Nutters invent way more conspirators than CTs ever do.
In other words, nobody said they saw Oswald shooting from the 6th floor window, therefore Oswald must have done it.
Are you sure, you keep alluding to each piece of evidence as being forged, planted, invented or intentionally incorrectly analysed, eyewitnesses as being incompetent, FBI being crooked, Dallas Police as being liars, Doctors lying, fake photographs and seriously your list never ends, so why the need to go way over the top and place your eggs in every basket because it just reeks of desperation.
JohnM
In Dealey Plaza there was an Umbrella Man, Dark Complected Man, guys on walkie talkies, fake SS, Crooked cops, a triangulation of snipers with lookouts, guys planting evidence, guys hiding evidence, guys swapping Mausers for Carcano's and a cast of many others so why the heck didn't these Conspirators place the most important popularly accepted evidence of all, EYEWITNESSES?
EYEWITNESSES who saw Oswald in the 6th floor window, wouldn't that be Patsy Setup 101?
JohnM
Are you sure, you keep alluding to each piece of evidence as being forged, planted, invented or intentionally incorrectly analysed, eyewitnesses as being incompetent, FBI being crooked, Dallas Police as being liars, Doctors lying, fake photographs and seriously your list never ends, so why the need to go way over the top and place your eggs in every basket because it just reeks of desperation.
JohnM
In other words, nobody said they saw Oswald shooting from the 6th floor window, therefore Oswald must have done it.
LOL
'in other words'
There you go again
Are you sure, you keep alluding to each piece of evidence as being forged, planted, invented or intentionally incorrectly analysed, eyewitnesses as being incompetent, FBI being crooked, Dallas Police as being liars, Doctors lying, fake photographs and seriously your list never ends, so why the need to go way over the top and place your eggs in every basket because it just reeks of desperation.
Brennan's same day affidavit description of a slender white man of about average height who appeared about 30 years old doesn't rule out Oswald
and out of the people we know who were in the building at the time, the sample size wasn't exactly huge
and let's not forget that Brennan did identify one or more of the black men in the windows directly below as they walked out of the building.
Here's another one. Since the conspirators were able to fake the BY photos and alter the Zapruder film, why not just fake some photographic evidence of Saint Patsy in the 6th floor window ?
I'm sure there really was a wedding ring in a cup. I'm just wondering how that is evidence of murder.
Somebody did.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WmvixjLcuBs/VF7WXTZEhdI/AAAAAAABBDg/r3mlUpTCN4Q/s1600/Dillard-Picture.png)
The answer is obvious. If you imply the evidence is suspect or fake over and over, but refuse to acknowledge that you are alleging a conspiracy (which by implication must be the case to explain the fakery),
For example, he implied that you had posted fake info regarding who had posted on a recent thread even though he himself had participated on that thread and knew he was lying.
LOL
'in other words'
There you go again
Nobody thinks that putting his ring in the cup is 100% evidence of killing somebody.
The point made is simply that it?s adnormal behaviour for somebody who?s just going to work and has no history of having done so previously.
It?s all about context. It wouldn?t stand up in a courtroom, but the courtroom rarely stands up to reality.
And you have evidence of that being fake?
Bugliosi did. He said that each one of his fabulous 53 was evidence that pointed toward's Oswald's guilt.
Bugliosi did. He said that each one of his fabulous 53 was evidence that pointed toward's Oswald's guilt.
So what is it doing of a list of evidence? Just to make the list longer?
Exactly. Which is why courtroom lawyers shouldn't try to do science.
On their own... or in combo, Johnny Piecemeal?
Meantime, after 55 years you and your CT#FailArmy buddies have no one at all to point to...
The ring thing is more retrospectively probative.
Pretty much.
It?s why the entire criminal justice system needs reformed.
At a minimum, Marina, gun dealers, individual members of the FBI, post office, and DPD, would all have to be convinced to lie about this evidence.
The new "standard": DNA, HD media of "alleged" criminal act and time-travel.
It?s why the entire criminal justice system needs reformed.
The new "standard": DNA, HD media of "alleged" criminal act and time-travel.
(http://rs787.pbsrc.com/albums/yy151/msj1997tx/Skype%20Emoticons/emoticon-0118-yawn.gif~c200)
"I'm automatically right until somebody proves me wrong".
I think you mean your strawman list never ends. Unless, you can actually cite me "alluding to each piece of evidence as being forged, planted, invented or intentionally incorrectly analysed, eyewitnesses as being incompetent, FBI being crooked, Dallas Police as being liars, Doctors lying, fake photographs".
Not holding my breath.
I'm sure there really was a wedding ring in a cup. I'm just wondering how that is evidence of murder.
The new "standard": DNA, HD media of "alleged" criminal act and time-travel.
My comment was more general. The criminal justice system permits illiterate jurors to deliberate on the basics to complicated forensic matters. It privileges fallacious arguments over scientific reasoning. Judges themselves make decisions more on how much energy they have?the biggest predictor of a parole decision was how close a hearing is to lunchtime. It puts import on witnesses despite their flaws. The punishment thing never works and serves only to activate the neural reward system of the punishers. It?s persistent belief in free will.
There?s barely a positive to list.
