The Miracle On Elm Street

[Jack Nessan]

Firstly, Jack...YOU are the Nutter who inspired this thread.
You were posting your idiocy on another one of my threads that was off-topic, so I created this thread to move the subject here where anyone who believed in the Miracle On Elm Street could come and justify their silliness.

And I'm so glad you are ready to debate.
Let's go.
Firstly, just confirm that you believe Rowland invented seeing the man with the scoped, high-powered rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building. I know it's the fourth time I've asked you to answer this most simple yes/no question but you seem to lack the courage to just come out and state it plainly (and I don't really blame you).

And I'm so glad you are up for a debate.
You can kick this debate off with any piece of evidence or argument you would like.
Ask any question and I will endeavour to answer it as fully as I can.
But don't forget to answer the yes/no question.

What was the post? What was the thread? Why are you so vague about this?

[Jarrett Smith]

Do you believe Arnold Rowland saw the man with the rifle at the west end of the 6th floor?

What about the person looking out the window after the shooting on the Dillard photo?

[Dan O'meara]

What was the post? What was the thread? Why are you so vague about this?

"The First Shot" thread.
Reply #2017 (with follow up posts - Reply #2021, #2025)

Is that precise enough for you?
Now, FOR THE FIFTH TIME - do you believe Rowland invented seeing the man on the 6th floor? Yes or No.

Are you now ready for a debate?
What part of this issue would you like to kick off with?
Stop wasting time and let's go!

[Jack Nessan]

"The First Shot" thread.
Reply #2017 (with follow up posts - Reply #2021, #2025)

Is that precise enough for you?
Now, FOR THE FIFTH TIME - do you believe Rowland invented seeing the man on the 6th floor? Yes or No.

Are you now ready for a debate?
What part of this issue would you like to kick off with?
Stop wasting time and let's go!

What part of this issue would you like to kick off with?

 Go---Start Debating, use reply 2025 to start.

Good summary by Zeon.

Zeon Mason:

Reply 2025

Ok, thanks for posting that WC testimony of Rowland wife. It’s only the part of him telling her about sighting a man with gun at the SE window that she confirms. The black elderly male in the SW window is an after the fact detail which maybe an “embellishment”.

Therefore there’s more wiggle room here that BRW was never in the SN but that he was where he said he was siting on the cart a couple windows down from the box wall. Why chicken bones were found on top the boxes IDK but it’s not that relevant anymore as now there is time from 11:45 till 11:49 that the TSBD shooter had time to stack boxes and adjust the window.

Can we reasonably also discard Rowlands sighting of a man with rifle in hand at the SW window before the fact? If so then there is no problem with Oswald being sighted at by Carolyn Arnold from 12:15-12:17 as he had already prepared the SN from 11:45 till about 12:00 when he went down to the 1st floor and seen by Eddie Piper then.

[Dan O'meara]

What part of this issue would you like to kick off with?

 Go---Start Debating, use reply 2025 to start.

Good summary by Zeon.

Zeon Mason:

Reply 2025

Ok, thanks for posting that WC testimony of Rowland wife. It’s only the part of him telling her about sighting a man with gun at the SE window that she confirms. The black elderly male in the SW window is an after the fact detail which maybe an “embellishment”.

Therefore there’s more wiggle room here that BRW was never in the SN but that he was where he said he was siting on the cart a couple windows down from the box wall. Why chicken bones were found on top the boxes IDK but it’s not that relevant anymore as now there is time from 11:45 till 11:49 that the TSBD shooter had time to stack boxes and adjust the window.

Can we reasonably also discard Rowlands sighting of a man with rifle in hand at the SW window before the fact? If so then there is no problem with Oswald being sighted at by Carolyn Arnold from 12:15-12:17 as he had already prepared the SN from 11:45 till about 12:00 when he went down to the 1st floor and seen by Eddie Piper then.

1] We'll start the debate when you have made your position clear. FOR THE SIXTH TIME - do you believe Rowland invented the man with the rifle on the 6th floor?
I literally have no idea why you won't answer this Yes/No question.
It's really baffling.
Just answer the question.

2] I have no idea why you want to start the debate with Zeon's speculation. I don't understand the point you want to debate. What is the specific point you want to open up with?

These are two unbelievably simple things to clarify. It couldn't be any simpler.
Yet I have a serious doubt you will be able to accomplish either.
I can't start the debate if I don't understand the point you want to debate.

[Dan O'meara]

I'm going to crack on with this supposed debate with Jack and assume he's going to join in at some point.
Firstly I'm going to assume that Jack does, indeed, believe that Arnold Rowland invented the man on the 6th floor. I've asked him for a Yes/No on this issue at least six times and he has been typically evasive about this most basic question. I don't know why and I'm not sure I care but let's assume his evasiveness is to hide the fact he believes something so fundamentally ridiculous as the Miracle on Elm Street.
Secondly, I'm going to choose the most coherent thing I can find that he has posted on this subject which, with Jack, is no easy task. I'm going to pick what I believe is a valid point that needs explanation. Unfortunately most of Jack's 'evidence' is just his wobbly opinion of things but here goes.

