Did Captain Fritz show Mr Oswald a Mauser?

[Mitch Todd]

Arnold Rowland is quite specific about the rifle he sees being held by a man on the sixth floor at around 12:15. It's a type of rifle he seems familiar with having used one before:

"In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope."

Is he describing a Carcano or something more like a sporterized Mauser?

IIRC, he described it as being "a deer rifle," which could imply a sporterized rifle, assuming that the rifle wasn't an actual hunting rifle rather than a conversion. Then again, he was about 300 feet from it. How well could he see it to describe it.

I'm not particularly enthusiastic about his statements. He places the guy holding the gun 15 feet inside the window. However,  if you look at photos of the TSBD exterior, you can see the boxes stacked up in the southeast corner the sixth floor windows. Those are not more than two feet from the wall. On the west side of the sixth floor, there are man-high stacks of boxes, but all you see in the photos is darkness behind the windows. Those stacks are several feet inside the building, too far in to be lit by the high afternoon sun. Someone standing 15 feet inside the windows isn't exactly what I'd expect to see in that situation, especially at 100 yards.

And Rowland's background, as described in his and his wife's WC testimony doesn't exactly lend the ring of truth to the story.

[Ray Mitcham]

IIRC, he described it as being "a deer rifle," which could imply a sporterized rifle, assuming that the rifle wasn't an actual hunting rifle rather than a conversion. Then again, he was about 300 feet from it. How well could he see it to describe it.

I'm not particularly enthusiastic about his statements. He places the guy holding the gun 15 feet inside the window. However,  if you look at photos of the TSBD exterior, you can see the boxes stacked up in the southeast corner the sixth floor windows. Those are not more than two feet from the wall. On the west side of the sixth floor, there are man-high stacks of boxes, but all you see in the photos is darkness behind the windows. Those stacks are several feet inside the building, too far in to be lit by the high afternoon sun. Someone standing 15 feet inside the windows isn't exactly what I'd expect to see in that situation, especially at 100 yards.

And Rowland's background, as described in his and his wife's WC testimony doesn't exactly lend the ring of truth to the story.

Trouble with that is that Arnold said he was talking about the window at the South West of the building not the South East. So the info about the boxes is irrelevant.

[Dan O'meara]

IIRC, he described it as being "a deer rifle," which could imply a sporterized rifle, assuming that the rifle wasn't an actual hunting rifle rather than a conversion. Then again, he was about 300 feet from it. How well could he see it to describe it.

I'm not particularly enthusiastic about his statements. He places the guy holding the gun 15 feet inside the window. However,  if you look at photos of the TSBD exterior, you can see the boxes stacked up in the southeast corner the sixth floor windows. Those are not more than two feet from the wall. On the west side of the sixth floor, there are man-high stacks of boxes, but all you see in the photos is darkness behind the windows. Those stacks are several feet inside the building, too far in to be lit by the high afternoon sun. Someone standing 15 feet inside the windows isn't exactly what I'd expect to see in that situation, especially at 100 yards.

And Rowland's background, as described in his and his wife's WC testimony doesn't exactly lend the ring of truth to the story.

Just a few corrections to your post Mitch:

Rowland stated in his testimony that he was about 150 feet away. from the man he saw holding the rifle. It is an incredibly accurate estimation. Not sure where you're getting 300 ft from.
Rowland is unequivocal that he had an excellent view of the rifle and recognised it as a type he had previously used.

In his WC statement Rowland states that he doesn't remember saying the man with the rifle was stood 15 ft inside the building and seems confused as to why that's in the affidavit. He clarifies his observation in his WC testimony:
 
Mr. ROWLAND - He wasn't next to the window, but he wasn't very far back. I would say 3 to 5 feet back from the window.

Not 15ft in the building. 3-5 ft, and Rowland also states the sun was shining on the rifle making it easier to see. The comment about his wife's testimony seems strange.

I think Rowland is the most impressive Dealey Plaza witness of all those who testified regarding the assassination. His memory and attention to detail are quite mind blowing. He saw the rifle clearly and described it clearly.

[Jack Nessan]

Just a few corrections to your post Mitch:

Rowland stated in his testimony that he was about 150 feet away. from the man he saw holding the rifle. It is an incredibly accurate estimation. Not sure where you're getting 300 ft from.
Rowland is unequivocal that he had an excellent view of the rifle and recognised it as a type he had previously used.