My comment was more general. The criminal justice system permits illiterate jurors to deliberate on the basics to complicated forensic matters. It privileges fallacious arguments over scientific reasoning. Judges themselves make decisions more on how much energy they have?the biggest predictor of a parole decision was how close a hearing is to lunchtime. It puts import on witnesses despite their flaws. The punishment thing never works and serves only to activate the neural reward system of the punishers. It?s persistent belief in free will.Give me an f'n break.
There?s barely a positive to list.
"It privileges fallacious arguments over scientific reasoning."
One can argue DNA away? Well, I suppose the chain-of-custody, potential forcontamination and bias of the lab facility and workers could be up for debate.
But generally, DNA is something that prevails and that juries understand.
Your alternative legal system would effectively do away with circumstantial evidence, sideline witness accounts, and ultimately empty the jails.
Give me an f'n break.
The mark of an intellectual Titan everybody ^http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=BdeBSHKmdFI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=BdeBSHKmdFI
::)
There you go again with your 'IOW' sermon
I don't ask anyone to prove me wrong. I have the same 'ask' as I put on myself: Name the shooter you think most likely to have assassinated Kennedy.
It's a clue to Oswald's state of mind, innocent or not. But pretty sure Dirty Harvey didn't exactly live his life in PleasantVille USA, as you characters attempt to portray.
My comment was more general. The criminal justice system permits illiterate jurors to deliberate on the basics to complicated forensic matters. It privileges fallacious arguments over scientific reasoning.
Why would it necessarily take more than one person to fabricate evidence?
I think you are really so delusional that you can't tell the difference between your assumptions about what people do/think/say and what they actually do/think/say. You're not a mindreader, so stop pretending that you are.
Like you telling us what Brennan saw or didn't see. And telling us he lied about being in fear for his family.
Hypocrite
Like you telling us what Brennan saw or didn't see. And telling us he lied about being in fear for his family.
Hypocrite
And you have evidence of that being fake?
Like you telling us that Frazier lied about the size of the bag to cover his ass about being an accomplice.
Hypocrite
You know Bill, everyone and I mean everyone in Dealey Plaza was a potential suspect except the guy who actually owned the murder weapon, which incidentally was recovered with Oswald's prints and matching shirt fibers.
JohnM
In other words, nobody said they saw Oswald shooting from the 6th floor window, therefore Oswald must have done it.No shot ever got fired from the 6th floor, but the head shot passed through the 6th floor window, having been fired from the Dal Tex. Just saying
No shot ever got fired from the 6th floor, but the head shot passed through the 6th floor window, having been fired from the Dal Tex. Just saying
Howard Brennan is the equivalent to Helen Markham - a competent defense attorney would of had both of them thrown out.
I agree - no defense attorney in 63/64 would of had the knowledge that we do today about the evidence and it's handling.
Lee would of fried on the electric chair - no question about it.
Hahahahahaha!
Bugliosi is the very definition of competent and he would have used both Markham and Brennan and them bashed them repeatedly over your Defence Attorney's head.
11. After the first and second shots rang out in Dealey Plaza, a motorcade witness, Howard Brennan, sitting on a short concrete wall directly across the street from the sixth-floor window, looked up and actually saw Oswald in the window holding his rifle. Only 120 feet away from Oswald, he got a very good look as he watched, in horror, Oswald (whom he had seen in the window earlier, before the motorcade had arrived) take deliberate aim and fire the final shot from his rifle.29 At the police lineup that evening, Brennan picked Oswald out, saying, ?He looks like him, but I cannot positively say,? giving the police the reason that he had since seen Oswald on television and that could have ?messed me up.?30 However, Brennan signed an affidavit at the Dallas sheriff?s office within an hour after the shooting and before the lineup saying, ?I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again.?31 On December 18, 1963, Brennan told the FBI he was ?sure? that Oswald was the man he had seen in the window.32 And he later told the Warren Commission that in reality at the lineup, ?with all fairness, I could have positively identified the man? but did not do so out of fear. ?If it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I?might not be safe.?33 Although Brennan did not positively identify Oswald at the lineup, he did say, as we?ve seen, that Oswald looked like the man. And we know Brennan is legitimate since the description of the man in the window that he gave to the authorities right after the shooting?a slender, white male about thirty years old, five feet ten inches?matches Oswald fairly closely, and had to have been the basis for the description of the man sent out over police radio just fifteen minutes after the shooting.34
RHVB
One of the canards of the conspiracy theorists that they?ve sold to millions is that there was only one eyewitness to Oswald killing Officer Tippit, Helen Markham, and she wasn?t a strong one. But in addition to Jack Tatum also being an eyewitness to the killing, for all intents and purposes there were eight other eyewitnesses. For instance, with the Davis women, can anyone make the argument that although someone else shot Tippit, it was Oswald who was seen running from the Tippit murder scene with a revolver in his hand unloading shells? And when Scoggins saw Oswald approach Tippit?s car and then lost sight of him for a moment, Tippit?s true killer appeared out of nowhere, shot and killed Tippit, then vanished into thin air, whereupon Scoggins then saw Oswald again, running away from Tippit?s car with a pistol in his hand?
So there were ten witnesses who identified Oswald as the murderer. And we know that the physical evidence was all corroborative of their testimony
RHVB
JohnM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WmvixjLcuBs/VF7WXTZEhdI/AAAAAAABBDg/r3mlUpTCN4Q/s1600/Dillard-Picture.png)The 7ft 3inch Oswald. Haven't seen that one in a while. He was supposed to be halfway down the staircases by then wasn't he?
