thing but the detail added months later.

I think Rowland is a very credible witness and for you to expect the same level of detail in an affidavit as there is in his WC testimony is the only thing that lacks credibility. Rowland is grilled at length during his testimony, providing as much detail as he was capable of giving.

So when Rowland says something "appears to be", he offering up a possibility. Keep that in mind when discussing the "rifle" he "appears" to have seen. He appeared to have seen women on the Underpass bridge.

Rowland is certain he sees a man with a high-powered, scoped rifle on the 6th floor just before the assassination. He does not "appear" to see it. His wife testifies that he tells her this before the assassination. Multiple officers state he tells them about this man with the rifle in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.
And guess what?
There was indeed a man on the 6th floor with a scoped rifle!
What are the odds he was making some lucky guess?
Do you believe in the "The Miracle on Elm Street"?

[Jerry Organ]

While it is true that you did not say Rowland saw these things in the post I was responding to, I make it clear that this is something I've noticed you claiming in other posts, such as this one from the "Credible Witnesses" thread:

"By the time his testimony came, Rowland had the make of the rifle, was seeing comb hair and a light scar..."

Here you are explicitly stating Rowland could see these things, when the truth is that Rowland never claimed any of this.

And you didn't notice I had stopped doing that? Aren't you glad?

I think Rowland is a very credible witness and for you to expect the same level of detail in an affidavit as there is in his WC testimony is the only thing that lacks credibility. Rowland is grilled at length during his testimony, providing as much detail as he was capable of giving.

Well he certainly improved on his affidavit:

    "saw what I thought was a man standing back about 15 feet from the
     windows and was holding in his arms what appeared to be a high-powered
     rifle because it looked like it had a scope on it."

Now remember when Rowland says "appears to be" or "I thought" or " looked like", he's merely offering up a possibility.

Rowland is certain he sees a man with a high-powered, scoped rifle on the 6th floor just before the assassination. He does not "appear" to see it.

Rowland said he "saw what I thought was a man ... holding what appeared to be a high-powered rifle."

His wife testifies that he tells her this before the assassination. Multiple officers state he tells them about this man with the rifle in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.
And guess what?
There was indeed a man on the 6th floor with a scoped rifle!
What are the odds he was making some lucky guess?
Do you believe in the "The Miracle on Elm Street"?

Rowland probably saw a man at the SW window but the "rifle" may have been a tool from the reflooring project or even someone raising a pop bottle that caused a sun glint, making Rowland think the man was holding some shiny object, like a "rifle".

[Dan O'meara]

And you didn't notice I had stopped doing that? Aren't you glad?

 
I'm over the moon

Well he certainly improved on his affidavit:

    "saw what I thought was a man standing back about 15 feet from the
     windows and was holding in his arms what appeared to be a high-powered
     rifle because it looked like it had a scope on it."

Now remember when Rowland says "appears to be" or "I thought"' he's merely offering up a possibility.

Rowland said he "saw what I thought was a man ... holding what appeared to be a high-powered rifle."

This is from the testimony of Roger Craig:

"Yes; later on. A few minutes after that--I had taken this girl to one of our criminal investigators---and was talking to some other people. I talked to a young couple and the boy said he saw two men on the uh--sixth floor of the Book Depository Building over there; one of them had a rifle with the telescopic sight on it--but he thought they were Secret Service agents on guard and didn't report it. This was about--uh---oh, he said, 15 minutes before the motorcade ever arrived."

There is no doubt Rowland saw a man on the 6th floor who had a scoped rifle.

His wife testifies that he tells her this before the assassination. Multiple officers state he tells them about this man with the rifle in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.
And guess what?
There was indeed a man on the 6th floor with a scoped rifle!
What are the odds he was making some lucky guess?
Do you believe in the "The Miracle on Elm Street"?


Rowland probably saw a man at the SW window but the "rifle" may have been a tool from the reflooring project or even someone raising a pop bottle that caused a sun glint, making Rowland think the man was holding some shiny object, like a "rifle".

 
A pop bottle with a telescopic sight on it!!
That was being held in the "port arms" position!!

Mr. Specter: You could see from the base of the stock down to the tip of the end of the rifle?
Mr. Rowland: Yes.

It's clearly something we'll have to agree to disagree on.

[Bill Chapman]

Rowland first said the guy in the SW window was about 12-15 ft back of the window, then changed that to about 3-5 ft because, he said, no one would be able to see the figure so far back from the window

[Dan O'meara]

Rowland first said the guy in the SW window was about 12-15 ft back of the window, then changed that to about 3-5 ft because, he said, no one would be able to see the figure so far back from the window

Does that mean he didn't see a man with a rifle or that he just guessed at how far back in the room the guy was?