This is from REPLY#2021, "The First Shot" thread.
Jack doesn't seem to believe that Rowland could have seen the man with the rifle through the open set of windows in the way he describes in his testimony (I think):



The window is 29 inches tall and it starts 14 inches off the floor. He doesn’t know that because they finally ask him if he had ever been inside the TSBD. No
But his description of the person in no way reflects the correct window dimensions.

Mr. SPECTER - And how much, if any, of his body was obscured by the window frame from that point down to the floor?
Mr. ROWLAND - From where I was standing I could see from his head to about 6 inches below his waist, below his belt.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you see as far as his knees?
Mr. ROWLAND - No.
Mr. SPECTER - And what is your best recollection as to how close to the window he was standing?
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.
Mr. SPECTER - How much of the rifle was separated from your line of vision by the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - The entire rifle was in my view.

But he is not done yet. He is unstoppable with his description of what is impossible to see through a 29 inch window. Specter realizes he is making it all up as he talks.

Mr. SPECTER - And how much of his body, if any, was in the open view where there was no window between your eyes and the object of his body?
Mr. ROWLAND - Approximately two-thirds of his body just below his waist.
Mr. SPECTER - Up to what point?
Mr. ROWLAND - Mid point between the waist and the knees, this is again in my proportion to his height that I make that judgment.
Mr. SPECTER - So from the waist, some point between his knees and his waist, you started to see hi clear in the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And from that point how far up his body were you able to see without any obstruction of a window between you and him?
Mr. ROWLAND - To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.




Clearly Jack does not believe Rowland could see as much of the man with the rifle as he said he could, because the gap of 29 inches was not big enough. He describes it as "impossible". I hope this is a fair summary of Jack's position and I'm sure he'll correct me if it's not.
As far as I'm concerned, the only way to accurately test this claim is through computer graphics. It would require an accurate model of Dealey Plaza and the TSBD building, with the ability to have a POV from Rowland's known position.
And this is exactly what Charles Collins did in "The Floor-Laying Crew" thread (Reply#138)



Okay, here's what ~4.5' looks like in my 3D model. BRW sitting on the cart is the camera position and is represented by the virtual visitor icon. I don't think it is quite that far, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, the stack of boxes is approximately 4.5' from the inside of the south wall. I have made one box invisible so that part of the rifleman character can be seen behind the boxes from BRW's position. The rifleman character is about 5' from the inside of the south wall, within the revised range that Rowland estimated.





Here is the view from Arnold Rowland's position. It fits reasonably well with his description.







Charles was actually trying to ascertain what BRW would have seen from his stated position on the trolley at the end of the third aisle while having his lunch. He established that boxes down by the east end of the 6th floor would have obscured the man with the rifle from the view of anyone sat on the trolley, if the man was stood about 5 feet from the southwest window.
He also showed what someone stood at Arnold Rowland's position would have seen through the fully open southwest window.
IT IS A PERFECT MATCH FOR WHAT ARNOLD ROWLAND DESCRIBED.
Could there be clearer confirmation of the accuracy of Rowland's testimony on this matter?

[Jack Nessan]

I'm going to crack on with this supposed debate with Jack and assume he's going to join in at some point.
Firstly I'm going to assume that Jack does, indeed, believe that Arnold Rowland invented the man on the 6th floor. I've asked him for a Yes/No on this issue at least six times and he has been typically evasive about this most basic question. I don't know why and I'm not sure I care but let's assume his evasiveness is to hide the fact he believes something so fundamentally ridiculous as the Miracle on Elm Street.
Secondly, I'm going to choose the most coherent thing I can find that he has posted on this subject which, with Jack, is no easy task. I'm going to pick what I believe is a valid point that needs explanation. Unfortunately most of Jack's 'evidence' is just his wobbly opinion of things but here goes.

This is from REPLY#2021, "The First Shot" thread.
Jack doesn't seem to believe that Rowland could have seen the man with the rifle through the open set of windows in the way he describes in his testimony (I think):



The window is 29 inches tall and it starts 14 inches off the floor. He doesn’t know that because they finally ask him if he had ever been inside the TSBD. No
But his description of the person in no way reflects the correct window dimensions.

Mr. SPECTER - And how much, if any, of his body was obscured by the window frame from that point down to the floor?
Mr. ROWLAND - From where I was standing I could see from his head to about 6 inches below his waist, below his belt.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you see as far as his knees?
Mr. ROWLAND - No.
Mr. SPECTER - And what is your best recollection as to how close to the window he was standing?
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.
Mr. SPECTER - How much of the rifle was separated from your line of vision by the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - The entire rifle was in my view.

But he is not done yet. He is unstoppable with his description of what is impossible to see through a 29 inch window. Specter realizes he is making it all up as he talks.