And you have evidence of that being fake?
Hahahahahaha!
Bugliosi is the very definition of competent and he would have used both Markham and Brennan and them bashed them repeatedly over your Defence Attorney's head.
11. After the first and second shots rang out in Dealey Plaza, a motorcade witness, Howard Brennan, sitting on a short concrete wall directly across the street from the sixth-floor window, looked up and actually saw Oswald in the window holding his rifle. Only 120 feet away from Oswald, he got a very good look as he watched, in horror, Oswald (whom he had seen in the window earlier, before the motorcade had arrived) take deliberate aim and fire the final shot from his rifle.29 At the police lineup that evening, Brennan picked Oswald out, saying, ?He looks like him, but I cannot positively say,? giving the police the reason that he had since seen Oswald on television and that could have ?messed me up.?30 However, Brennan signed an affidavit at the Dallas sheriff?s office within an hour after the shooting and before the lineup saying, ?I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again.?31 On December 18, 1963, Brennan told the FBI he was ?sure? that Oswald was the man he had seen in the window.32 And he later told the Warren Commission that in reality at the lineup, ?with all fairness, I could have positively identified the man? but did not do so out of fear. ?If it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I?might not be safe.?33 Although Brennan did not positively identify Oswald at the lineup, he did say, as we?ve seen, that Oswald looked like the man. And we know Brennan is legitimate since the description of the man in the window that he gave to the authorities right after the shooting?a slender, white male about thirty years old, five feet ten inches?matches Oswald fairly closely, and had to have been the basis for the description of the man sent out over police radio just fifteen minutes after the shooting.34
RHVB
Vincent had the much easier role - his "script" was already prepared for him from the WR.
He did not deviate from script.
Spence failed to do his homework and cast doubt in the minds of the jurors.
The outcome meant that everyone could sleep easy again.
Another silly "the Conspirators didn't control every little detail that day therefore there couldn't have been a Conspiracy" topic
Again I'll say, if every Conspiracy was perfectly plotted and executed, no Conspiracy in the history of mankind would ever get exposed.
Maybe there was a Conspiracy to kill JFk. Maybe there wasn't.
But we know for a fact today that there was a Coverup. Even many LN'ers have come around to acknowledging that there were multiple Coverups in the Kennedy assassination investigations.
People who participate in Coverups aren't always involved in the Crime (ie Nixon). They usually make themselves Accessories After The Fact because they are trying to avoid Professional embarrassment or being held accountable in some way...
Jack Dougherty.
Mr. BALL - Did you see Oswald come to work that morning?------------------------------------- http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/doughert.htm
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---when he first come into the door.
Mr. BALL - When he came in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.
Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of.
Mr. BALL - About what time of day was that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That was 8 o'clock.
Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?In real court this is called 'asked and answered'. It is also called 'badgering the witness'.
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - He was alone?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.
Mr. BALL - You saw him come in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - The back door on the first floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - It was in the back door.
In addition, there was one organisation that wasnt seriously investigated back in 64 - the CIA.
To have Dulles (fired by JFK over the BOP fiasco) on the WC was a master stroke by LBJ. The CIA was now teflon coated.
There were many who gladly would of acted to take JFK out by assassination. Dallas was not the first attempt either.
President Lyndon Baines Johnson appointed Dulles as one of seven commissioners of the Warren Commission to investigate the assassination of the U.S. President John F. Kennedy.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Dulles
Wasn't fired. He resigned with honors.He 'resigned' the day after the medal was given him.
Dismissal...During the Kennedy Administration, Dulles faced increasing criticism.[2] In autumn 1961, following the Bay of Pigs incident and Algiers putsch against Charles de Gaulle, Dulles and his entourage, including Deputy Director for Plans Richard M. Bissell Jr. and Deputy Director Charles Cabell, were forced to resign. On November 28, 1961, Kennedy presented Dulles with the National Security Medal at the CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia.[29] The next day, November 29, the White House released a resignation letter signed by Dulles.[30]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Dulles
No LNer has ever contented there have never been conspiracies. In his book, Bugliosi acknowledges same along with his personal belief there was a conspiracy in the RFK assassination.
I think most LNers would agree with the 1993 Newsweek article "The Real Cover-Up". It found the cover-ups were largely to protect reputations, as with the Hosty note and RFK asking that the President's Addison's disease not be revealed. Curry charged the FBI failed to keep the DPD "advised regarding the background and whereabouts of Oswald" which in turn meant Hoover had to save face.
Sounds like RFK. I believe he also cleared out the President's papers in the White House as soon as he could.
Allan Dulles had a wrap sheet bigger than the WR.
IN 1953
"Dulles reported that the Soviets were engaging in sick science, seeking to control human consciousness by ?washing the brain clean of the thoughts and mental processes of the past? and creating automatons of the state who would speak and act against their own will. Dulles?s speech, which he made sure received wide media distribution, marked an ominous new phase in the Cold War, a militarization of science and psychology aimed not simply at changing popular opinion but at reengineering the human brain. What Dulles did not tell his audience in Hot Springs was that several days earlier, he had authorized a CIA mind control program code-named MKULTRA that would dwarf any similar efforts behind the Iron Curtain. In fact, at the same time that he was condemning Soviet ?brainwashing,? Dulles knew that U.S. military and intelligence agencies had been working for several years on their own brain warfare programs. This secret experimentation would balloon under the CIA?s MKULTRA program. Launched by Dulles with a $ 300,000 budget, this ?Manhattan Project of the Mind? would grow into a multimillion-dollar program, operating for a quarter of a century, and enlisting dozens of leading universities and hospitals as well as hundreds of prominent researchers in studies that often violated ethical standards and treated their human subjects as ?expendables.?
