Did Captain Fritz show Mr Oswald a Mauser?

[Jack Nessan]

You've mentioned this before and I thought you were pretending not to understand what was being said just to score a point.
But I've just realised, you don't actually understand.

Rowland is describing someone who is "slender in proportion to his size".
The key phrase here is "in proportion"
The point Rowland is making is that he can't give an accurate estimation of the rifleman's height which, given the distance and the fact he can't see all of the rifleman's body, is hardly surprising. All he can do is give a description of his general body shape.

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


The man could be over 6 ft and weigh 200lbs or much shorter and weigh 150lbs. He can't tell, all he can really say is that the rifleman was slender in proportion to his size (height).
What you have unwittingly revealed using the quote from Barbara Arnold is the accuracy with which she recalls her husband's description of the rifleman as he makes exactly the same point in his WC testimony. A detailed description he gave her before the motorcade had even arrived and a description he consistently gave in his various official statements.

Again, you've confirmed the accuracy of the description Rowland gave to his wife and her excellent recollection of that description. In one of his early statements the phrase "a parade rest sort of position" is used. When this is mentioned in his WC testimony he seems surprised - "It does appear in there? - and then corrects this statement:

Mr. SPECTER - Just one detail on that statement: There is a reference here to the man holding the rifle being in a position which you describe as "a parade-rest sort of position." That appears--
Mr. ROWLAND - It does appear in there?
Mr. SPECTER - Eighteen lines down.
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; I see it. It wasn't a parade-rest position. It was a port-arms position

"It was a port-arms position", exactly as Barbara recalled.

 

Once again you confirm the accuracy of the description Rowland gave to his wife on the day of the assassination and her excellent recall of that description. Rowland's estimation of how far the rifleman was stood in the building has already been dealt with if you remember. Rowland is clear that it is a difficult thing to estimate and his first guess is that the rifleman is stood 12-15ft inside the building, consistent with Barbara's memory of it, confirming that was what he thought at the time of the assassination.
By the time of his WC testimony Rowland has revised this first estimate to a second estimation of 3-5 ft. As has already been pointed out to you Jack:

"Rowland is trying to estimate how far in the building the man is stood, which is quite a tricky thing to estimate as he states himself.
His early estimation is 12-15ft but on reflection he changes this to 3-5ft. It is this single detail that is leapt upon to try to undermine his testimony. Otherwise he is perfectly consistent with what he tells his wife at the time and the subsequent statements he makes concerning the description of the man with the rifle. He gives a detailed description of the man and to argue that he couldn't have seen the man if he was stood 15ft inside the building doesn't mean he was describing a man he couldn't see - it means his estimation of how far the man was stood away from the window is wrong.
His wife confirms the description he gave on the day and his incorrect estimate of how far the man was stood in the building."

It turns out your devastating critique of Barbara Rowland's testimony has done nothing more than confirm the accuracy of her husband's description of the rifleman of the day of the assassination and her excellent recollection of his description.
Don't worry though, just wait for a few days and pretend you've never read this post, it might work next time 

Barbara's statement only confirms he made it up and it in no way validates Arnold's testimony.

12 feet is not the same as 3 to 5 feet and the description of the person in the window does not work for either. Nothing is going to change that.

Nice try, tall and well built is not even remotely similar to short and slender and cannot be construed to be the same description. Height has nothing to do with either being well built or slender.

Port of Arms is described as standing with his left hand and elbow at shoulder height and he then describes the rifle positioned across his body and pointing in the opposite direction at the ceiling and wall.

[Dan O'meara]

This is a summary of how the kerfluffle surrounding this particular point has progressed:

Dan O': "Arnold Rowland saw a man with a rifle in the SW corner window on the sixth floor of the TSBD"

Jack N: "Rowland claimed there was a 30-36 inch gap above the top of the guy's head and below the open window sash. The open window is only about 30" wide, yet Rowland saw most of the man plus the 30-36 inch gap though that 30 inch window opening. No way that can happen"

Dan O': "That's because Rowland misunderstood the question Specter was asking him. Rowland really meant the horizontal distance between the top of the man's head and the window."

Mitch T: "Given the specific question that Specter asks and the context of the exchange leading up to it, there's no real room to allow Arnold to be confused about exactly what he's being asked."

Dan O': "No, it has to be the horizontal distance between the top of the rifleman's head and not the vertical."

Mitch T: "Why?"

Dan O': "Because if it was the vertical distance, then it would have been impossible for Rowland to have seen what he said he saw"

That's a lovely little story. The irony of your comparison of Rowland to the Brothers Grimm is not lost on me.

You're begging the question here, assuming that Rowland actually saw the man with the rifle, and bending his testimony around that assumption, when Rowland's story is the point of contention.

