When the SN was built

[Charles Collins]

The model is no better than the info placed into it. The window opening is a maximum 30 inches when opened. The window starts 14 inches from the floor and the total opening referenced by LHO is 44 inches off of the floor. LHO was a full 25 inches taller than the window opening. Maybe a trip to Dealey Plaza and actually view someone in the widow would help you.

Read all of the testimony instead of just the parts you like.

The model is no better than the info placed into it.

Agreed.



The window opening is a maximum 30 inches when opened.

Yes, approximately. So is mine, I have made it visible for you.



The window starts 14 inches from the floor and the total opening referenced by LHO is 44 inches off of the floor.

Yes, approximately. So does mine.



LHO was a full 25 inches taller than the window opening.

Yes, approximately. However you do not appear to take into account the angle upwards from Arnold Rowland's POV. Here are some images from my 3D model that might clue you in...


Here is a view from Arnold's POV that has the windows made visible.





This image is looking west at the window and the man with the rifle with some lines drawn at an angle to demonstrate the concept.





And this image shows the view back towards Arnold Rowland from the man with the rifle's point of view. Note the height of the windows off the floor, it is about 14". I have drawn a red arrow to the figure at Arnold Rowland's estimated position.





Maybe a trip to Dealey Plaza and actually view someone in the widow would help you.


Maybe a little experimenting with an actual 3D model would help you.

[Jack Nessan]

The model is no better than the info placed into it.

Agreed.



The window opening is a maximum 30 inches when opened.

Yes, approximately. So is mine, I have made it visible for you.



The window starts 14 inches from the floor and the total opening referenced by LHO is 44 inches off of the floor.

Yes, approximately. So does mine.



LHO was a full 25 inches taller than the window opening.

Yes, approximately. However you do not appear to take into account the angle upwards from Arnold Rowland's POV. Here are some images from my 3D model that might clue you in...


Here is a view from Arnold's POV that has the windows made visible.





This image is looking west at the window and the man with the rifle with some lines drawn at an angle to demonstrate the concept.





And this image shows the view back towards Arnold Rowland from the man with the rifle's point of view. Note the height of the windows off the floor, it is about 14". I have drawn a red arrow to the figure at Arnold Rowland's estimated position.





Maybe a trip to Dealey Plaza and actually view someone in the widow would help you.


Maybe a little experimenting with an actual 3D model would help you.

Maybe a little experimenting with an actual 3D model would help you.

I will stay with real life experience of viewing a real person actually standing in the window.

The mistakes in the 3D model views could not be more obvious. Looks more 1 Dimensional.

You really need to read Rowland's varuious descriptions of the imaginary person. These views in no way represent his testimony.

[Charles Collins]

Maybe a little experimenting with an actual 3D model would help you.

I will stay with real life experience of viewing a real person actually standing in the window.

The mistakes in the 3D model views could not be more obvious. Looks more 1 Dimensional.

You really need to read Rowland's varuious descriptions of the imaginary person. These views in no way represent his testimony.

I will stay with real life experience of viewing a real person actually standing in the window.

Building a 3D model is not for everyone. One reason is that most people do not have the patience. However, having confidence in something that you built, and know the details of, is easier than it is when trusting the details to others. And the flexibility to experiment with various views from many different locations is much greater than a visit to Dealey Plaza.


The mistakes in the 3D model views could not be more obvious. Looks more 1 Dimensional.

Are you suggesting a problem with the model? If so, lease explain.


You really need to read Rowland's varuious descriptions of the imaginary person. These views in no way represent his testimony.

I have read his descriptions several times. The 3D model images show the details of Rowland’s basic description of the man with the rifle to be possible.

Even Bugliosi says in note 835 of “Reclaiming History”:

835​ Rowland’s exaggerating and embroidering the story: Are we to conclude, then, that everything Arnold Rowland testified to was untrue? The answer is no. …


You can believe that Arnold Rowland made everything up if you want to. There are many people who do. I am not claiming that Arnold Rowland definitely did see the man with the rifle. But I do believe that it is possible.

[Jack Nessan]

I will stay with real life experience of viewing a real person actually standing in the window.

Building a 3D model is not for everyone. One reason is that most people do not have the patience. However, having confidence in something that you built, and know the details of, is easier than it is when trusting the details to others. And the flexibility to experiment with various views from many different locations is much greater than a visit to Dealey Plaza.


The mistakes in the 3D model views could not be more obvious. Looks more 1 Dimensional.

Are you suggesting a problem with the model? If so, lease explain.


You really need to read Rowland's varuious descriptions of the imaginary person. These views in no way represent his testimony.