Good point. RFK chose secrecy over finding the truth about his Brother?s murder.
One of the reasons I?m not sure if Robert would?ve reopened the JFK investigation if he had won the election. However, according to close friends and family, he did suspect that Oswald didn?t act alone.
The key to understanding the JFK assassination comes from "reading" the witness testimony given to the Warren Commission by people that were there that day. For instance.
About 15 minutes before the Presidential motorcade came by the was a man named Arnold Rowland who saw a man in a white low cut t shirt holding a rifle with a scope on it standing in the sixth floor window among the stacked up boxes. He was wearing blue pants. The day Oswald was arrested he had a white low cut t shirt and blue pants.
Right before the motorcade came by two women Carol Walters and miss Walton testified that they saw a man in a white low cut t shirt on the third floor holding a rifle with no scope on it.
So if you 'add' these three testimonies together It shows that Oswald planted the M Carcano on the sixth floor and came down to the third floor and shot JFK with a different rifle.
Nobody thinks that putting his ring in the cup is 100% evidence of killing somebody.
The point made is simply that it?s adnormal behaviour for somebody who?s just going to work and has no history of having done so previously. It?s all about context. It wouldn?t stand up in a courtroom, but the courtroom rarely stands up to reality.
Do you trust Howard Brennan's testimony? What about Helen Markham?
Arnold Rowland spoke with Officer Craig ~10 minutes post assassination and mentioned that he saw TWO people on the 6th floor. Did Arnold fabricate that statement months before he appeared in front of the WC?
"He interviewed other witnesses, including a young man who said he had seen two men on the 6th floor of the TSBD and one of them had a rifle. Belin suggests this witness may have been Arnold Rowland. (WCHE, v. 6, p. 263)"
Do you know how the WC could have easily verified if Rowland was telling the truth on seeing a tall, thin African-American male in the SE corner at 12.15 pm?
You took LSD by choice, you weren't subjected to "experimentation" designed to take over your freewill.I agree with everything you said Tony. MK stood for mind control, but instead of labelling it MC, they used the German words for it which I have forgotten. The reason I used the example of Washington was that I felt there was a more intense effort here than in other locations. If LSD is used in the correct way, it is fantastic. But if used in the wrong way, it can be very harmful. We all had to learn by trial and error back then. Dulles was fired, because JFK recognized, like you and I, the monster and traitor he was.
What the CIA did was no different to the inhumane experiments done by the Nazis.
Dulles had a long association with them during WWII.
"Later, when Allen Dulles served as the United States? top spy in continental Europe during World War II, he blatantly ignored Roosevelt?s policy of unconditional surrender and pursued his own strategy of secret negotiations with Nazi leaders."
"At Camp King, CIA scientists and their German colleagues subjected victims to dangerous combinations of drugs?including Benzedrine, Pentothal-Natrium, LSD, and mescaline?under a research protocol that stipulated, ?Disposal of the body is not a problem.? More than sixteen hundred of the Nazi scientists recruited for U.S. research projects like this would be comfortably resettled with their families in America under a CIA program known as Operation Paperclip."
Do you really think Dulles really "retired" when he resigned?
Why don't you have a go Nicholas?
Do you know who was up on the 6th floor after 12 noon who just happen to be a tall, thin African-American male TSBD employee?
Do you think Rowland saw Williams, who can be described as African-American, male, tall and slim, in the SE corner of the 6th floor at 12.15 pm?
Williams was on the 6th floor and then went to the 5th floor after 12.25 pm. He went to the fifth floor because he heard Norman and Jarman below him. We know that both men didn't arrive until ~12.25 pm. It meant that Williams was on the same open floor
| (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49660/m1/1/small_res/) | (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49658/m1/1/small_res/) | (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49658/m1/1/small_res/) |
as an armed gunman for 10 minutes.
No one is able to ascertain someone's age from where Rowland was standing on Houston street. However he got the gender, ethnicity and body type spot on. We know Williams was on the 6th floor after 12 noon eating his chicken lunch. We know that, prior to it being moved, there was a lunch sack and chicken piece on a box in the so called SN.
Who do you think left them there?
I don't play games either
and Rowland's observation had nothing to do with a conspiracy.
Williams was on the 6th floor and then went to the 5th floor after 12.25 pm. He went to the fifth floor because he heard Norman and Jarman below him. We know that both men didn't arrive until ~12.25 pm. It meant that Williams was on the same open floor as an armed gunman for 10 minutes.
No one is able to ascertain someone's age from where Rowland was standing on Houston street. However he got the gender, ethnicity and body type spot on. We know Williams was on the 6th floor after 12 noon eating his chicken lunch. We know that, prior to it being moved, there was a lunch sack and chicken piece on a box in the so called SN.
Who do you think left them there?
