The Curious Case Of Arnold Rowland

[James Hackerott]

It's a waste of time going through the desperate distortions of Rowland's witness testimony LNers have to apply to try and make the almost miraculous coincidence of the man with the rifle go away. The feigned objectivity on show is a joke as there is a bottom line - LNers need Rowland to go away. His testimony completely undermines the established narrative to such an extent it would completely unravel. That is the light in which the last posts must be viewed.
But there is a potentially a way to resolve the issue - from my perspective at least. Unlike the LNers on display, I actually want to know what really happened that day and am willing to have my working hypothesis tested in such a way I believe it will resolve the issue of Rowland's witness testimony.
Unfortunately, the test I have in mind is way beyond my skill-set and I would call on those with the requisite 3D modelling skills to undertake this challenge if willing.

It is my opinion the man with the rifle is Jack Dougherty.
On his draft card it states Dougherty is 6 feet, one and a half inches in height at the age of 18.
For argument's sake, let's say Dougherty is 6' 2" at the time of the assassination.
In his testimony Rowland states that the sun "hit him [the man with the rifle] about from the shoulders down".

Using 3D modelling, the test is as follows:
At 12:15 pm the sun is slanting through the south-west window of the 6th floor of the TSBD at a specific angle.
How far back from the window would a man of 6' 2" be stood when the sun was "from the shoulders down"?
More importantly, what would Rowland be seeing from his location through the open window (assuming the man is placed in such a position that he is in Rowland's LoS)?

If this situation can be successfully modeled it would throw light on some very important issues regarding Rowland's testimony, the LN narrative and, less importantly, my own opinions.
I acknowledge it is an imposition on other forum members to undertake this task but, as I say, it is way beyond my own ability.

Dan, here is my 3D model analysis. Since I don’t know which window of the pair Rowland’s man was supposed to stand I made a clone of the 6’2” man 3 feet east (DZ) for comparison. The solar time was set to 12:15. The simulation starts with the man outside the building to show that his feet are at floor level. It appears to me that the man could only be 1.5-2.5 feet north (DX) of the window when his head is sunlit shadowed to the shoulders. The man would have a pretty good view of the plaza from that short distance from the window.

[Sean Kneringer]

Married in high school? That must've been a thing back then.

[Mitch Todd]

Bull.  I don't recall them questioning Howard Brennan's wife about his reliability or pulling his school records.  Or challenging anything he said during his testimony.

By "challenge", I assume you must mean that he was asked for more detail when he brought some subject up. That's normal, and expected. The only thing particularly challenging about the process is all in your own febrile imagination.  As for Brennan's wife, unless you can show us that she was in Dealey Plaza along with her husband there is no basis for comparison.

[Mitch Todd]

How would you know?  By your own admission, you haven't even read the testimony of the witnesses.You mean after 60 years you just now got around to reading the Warren Report? And where did Rowland claim to have 'super human' vision? You red flag gaslighter with your second hand copy of 'Case Closed' you :DAnd what was the doctor's nurse's name? How old was the doctor? How long was he in practice.......?? I can gaslight too.

You aren't reading too well this morning. You missed this bit: "Then I actually bothered to read Rowland's testimony." I didn't put a specific time frame on it, and you apparently found it confusing. So, to clarify, I read all the way through the Rowland's testimony in full about 12-15 years ago.

What other witness were so grilled about their vision?

Howard Brennan, at least:

Mr. BELIN. By the way, Mr. Brennan, I note that you have glasses with you here today. Were you wearing glasses at the time of the incident that you related here?
Mr. BRENNAN. No. I only use glasses to see fine print and more especially the Bible and blueprint.
Mr. BELIN. And have you had your eyes checked within the past 2 or 3 years?
Mr. BRENNAN. These here were prescriptioned, I believe, a possibility less than a year before the incident.
Mr. DULLES. Does that mean you are farsighted?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Has there been anything that has happened since the time of November 22, 1963, that has changed your eyesight in any way?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What has happened?
Mr. BRENNAN. The last of January I got both eyes sandblasted.
Mr. BELIN. This is January of 1964?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. And I had to be treated by a Doctor Black, I believe, in the Medical Arts Building, through the company. And I was completely blind for about 6 hours.
Mr. BELIN. How is your eyesight today?
Mr. BRENNAN. He says it is not good.
Mr. BELIN. But this occurred January of this year, is that correct?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.

Compare this to the WC's treatment of Rowland on the same matter:

Mr. SPECTER - What is the condition of your eyesight?
Mr. ROWLAND - Very good.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you wear glasses at any time?
Mr. ROWLAND - No.
Mr. SPECTER - When, most recently, have you had an eye test, if at all?
Mr. ROWLAND - About 7 months ago.
Mr. SPECTER - And you know the results of that test?
Mr. ROWLAND - Very good vision.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you know what classification the doctor placed on it?
Mr. ROWLAND - No: I don't remember it.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you recollect if it was 2020?
Mr. ROWLAND - He said it was much better than that.
Mr. SPECTER - And what doctor examined your eyes?
Mr. ROWLAND - This was the firm of doctors Finn and Finn.
Mr. SPECTER - F-i-n-n and F-i-n-n?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Where are they located?
Mr. ROWLAND - The Fidelity Union Life Building in Dallas.
Mr. SPECTER - Approximately how long ago was that examination?
Mr. ROWLAND - About 6 months.

[John Iacoletti]

By "challenge", I assume you must mean that he was asked for more detail when he brought some subject up. That's normal, and expected. The only thing particularly challenging about the process is all in your own febrile imagination.  As for Brennan's wife, unless you can show us that she was in Dealey Plaza along with her husband there is no basis for comparison.

What do questions about her husband's grades, or places of employment, or whether she can rely on what he tells her have to do with what she witnessed in Dealey Plaza?

[Jerry Freeman]

You aren't reading too well this morning.

What other witness were so grilled about their vision?

Howard Brennan, at least:

Right... because he wore glasses but Rowland didn't. Perhaps you need glasses.

[Mitch Todd]

Howard Brennan, at least:
Right... because he wore glasses but Rowland didn't. Perhaps you need glasses.

I answered your actual question, "What other witness were so grilled about their vision?" honestly and correctly.

All that's left is for you to try to move the goal posts.

Stay classy there, Freeman.