I'm guessing that Rowland witnessing the man with the rifle somehow goes against how you view the assassination.
So you have to discredit his testimony and you do this by assuming he didn't see the man with the rifle and you bend his testimony around that assumption.

The problem both you and Jack have is that you are positing an almost miraculous coincidence - that Rowland described a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD and it just so happened, by a million-to-one shot, there was indeed a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD. This alone makes a mockery of the position you are forced to take on this matter.
And not any old rifle, oh no...a rifle with a scope! And guess what...?
Do you not feel silly having trapped yourself in this position?
And, would you believe it, the description he gives of the man tallies incredibly well with the handful of other witnesses who saw the shooter! What are the chances?

Seriously....what...are...the...chances?

It doesn't have to be a "mind-bending" change, just a significant one, and he makes that significant change in a very short period of time. In your interpretation, a couple of minutes after he already made an issue of the man being 3'-5' inside the window, he's almost halving that distance with no explanation behind the change.  You'd have a better point if he made it a 30"-36" distance months or years after putting 3'-5' between rifleman and window. Assuming that the change is a shift in Rowland's estimate of the distance between man and window and not his estimate of the vertical apparent distance between the top of the man's head and the top of the window opening, going from 3'-5' to 30"-36" in a couple of minutes is very hard to accept without a better-supported explanation.
 
The single example that Jack N brought up (and we are continuing with here) is evidence that we are arguing about a single example, and nothing more. It doesn't prove or imply that it is the only example of an issue with Rowland or his testimony. Another example that has been brought up are how he changed to location of the man he saw from the time of his first affidavit to the WC testimony several months later. His 11/22 Sheriff's Department affidavit puts the man 15 feet behind he window.  The next day, he told the FBI that the man was 10-15 feet behind the window. The next day, he wrote out a statement to the FBI placing the man 12-15 feet behind the window. Mr Nessan has pointed out that Rowland's wife testified to the Commission that Rowland had told her that the man was "about 12 feet" inside the window (thank you, Jack). Although she was admittedly equivocal about the exact distance, twelve feet jives nicely with Rowland's early statements. Then we come to Rowland's Commission testimony, where he now says that the man in the TSBD is 3-5 feet from the window. That's quite a change.

So what are the compelling arguments you cling on to, to support this "Tale of Coincidence" the Brothers Grimm would've found too outlandish to include in any fairy-tale.

1) He changes his estimation of how far the man is stood in the building.
2) He misunderstands one of the questions.

Have a little think about the magnitude of the miracle you are proposing and then have a look at what you've got to back it up with.

He also adds a second man on the sixth floor who doesn't appear in any of his earlier statements. Mrs Rowland also didn't recall him ever claiming there was  a second man on the 6th floor.
I suspect that the second man was added at some point after Rowland learned about Bonnie Ray Williams' presence on the sixth floor at the same time Rowland claimed to see his rifleman. Rowland still gets the window wrong. Williams was not in the sniper's nest on the east side, but a couple of windows over.

As you well know, Rowland only mentioned this second man after he became aware of the importance of that window.
There were lots of people looking out of lots of windows but only one had a rifle.
Why would he have mentioned this second man in his early statements?

Mr. SPECTER - Shortly after the assassination and before these interviews that you described were completed, Mr. Rowland, had you learned or heard that the shots were supposed to have come out of the window which we have marked with the "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - No, sir. I did not know that, in fact until Saturday when I read the paper.
Mr. SPECTER - Which Saturday is that?
Mr. ROWLAND - The following Saturday.
Mr. SPECTER - Would that be the second day, the day after the assassination?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Well, knowing that, at that time, did you attach any particular significance to the presence of the Negro gentleman, whom you have described, that you saw in window "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; that is why I brought it to the attention of the FBI agents who interviewed me that day. This was as an afterthought because I did not think of it firsthand. But I did bring it to their attention before they left,

[John Iacoletti]

Based on Arnold's description of the man in the window, his impossible description of the rifle and supposed estimation of the caliber of rifle with a scope from a distance of 150 feet, his wife's assessment of his honesty, and his inability to tell the same story twice it can only be concluded he fabricated the whole story based on the conversation about Adlai Stevenson. Unbeknownst to Arnold there really was a gunman on the 6th floor.

Isn't it interesting though that Howard Brennan's background and ever-evolving story never seems to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny.  Why is that?

[Walt Cakebread]

Isn't it interesting though that Howard Brennan's background and ever-evolving story never seems to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny.  Why is that?

I'd suggest that Howard Brennan's story be separated into two divisions...  What he swore too prior to going to the police station on the evening of the coup d e'tat ..... and what he said AFTER being subjected to a grilling which hinted at his family being in danger if he didn't keep his mouth shut.