I don't play games either and Rowland's observation had nothing to do with a conspiracy.
Williams was on the 6th floor and then went to the 5th floor after 12.25 pm. He went to the fifth floor because he heard Norman and Jarman below him. We know that both men didn't arrive until ~12.25 pm. It meant that Williams was on the same open floor as an armed gunman for 10 minutes.
No one is able to ascertain someone's age from where Rowland was standing on Houston street. However he got the gender, ethnicity and body type spot on. We know Williams was on the 6th floor after 12 noon eating his chicken lunch. We know that, prior to it being moved, there was a lunch sack and chicken piece on a box in the so called SN.
Who do you think left them there?
I don't play games either and Rowland's observation had nothing to do with a conspiracy.
We know Williams was on the 6th floor after 12 noon eating his chicken lunch. We know that, prior to it being moved, there was a lunch sack and chicken piece on a box in the so called SN.The whole chicken dinner story just might have been a fluke.
Who do you think left them there?
Alyea watched an officer touch a paper sack with his foot, causing two chicken bones and an empty Dr Pepper bottle to roll out. Could it have been the real assassin's lunch?https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/jfk-assassination-cameraman-followed-police-as-they-searched-for-sniper/article_9679af95-d45f-502b-b094-2a09bc29c16f.html?mode=jqm
Alyea has long insisted that, contrary to officials reports, the chicken bones were found on the fifth floor, not the sixth.
Either way, the sack obviously had been there for days, with the bones completely dried out, Alyea said.
"They had absolutely nothing to do with anything," he said. "I took a close up, just in case they turned out to be important, but they weren't."
More significant to him, detectives moved boxes around while searching the building, even disturbing the sniper's nest itself, Alyea said.
You know Bill, everyone and I mean everyone in Dealey Plaza was a potential suspect except the guy who actually owned the murder weapon,
which incidentally was recovered with Oswald's prints
and matching shirt fibers.
I don't 'trust' any individual, uncorroborated eye witness account to be totally accurate. The account given by Brennan of a gunman on ye sixth floor was one of a number of such accounts where the main details agreed.
No question about that.
However, at its fundamental core, he saw TWO males on the 6th floor - a white armed male in the SW corner (at 12.15 pm) and an unarmed African-American male in the SE corner (at 12.15 pm but gone by 12.25 pm).
He reported this (seeing two people) to a Detective, 10 minutes post assassination.
He told the FBI this but they were interested in ID ing the white male with the rifle.
Do you believe that it was necessary for Arnold to tell Barbara, or anyone else in Dealey plaza, that he saw an unarmed African-American male who was also waiting to see the oncoming Presidential parade?
He also saw many other spectators looking out the windows from the TSBD. There was nothing "special" or "different" about seeing the African-American male.
However he thought the white male gunman was part of the security detail. Seeing a person with a high powered rifle overlooking the parade route would definitely draw attention enough to comment on, but seeing an unarmed spectator would not have.
If Arnold was fabricating his recollections, it would have been on seeing an armed gunman, not on seeing an unarmed African-American male looking out of a window.
He was the only person who briefly saw an armed white gunman in the SW corner on the 6th floor.
Barbara did not see him.
Hence there was no visual corroboration for Arnold's observation so why did the WC partially believe his testimony? They should have rejected his testimony completely.
Do you believe that it was necessary for Arnold to tell Barbara, or anyone else in Dealey plaza, that he saw an unarmed African-American male who was also waiting to see the oncoming Presidential parade?
He also saw many other spectators looking out the windows from the TSBD. There was nothing "special" or "different" about seeing the African-American male.
However he thought the white male gunman was part of the security detail. Seeing a person with a high powered rifle overlooking the parade route would definitely draw attention enough to comment on, but seeing an unarmed spectator would not have.
If Arnold was fabricating his recollections, it would have been on seeing an armed gunman, not on seeing an unarmed African-American male looking out of a window.
He was the only person who briefly saw an armed white gunman in the SW corner on the 6th floor.
Barbara did not see him.
Hence there was no visual corroboration for Arnold's observation so why did the WC partially believe his testimony? They should have rejected his testimony completely.
Rowland initially testified to parading man to being 12-15 feet back of the window. Then later changed that to 3-5 feet when, he said, he realized that no one would be able to see the man.
I remain suspicious. After all, the missus informed us of Arnie's fondness for exaggeration.
Barbara did not see him.
Rowland initially testified to 'parading man' being 12-15 feet back of the window. Then later changed that to 3-5 feet when, he said, he realized that no one would be able to see the man.
Rowland was shown to be wrong about six different instances in his testimony. Maybe you need to find a different witness. If you want a credible witness go find one.
John, l agree. But that isn't a form of corroboration per se. Arnold could well have made that up about seeing a gunman. I don't believe anyone else in Dealey Plaza saw a gunman at the SW corner of the 6th floor at around 12.15 pm. So just because Arnold mentioned it to Barbara didn't immediately imply it was true. On the other hand because he never mentioned seeing the African American to Barbara, at 12.15 pm, didn't mean it was false.
So why did the WC accept one part of his testimony (no corroboration) but rejected his other part of his testimony (no corroboration)?
Shouldn't they had rejected his entire testimony?