I have read his descriptions several times. The 3D model images show the details of Rowland’s basic description of the man with the rifle to be possible.

Even Bugliosi says in note 835 of “Reclaiming History”:

835​ Rowland’s exaggerating and embroidering the story: Are we to conclude, then, that everything Arnold Rowland testified to was untrue? The answer is no. …


You can believe that Arnold Rowland made everything up if you want to. There are many people who do. I am not claiming that Arnold Rowland definitely did see the man with the rifle. But I do believe that it is possible.

Everything that came out of Arnold’s mouth was made up. The actual rifle, description of the man with a rifle, his grades, eyesight, person in SN, on and on. It seems unfathomable to want to pay homage to him with a pseudo 3D model by pretending there are snippets of his testimony that if combined just right makes him look credible.  We have all met someone like Arnold. Unfortunately, Arnold took center stage in the JFK Assassination.

[Charles Collins]

Everything that came out of Arnold’s mouth was made up. The actual rifle, description of the man with a rifle, his grades, eyesight, person in SN, on and on. It seems unfathomable to want to pay homage to him with a pseudo 3D model by pretending there are snippets of his testimony that if combined just right makes him look credible.  We have all met someone like Arnold. Unfortunately, Arnold took center stage in the JFK Assassination.

It is difficult for me to believe that Arnold Rowland made everything up. He got the basic descriptions mostly correct (if he saw LHO). This was before he had any way of knowing these things other than his own eyes. He also said something to his wife before the shots and before he told the police.

Timing? Yes I believe it is possible for LHO to have been on the west end of the sixth floor at that time.

At approximately 12:10 PM today, … It must have been 5 or 10 minutes later …


Position? Partially correct, because he would have had to have been standing back from the window. But only about 5-6 feet back instead of 12-feet. However, from Rowland’s position, this distance could have only been a wild ass guess. And he later revised it to 3’-5’.

upon looking I saw what I thought was a man standing back about 15 feet from the windows



Rifle? I believe he got this right. The position that the rifle was being held in was revised after Rowland had had time to find out what the various military positions really looked like (I had to look them up myself). And his “sort of” in that sentence appears to show that he was unsure on 11/22/63.

… was holding in his arms what appeared to be a hi [sic] powered rifle because it looked like it had a scope on it. He appeared to be holding this at a parade rest sort of position.


Description of the man with the rifle? I believe that if it was LHO, he got the brief, basic description right. I believe that LHO was probably in his t-shirt at the time.

This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light colored shirt on, open at the neck. He appeared to be of slender build and appeared to have dark hair.


So, if you think that Arnold Rowland “made everything up,” then you have to believe that he arbitrarily got all these things right. I think the odds of that being the case are astronomical. Reason enough for me to believe that he might have seen a man with a rifle.

[Alan Ford]

It is difficult for me to believe that Arnold Rowland made everything up. He got the basic descriptions mostly correct (if he saw LHO).

Says it all really...............

 

[Zeon Mason]

Viewing some of Mr.Collins’s computer images inadvertently gave me some insight into a possible answer to one a question: How could Arnold Rowland see a scope like the MC rifle that’s in the Back Yard photo (BYP) appearing to be held by Oswald, from 140 ft away when the scope is barely discernible in the Back Yard photo at distance of only approx 10 ft away?

It seemed to me that because of the way the scope was hardly perceptible in the BYP as close as about 10 ft away, that it would be even far less likely to be seen from 140 ft away as per where Rowland was approximately , from the TSBD , when he caught a brief sighting of the SW window gunman.

But then, as I was amused by Mr. Collins depiction of the SW gunman wearing black suit and tie,  it occurred to me that perhaps if the gunman was wearing a very light shirt that the shape of the rifle and scope would be more distinct due to the contrast of dark rifle held diagonally against a much lighter background.
( ie: a light or white shirt)

My error viewing the BYP was that Oswald was wearing a DARK shirt, which DOES  make the scope difficult to see, and I erroneously made a mistake in reasoning that the scope was therefore probably not likely to have been discernible from a distance of 140 ft.

So Now I have reconsidered that the scope of the MC rifle  COULD  probably have been seen from 140 ft distance, and that Rowland seeing the SHAPE of the whole rifle , noticed the scope, and that he made an approximation in describing the rifle as appearing like a 30.06 hunting rifle.

However, I’m not certain if the contrast of a light Khaki shirt would be as much contrast as a white T-shirt, and since the eye witness Brennan and Euins do not state seeing a white shirt, then there may be some doubt about my newest revelation