[John Iacoletti]

The guy that Edwards, Fischer, Euins, and Brennan saw was indeed in the sunshine. He was in the sniper's nest which was only two feet deep. Even at noon, the sun shone a few feet into the building in late November. Just not enough to light up anything more than a couple off feet from the window where anyone on the ground could see. And not enough for Rowland's descriptions in his signed DCSD affidavit and his handwritten statement to the FBI.

There was a light hanging from the ceiling near the south west window.

[John Iacoletti]

I suspect that the second man was added at some point after Rowland learned about Bonnie Ray Williams' presence on the sixth floor at the same time Rowland claimed to see his rifleman.

How could Rowland have possibly learned about that?

[Mitch Todd]

That's a lovely little story. The irony of your comparison of Rowland to the Brothers Grimm is not lost on me.

No irony needed. That really is how the argument has progressed. You're at the point where you've been arguing that Rowland had to have misunderstood Specter's question. Otherwise, accepting the alternative leads directly to the self-destruction of Rowland's testimony. 
 

I'm guessing that Rowland witnessing the man with the rifle somehow goes against how you view the assassination.
So you have to discredit his testimony and you do this by assuming he didn't see the man with the rifle and you bend his testimony around that assumption.

I used to take Rowland's story at face value. As you've pointed out, it does make for quite a coincidence, at least at first glance. Over time, though, I soured on the tale for the following reasons:

1.) I couldn't square the Rowland story with Bonnie Ray Williams' lack of corroboration, though Williams should absolutely be expected to do so.

2.) For that matter, no other witness puts a man with a rifle on the west end of the TSBD.  In contrast, Fisher and Edwards see a man in the SN window immediately before the shooting. Euins and Brennan see a man shooting from the same location. Jackson and Couch reported seeing a rifle in the SN window during the shooting.

3.) First rule of fight club is don't talk about fight club: There's plenty of downside and no upside to a wannabe assassin exposing himself and his weapon to a thousand bystanders 10-15 minutes before the act. Who would do so in this situation?

4.) Rowland makes a number of suspiciously extravagant claims about himself during his WC testimony. He says he has a 147 IQ, has an "A'" average, "much better" than 20/20 eyesight, has performed extensive special research in echoes and acoustics, has been accepted to relatively prestigious colleges, etc.

5.) He also seems to hop jobs a lot. From his and his wife's testimony, he's held at least eight separate jobs from between May '63 and April '64. That's rarely a good sign.

6.) His wife pretty much calls him out as a liar in her WC testimony. It's usually bad when one spouse testifies against another. At least outside of a divorce case, where it's expected.

7.) His belated addition of an "elderly negro" on the sixth floor in his WC testimony that is curiously absent from his earlier statements

8.) Moving the man with the rifle from a position 10-15 feet within the building to 3-5 feet from the window between his earlier statements and his WC deposition.

9.) After the shooting started, Rowland didn't look back to see if he could see the rifleman. Given the situation, that's a curious omission. Unless Rowland knew that the rifleman didn't actually exist in the first place.

10.) The WC was curious about those extravagant claims and checked his actual background. He didn't have an "A" average by any means, nor had he completed high school. He hadn't performed any special studies in acoustics or echoes. He hadn't been a patient of the optometrists he claimed to have been examined by. He hadn't been accepted by SMU, and likely not by TAMU or Rice, either. His IQ tested out as 106, not 147.  From reading the various reports, the one impression he seems to have consistently made on people was a notable lack of credibility.

11.) The 30-36 inch gap issue is icing on the cake at this point.
 

The problem both you and Jack have is that you are positing an almost miraculous coincidence - that Rowland described a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD and it just so happened, by a million-to-one shot, there was indeed a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD. This alone makes a mockery of the position you are forced to take on this matter.
And not any old rifle, oh no...a rifle with a scope! And guess what...?
Do you not feel silly having trapped yourself in this position?
And, would you believe it, the description he gives of the man tallies incredibly well with the handful of other witnesses who saw the shooter! What are the chances?

Seriously....what...are...the...chances?

Greater than you might think. Let's say I'm in Rowland's position in Dealey Plaza and I'm telling my wife about the extra-special security procedures in place for the President's visit. Let's say I want to conjure up a security agent to "point out" to my wife as an example of these special preparations. To do this plausibly, I need to:

1.) Come up with a role for the guy that demonstrates "special security precautions" appropriate to a Presidential motorcade. That is, beyond and above what would normally be done for your usual run-of-the-mill parade.
2.) Put this guy in a place that would inherently imply "special security precaution"
3.) Put him in circumstances where his non-presence could easily be explained away when your wife looked that direction and found herself unable to see the guy.