Yeah, like the guy who saw Oswald crouched down behind boxes taking aim for the head shot FROM THE BELT UP.
| Rowland | From where I was standing I could see from his head to about 6 inches below his waist, below his belt. | |
| Asked about how much of rifleman's body was in the open view where there was no window | ||
| From where I was standing I could see from his head to about 6 inches below his waist, below his belt. | ||
| Mid point between the waist and the knees ... To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him ... Two and a half, three feet, something on that |
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/depository/dillard-sw-corner-figure.jpg) SW sixth-floor window captured in Dillard photo shown in right inset above. This was the one indicated by Rowland in CE-356 where he saw the rifleman. It was open as much as one of the fifth-floor windows. | (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49724/m1/1/med_res/) Rowland said the rifleman was always standing. One cannot see the figure from "his head to about 6 inches below his waist" |
I think Brennan was describing what he saw of the gunman during the head shot and immediately afterward, when the gunman stood up and might have been bend forward for a few seconds as he moved back into the room.
Rowland's got a different problem. He's describing a rifleman who was never bend and who was always standing.
The problem with that is that Brennan didn't describe the guy "standing up" afterwards. He thought he was standing the entire time.
That's what Hess was trying to model. With the guy standing up but 5 (or 15 feet) back from the window, he can be seen up to his head from Rowland's position.
Brennan thought the gunman was "standing" in the same sense as the black men were "standing" on the fifth floor.
But Rowland claimed he saw the standing rifleman from the top of his head to "about 6 inches below his waist, below his belt."
And standing back (as towards the North) even a few feet would mean he was obscured from Rowland's view by the building's brick facade.
Because they still wanted to tick off the "saw a guy with a rifle on the 6th floor" box. They just couldn't have another guy being there at the time. So they had to also disregard Carolyn Walther, Ruby Henderson, Norman Similas, and Johnny Powell.
Whatever it takes.
Right. So if the guy Brennan saw had actually stood up after the last shot then Brennan would have known that he wasn't standing prior to that. But he didn't.
Again, that works if the guy is standing far enough behind the window.
I don't agree. Not at Rowland's angle. Look at the Hess video again. Well, I guess it depends on how far back the gunman was. How about back towards the northwest?
| Rowland | Asked about how much of rifleman's body was in the open view where there was no window | |
| From where I was standing I could see from his head to about 6 inches below his waist, below his belt. | ||
| Mid point between the waist and the knees ... To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him ... Two and a half, three feet, something on that |
Best to describe it using an image ;D
The African-American male was seen first, then the white male gunman was seen on the same floor at 12.15 pm. The gunman was only observed once.
The African-American male was no longer seen in the SE corner from ~12.25 pm.
(http://i65.tinypic.com/b5snqe.jpg)
A larger view of the lady in the window
(http://i66.tinypic.com/rwi5gp.jpg)
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.
Rowland's POV
(http://i67.tinypic.com/21mhydk.jpg)
Mr. ROWLAND. At the time I saw the man in the other window, I saw this man hanging out the window first. It was a colored man, I think.
Representative FORD. Is this the same window where you saw the man standing with the rifle?
Mr. ROWLAND. No; this was the one on the east end of the building, the one that they said the shots were fired from.
Representative FORD. I am not clear on this now. The window that you saw the man that you describe was on what end of the building?
Mr. ROWLAND. The west, southwest corner.
Representative FORD. And the man you saw hanging out from the window was at what corner?
Mr. ROWLAND. The east, southeast corner.
Representative FORD. Southeast corner. On the same floor?
Mr. ROWLAND. On the same floor.
Representative FORD. When did you notice him?
Mr. ROWLAND. This was before I noticed the other man with the rifle.
Representative FORD. I see. This was before you saw the man in the window with the rifle?
Mr. ROWLAND. Yes.
Arnold did not mention seeing the African-American male in any statement. He did not know where the shots were fired from until the Saturday. He told the FBI agents about seeing the African-American male but they were only interested in seeing if he could ID the white male gunman.
He DID tell Deputy Sheriff Craig that he saw TWO men on the 6th floor, ten minutes post assassination.
Mr. SPECTER. When, if at all, did you first report what you had observed in the Texas School Book Depository Building about the man with the rifle to anyone in an official position?
Mr. ROWLAND. That was approximately 15 minutes after the third report that I went to an officer, he was a plainclothesman who was there combing the area, close to position "C," looking for footprints and such as this, some lady said someone jumped off one of the colonnades and started running, there was an officer looking in this area for footprints and such as this.
Mr. SPECTER. Was that lady ever identified to you?
Mr. ROWLAND. No; I do not remember his name. He introduced himself and showed me his ID.
Mr. SPECTER. I mean the lady you talked about.
Mr. ROWLAND. No; I don't.
Mr. SPECTER. Now as to the officer to whom you made a report, was he a State, City or Federal official, if you know?
Mr. ROWLAND. It was a Dallas detective.
Mr. BELIN. Did anyone say they had seen anything?such as a rifle?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes; later on. A few minutes after that?I had taken this girl to one of our criminal investigators?and was talking to some other people. I talked to a young couple and the boy said he saw two men on the?uh?sixth floor of the Book Depository Building over there; one of them had a rifle with the telescopic sight on it?but he thought they were Secret Service agents on guard and didn't report it. This was about?uh?oh, he said, 15 minutes before the motorcade ever arrived.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if that boy's name would have been Arnold Rowland?(spelling) R-o-w-l-a-n-d?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Does that sound like it?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes; it sounds like the name?yes.