Mr. SPECTER - And how much of his body, if any, was in the open view where there was no window between your eyes and the object of his body?
Mr. ROWLAND - Approximately two-thirds of his body just below his waist.
Mr. SPECTER - Up to what point?
Mr. ROWLAND - Mid point between the waist and the knees, this is again in my proportion to his height that I make that judgment.
Mr. SPECTER - So from the waist, some point between his knees and his waist, you started to see hi clear in the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And from that point how far up his body were you able to see without any obstruction of a window between you and him?
Mr. ROWLAND - To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.




Clearly Jack does not believe Rowland could see as much of the man with the rifle as he said he could, because the gap of 29 inches was not big enough. He describes it as "impossible". I hope this is a fair summary of Jack's position and I'm sure he'll correct me if it's not.
As far as I'm concerned, the only way to accurately test this claim is through computer graphics. It would require an accurate model of Dealey Plaza and the TSBD building, with the ability to have a POV from Rowland's known position.
And this is exactly what Charles Collins did in "The Floor-Laying Crew" thread (Reply#138)



Okay, here's what ~4.5' looks like in my 3D model. BRW sitting on the cart is the camera position and is represented by the virtual visitor icon. I don't think it is quite that far, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, the stack of boxes is approximately 4.5' from the inside of the south wall. I have made one box invisible so that part of the rifleman character can be seen behind the boxes from BRW's position. The rifleman character is about 5' from the inside of the south wall, within the revised range that Rowland estimated.





Here is the view from Arnold Rowland's position. It fits reasonably well with his description.







Charles was actually trying to ascertain what BRW would have seen from his stated position on the trolley at the end of the third aisle while having his lunch. He established that boxes down by the east end of the 6th floor would have obscured the man with the rifle from the view of anyone sat on the trolley, if the man was stood about 5 feet from the southwest window.
He also showed what someone stood at Arnold Rowland's position would have seen through the fully open southwest window.
IT IS A PERFECT MATCH FOR WHAT ARNOLD ROWLAND DESCRIBED.
Could there be clearer confirmation of the accuracy of Rowland's testimony on this matter?

IT IS A PERFECT MATCH FOR WHAT ARNOLD ROWLAND DESCRIBED.

Could there be clearer confirmation of the accuracy of Rowland's testimony on this matter?

First No to the match

Second,

It is not confirmation at all. He got the program wrong and additionally failed to apply all of Rowland's description.

------------------

Maybe this subject is too complex and lengthy for you to understand.

There was never any doubt this misguided program of Charles is where you were headed with this whole thread the whole time and here you are with it.

You do not need a computer program to understand what Specter understood just standing in front of Rowland and asking him questions. Simple math skills would work. I would think you would want to shy away from any subject where Specter is involved because it is obvious how much smarter he is than you. When you see his name, you should just move onto your next bizarre theory.

Charles was told his computer program was wrong when he did it the first time. Now here you with it and you are stumbling around with your usual lack of knowledge.

Where is your analysis? You posted Arnold’s replies to Mr. Specter. You can’t read? You cannot explain how it fits the window frame? It appears you are hiding in the weeds while you are throwing Charles under the bus.

--------------------

Maybe we should establish how big a goof you really are. Here is an example of your research and opinion.

 Here is the culmination of one of your other debates on the thread called “Palmprint.” You were making a misinformed point about the palmprint on the wrong carcano rifle.



Dan O’Meara

"Here's another little mystery i came across while going through Day's WC testimony.
Maybe you could help me out with it Jack, you're unique outlook might come in useful.
Day is testifying about when he first discovered the magical palmprint:"

"I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose...On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off."

Now, my interpretation of this is that Day saw traces of the palmprint sticking out from under the wooden stock. When he takes the wood off he sees the palmprint on the underside of the barrel. In the pic below I've put a red arrow to point out where Day is referring to when he says the print "extended under the woodstock" and was on "the bottom side of the barrel".

 

What do you reckon Jack?
Is this a fair interpretation of what Day testified to?

J Nessan: “You have posted the wrong Carcano rifle. That looks like the M91 TS and has a shorter barrel. You want the 91/38 rifle. I would think the WC located it exactly where it was found on the barrel. Can you make your point anyway with the wrong rifle?”

This was the end of the thread as you tucked tail and ran for the hills.

--------------
The Styles-- Adams story is just as bizarre. No concept at all those other people were there. Once again then you tucked tail and ran.

-----------------
Now here you are again with an opinion that is equally as lame, on a subject you have demonstrated you have no skill in interpreting what was asked by Specter or stated by Rowland.

It is apparent what is wrong with Charles's computer program. With even just a little math and the basic knowledge of the 6th floor, I thought even the stupidest of people could see it, but apparently you want to prove I was wrong about the lengths stupid people will go.

I will not break it down for you. Either figure it out for yourself or remain ignorant, or both.