Making him a sharpshooter in one of the upper windows of a building facing Dealey Plaza fulfills all 3 requirements. Nothing says "important public occasion with VIPs" like a protective sniper overlooking the area. Of course, such a person would be placed up high to get the best line of sight/fire and to be able to survey the largest area.  Putting him behind a window makes it easy to say that he stepped behind a column or fell back into the shadows when the Significant Other could see him.

The question that follows is, "which building?" The Rowlands are on the East side of Houston facing West. The Sheriff's Department building is behind them and so is ruled out. They can't see into the narrow windows on the County records building that face Houston St, so it gets ruled out. The South side of the DalTex building has no south-facing windows visible from the Rowlands' position and they can't see into the ones on the West side because of the angle. It gets ruled out. The Old Red courthouse is to the left, but still kinda behind them. They wouldn't be looking in it's direction anyway. There are only two buildings in front of them: the TSBD on the right and the Terminal Annex Building on the left. The TSBD is slightly closer; more importantly, it's directly on the parade route and thus would be the likely first choice. 

From there, let's pick a window. From the photos taken of the TSBD that afternoon, only floors five and six had open windows. This is important for two reasons. First, A sniper probably wouldn't want to shoot through a window. Second, the upper-floor windows of the TSBD were fairly dirty, as evidenced in the various photos of the TSBD taken inside and out. Carolyn Walther said in her affidavit that she couldn't see in through the windows because they were too dirty. The Rowlands would have an even harder time of it as they were further away than Walther.

As for the gun used, a sharpshooter would have a high-powered rifle, and most likely a scope. Because, sharpshooter. A trim man implies action more than a scrawny one or a fat one. And an open necked shirt implies and action sort of guy more than a button up collar, unless you believe in Action Accountant. In 1963, turtlenecks were owned by bongo-snapping hipsters.  And light colored shirts were fairly common. For example in this photo:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184809/m1/1/

To be honest, I don't think it had to have happened exactly like what I just described. My point is, once someone decides to generate a fictitious "secret service man" to impress someone else, he's going to have to operate under constraints imposed by existing circumstances. The result isn't the result of some random process, and the "million to one odds" idea you have is therefore erroneous.

As for coincidences, consider something assassination-related that I ran across recently in the Dictabelt recording. On that recording, there is a famous stretch where the microphone on a DPD motorcycle gets stuck in the "transmit" position for several minutes. It first appears just after 12:28 PM is announced and continues until a bit after the 12:34 PM announcement. Interestingly, the open mic episode starts at the end of a transmission by the officer whose call number is 75, and ends at the tail of a transmission by the same officer. When I first realized that, I wanted to think 'hey, I found the source of the open mic!.' Still, I wasn't going to look a gift horse in the mouth, started to look more closely into the matter, and soon was able to rule out '75' as the source of the open mic. '75' was a car far to the northeast of Dealey Plaza, Parkland, the Trade Mart, or Oak Cliff. The coincidence is highly unlikely, but it turned out to be nothing more than a coincidence.

So what are the compelling arguments you cling on to, to support this "Tale of Coincidence" the Brothers Grimm would've found too outlandish to include in any fairy-tale.

1) He changes his estimation of how far the man is stood in the building.
2) He misunderstands one of the questions.

Have a little think about the magnitude of the miracle you are proposing and then have a look at what you've got to back it up with.

I've sprinkled this thread with more reasons than those two. You just haven't paid attention, or aren't thinking. In case you missed anything, I just listed all of my reasons for distrusting Arnold Rowland's account. By the way, I included a link to the important persons file the WC gathered on Rowland in my last reply. The one that shows him in a less-than-favorable light. It seems to have been omitted in your last post on the matter.

As you well know, Rowland only mentioned this second man after he became aware of the importance of that window.
There were lots of people looking out of lots of windows but only one had a rifle.
Why would he have mentioned this second man in his early statements?

Mr. SPECTER - Shortly after the assassination and before these interviews that you described were completed, Mr. Rowland, had you learned or heard that the shots were supposed to have come out of the window which we have marked with the "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - No, sir. I did not know that, in fact until Saturday when I read the paper.
Mr. SPECTER - Which Saturday is that?
Mr. ROWLAND - The following Saturday.
Mr. SPECTER - Would that be the second day, the day after the assassination?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Well, knowing that, at that time, did you attach any particular significance to the presence of the Negro gentleman, whom you have described, that you saw in window "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; that is why I brought it to the attention of the FBI agents who interviewed me that day. This was as an afterthought because I did not think of it firsthand. But I did bring it to their attention before they left,

And the source for this is Rowland. The statement that Rowland wrote out for the FBI was made on Sunday. By his own statements to the WC, he knew that the man in the SN was significant before then. But Rowland neglected to put that in his statement. He can't blame that omission on the FBI; he wrote the statement out himself.