Mr. BELIN. His wife might be Barbara Rowland?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes; I believe her name was Barbara.
The "two men on the 6th floor,....one with a rifle" could only have come from Arnold Rowland.
Hence Arnold had corroboration from a law enforcement officer some 10 - 15 minutes post assassination while in Dealey Plaza.
Mr. SPECTER. When, if at all, did you first report what you had observed in the Texas School Book Depository Building about the man with the rifle to anyone in an official position?
Mr. ROWLAND. That was approximately 15 minutes after the third report that I went to an officer, he was a plainclothesman who was there combing the area, close to position "C," looking for footprints and such as this, some lady said someone jumped off one of the colonnades and started running, there was an officer looking in this area for footprints and such as this.
Mr. SPECTER. Was that lady ever identified to you?
Mr. ROWLAND. No; I do not remember his name. He introduced himself and showed me his ID.
Mr. SPECTER. I mean the lady you talked about.
Mr. ROWLAND. No; I don't.
Mr. SPECTER. Now as to the officer to whom you made a report, was he a State, City or Federal official, if you know?
Mr. ROWLAND. It was a Dallas detective.
Mr. BELIN. Did anyone say they had seen anything?such as a rifle?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes; later on. A few minutes after that?I had taken this girl to one of our criminal investigators?and was talking to some other people. I talked to a young couple and the boy said he saw two men on the?uh?sixth floor of the Book Depository Building over there; one of them had a rifle with the telescopic sight on it?but he thought they were Secret Service agents on guard and didn't report it. This was about?uh?oh, he said, 15 minutes before the motorcade ever arrived.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if that boy's name would have been Arnold Rowland?(spelling) R-o-w-l-a-n-d?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Does that sound like it?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes; it sounds like the name?yes.
Mr. BELIN. His wife might be Barbara Rowland?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes; I believe her name was Barbara.
The "two men on the 6th floor,....one with a rifle" could only have come from Arnold Rowland.
Hence Arnold had corroboration from a law enforcement officer some 10 - 15 minutes post assassination while in Dealey Plaza.
Craig doesn't even corroborate Rowland's story. In his WC statement Craig states the men were both in the SW corner and they were both white. No where near what Rowland had stated.Where does he state that?
He was correct.
| Asked about how much of rifleman's body was in the open view where there was no window | ||
| Rowland | Approximately two-thirds of his body just below his waist. | |
| From where I was standing I could see from his head to about 6 inches below his waist, below his belt. | ||
| Mid point between the waist and the knees ... To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him ... Two and a half, three feet, something on that |
Carolyn Walther, she of "She is positive this window was not as high as the sixth floor"?
Ruby Henderson, who's account sounds a lot like her seeing Jarman and Norman?
The Norm Similas whom the RCMP decided was a hoax? The Similas who claimed that a Secret Service agent opened the door of the limo in Dealey Plaza to reveal JFK on the floor?
The Johnny Powell who pops out of the woodwork a decade and a half later?
The WC did not need to introduce other witnesses to dispel Rowland's fabrications. He did that all an his own with his own contradictory testimony.
Six different times in his statement he is shown to be lying.
Jerry,
Did Arnold Rowland see a white male with a rifle in the SW corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12.15 pm?
Apart from his word, what supporting evidence do you have to back up his claim?
My impression is that he might have seen Doughtery or Oswald. The man might have had something in his hands that Rowland mistook for a rifle.
Fair enough. As opposed to:
Howard "failed to identify" Brennan
Charles "willing to change his story for money" Givens
Amos "he had a bald spot" Euins
Helen "I had never seen none of them" Markham
Jack Tatum who pops out of the woodwork a decade and a half later?
As for Ruby Henderson describing Norman and Jarman, Norman and Jarman weren't even in the same window. Also which one of them was wearing a white shirt?
| Spector: | How far back did the bald spot on his head go? | |
| Euins: | I would say about right along in here. | |
| Spector: | Indicating about 2 1/2 inches above where you hairline is. Is that about what you are saying? | |
| Euins: | Yes, sir; right along in here. | |
| Euins: | All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head, because he had his head something like this. | |
| Spector: | Indicating his face down, looking down the rifle? | |
| Euins: | Yes, sir: and I could see the spot on his head. |
Don't all witnesses have to swear an oath? Why was Brennan so special in his oath?
Don't all witnesses have to swear an oath?
Why was Brennan so special in his oath?
The WC concluded that Arnold Rowland had seen Lee Harvey Oswald with a fully assembled CE 139 at 12.15 pm.
How did they come to that conclusion?
Arnold saw what Arnold saw, l haven't been to Dealey Plaza to model what could be seen from his vantage point. However there are images of other people standing in front of open windows and you can see the proportion of the torso visible.
So if you believe that Arnold saw either Dougherty or Oswald with or without a weapon, why do you doubt he saw an unarmed African-American male in the SE corner at 12.15 pm?
How did Amos' non-descriptive observation specifically ID anyone?
You mean, apart from Lee Harvey Oswald, there was another gunman on the 6th floor? ???
This is what Mr Belin said about Rowland in his book:
Although Marina Oswald rebuffed the pleas of her husband, there was one
other person who could have almost single-handedly prevented the assassination.