In his WC statement Rowland states that he doesn't remember saying the man with the rifle was stood 15 ft inside the building and seems confused as to why that's in the affidavit. He clarifies his observation in his WC testimony:
 
Mr. ROWLAND - He wasn't next to the window, but he wasn't very far back. I would say 3 to 5 feet back from the window.

Not 15ft in the building. 3-5 ft, and Rowland also states the sun was shining on the rifle making it easier to see. The comment about his wife's testimony seems strange.

I think Rowland is the most impressive Dealey Plaza witness of all those who testified regarding the assassination. His memory and attention to detail are quite mind blowing. He saw the rifle clearly and described it clearly.

I think Rowland is the most impressive Dealey Plaza witness of all those who testified regarding the assassination. His memory and attention to detail are quite mind blowing. He saw the rifle clearly and described it clearly.


You seriously need to reread his testimony. Nothing could be further from the truth. Start with being able to know anything about the rifle from 150 feet away. A :thirty odd size six"rifle does not exist. Specter realized Arnold was making it all up and repeatedly questions him about these observations that are false.

[Walt Cakebread]

Just a few corrections to your post Mitch:

Rowland stated in his testimony that he was about 150 feet away. from the man he saw holding the rifle. It is an incredibly accurate estimation. Not sure where you're getting 300 ft from.
Rowland is unequivocal that he had an excellent view of the rifle and recognised it as a type he had previously used.

In his WC statement Rowland states that he doesn't remember saying the man with the rifle was stood 15 ft inside the building and seems confused as to why that's in the affidavit. He clarifies his observation in his WC testimony:
 
Mr. ROWLAND - He wasn't next to the window, but he wasn't very far back. I would say 3 to 5 feet back from the window.

Not 15ft in the building. 3-5 ft, and Rowland also states the sun was shining on the rifle making it easier to see. The comment about his wife's testimony seems strange.

I think Rowland is the most impressive Dealey Plaza witness of all those who testified regarding the assassination. His memory and attention to detail are quite mind blowing. He saw the rifle clearly and described it clearly.

I think Rowland is the most impressive Dealey Plaza witness of all those who testified regarding the assassination. His memory and attention to detail are quite mind blowing. He saw the rifle clearly and described it clearly.

I agree, Mr, O.....   And I would hope that Mr. M would understand that once a military rifle has been converted ( sporterized) it is fundamentally the same as a rifle that was designed and manufactured as a hunting rifle.   And depending on the degree of "sporterizing" a converted military rifle may be virtually the same as a rifle that was manufactured as a hunting rifle.

He saw the rifle clearly and described it clearly.

Yes, indeed he did!...... and he clearly did NOT described the carcano, that is ALLEGEDLY the murder weapon...... 

[Walt Cakebread]

I think Rowland is the most impressive Dealey Plaza witness of all those who testified regarding the assassination. His memory and attention to detail are quite mind blowing. He saw the rifle clearly and described it clearly.


You seriously need to reread his testimony. Nothing could be further from the truth. Start with being able to know anything about the rifle from 150 feet away. A :thirty odd size six"rifle does not exist. Specter realized Arnold was making it all up and repeatedly questions him about these observations that are false.

A :thirty odd size six"rifle does not exist.

What a dumb and weak attempt at a rebuttal!....

30.06 refers to the CARTRIDGE.....  Not a rifle.... It is the CALIBER of a rifle.   However it is very common to use thirty aught six to identify a rifle, when referring to a rifle that is designed to fire the 30.06 CARTRIDGE

A 30.06 rifle ( aka: thirty aught six ) does exist....In fact there are thousand's of them....  And most folks refer to the rifles that are chambered to fire the 30.06 CARTRIDGE as a thirty aught six   ...HOWEVER ...Some ignorant neophytes erroneously call any big game hunting rifle.... a "thirty aught six".  Even though the rifle they are referring to might actually be designed to fire the 7.65 Belgian Mauser cartridge....( I believe that young Arnold Rowland fell into this category)

Some southerners, in their southern drawl, pronounce 30.06 as  thurty odd six ....

More to the point.....Arnold Rowland, was about 150 feet away from the man with the HUNTING rifle with a large scope, so he  nor any mortal man, could know the CALIBER of the rifle that the khaki clad man was holding.....   

[Dan O'meara]

He saw the rifle clearly and described it clearly.

Yes, indeed he did!...... and he clearly did NOT described the carcano, that is ALLEGEDLY the murder weapon......

This is kind of what I was driving at.
He describes the scope as follows:

"In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope."

Could the Carcano be said to have a " fairly large or powerful scope" in proportion to the rifle?