His name was Arnold Rowland, an 18-year-old resident of Dallas,
who was in the vicinity of the TSBD Building at least 15 minutes before the
motorcade arrived. Rowland's testimony is an example of one of the most
difficult problems in analyzing the testimony of a witness, when part of his
testimony seems to check with other independent facts while other aspects
are blatantly false.
What were those independent facts?
"The assassination of President Kennedy was a major event in American
history. Future historians may even say that it changed the course of history.
What would have happened had Arnold and Barbara Rowland called to that
policeman 12 feet away and said, "What's that man doing with a rifle in that
building?"
Senator Cooper asked Rowland that question in Washington, but rephrased
it along the lines of "Why didn't you" tell anyone about this. This
was not the first time that morning the question had been asked. Before
Senator Cooper entered the hearing room, Rowland had answered this
question once. When Senator Cooper asked it again, Rowland burst into
tears, and the Chief Justice called for a recess.
Then Earl Warren walked to Rowland, put his arm over the young man's
shoulder and sought to comfort him. It was an unforgettable experience to
see the Chief Justice of the United States seeking to console an 18-year-old
youth who had obviously confronted himself with the possibility that he
might have prevented the assassination.
THEN
"However, in other aspects of his testimony before the Commission Rowland was wholly inaccurate.
So the WC believed him that he did see a white armed male in the SW corner at 12.15 pm ...
Fair enough. As opposed to:
Howard "failed to identify" Brennan
Charles "willing to change his story for money" Givens
Amos "he had a bald spot" Euins
Helen "I had never seen none of them" Markham
Jack Tatum who pops out of the woodwork a decade and a half later?
As for Ruby Henderson describing Norman and Jarman, Norman and Jarman weren't even in the same window. Also which one of them was wearing a white shirt?Normal and Jarman never could have been in the same window? OK, what about Norman and Williams then? Or Williams and Jarman? And, did anyone else notice two guys in the same window on 6, one in a white shirt?
Why the need to name a shooter with a bold spot?
If you can prove that Lee was even on the 6th floor at 12.15 pm onwards - be my guest.
Be you so bold to try? ;D
Have a look at this:
(http://i67.tinypic.com/2ep0h1k.jpg)
(http://i67.tinypic.com/11kh6b9.jpg)
As posted previiously
(http://i66.tinypic.com/rwi5gp.jpg)
You still want to argue that what Arnold saw in the SW window was inaccurate in terms of proportions?
Bill,
was Amos the only witness to mention a white spot? If yes, we are both wasting our time about speculating on its significance or otherwise.
Start a new thread, should be riveting.
Craig doesn't even corroborate Rowland's story. In his WC statement Craig states the men were both in the SW corner and they were both white. No where near what Rowland had stated. Both Rowland and Craig never mention an additional person until they appear in front of the commission.
I'll ask again where did he say the above in his WC testimony, Jack?
Why the need to name a shooter with a bold spot?
What's 'riveting' is Euins focus on the white spot, which he kept mentioning over & over. To brush that fact aside as a waste of time reveals that you would rather not allow that a choice of suspects would be narrowed down (by dint of Euins observation) to fellows with receding hairlines.
Did Arnold see anyone on the 6th floor at all?
Did anyone else see this?
Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see?at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.
Mr Rowland further advised that on November 23 and November 24 he had advised the FBI that he had seen such a person (a negro) at the southwest corner window.
Seems the FBI didn't think what he's said was relevant.
Barbara was with him the whole time that he was speaking with the agents and said he didn't tell the agents about a second person.
Mr. BELIN. DO you know whether or not he told them, the police officers, that there was any other person on the sixth floor that he saw?
Mrs. ROWLAND. He never said that there was another person on the sixth floor, in my presence, that I can remember.
Mr. BELIN. Were you present when he was with the police officers?
Mrs. ROWLAND. At times.
Mr. BELIN. On Sunday morning, November 24th?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Were you personally with him throughout the time that he was
with the police officers?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And he, in your presence, never said that he saw anyone on the sixth floor other than the man with the rifle?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No. He never said in my presence that there was another man other than the man with the rifle on the sixth floor.
Doesn't prove he didn't say it, just that she never heard him say it.
Doesn't prove he didn't say it, just that she never heard him say it.
Why would someone, whom Arnold surmised was part of the security detail, be firing at JFK? Arnold only saw the armed male once for 15 seconds in the SW corner of the 6th floor. He did not know where the gunman had gone nor did he see him again. Arnold and Barbara were looking at the parade not the TSBD. There actions post shots explain why they didn't look at the TSBD:Except, Rowland did not know the president had been shot. Rowland had no idea where the shots were coming from or who they were directed towards. Arnold stated the man in the SW corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD was specifically there to protect the president. Rowland was not aware of who was shooting at who. He did not even briefly scan the window or the building to see if the place where he stated a man was positioned with a rifle, specifically placed there to guard the president, was firing the rifle to protect the president. This very thought obviously crossed the minds of the panel and the attorneys. They asked him three times and each time he gave a different answer. Yes, No , and maybe he looked at the window
Mr. BELIN. Mrs. Rowland, did you have any idea where the shots came from or the sound?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, the people generally ran towards the railroad tracks behind the School Book Depository Building, and so I naturally assumed they came from there, because that is where all the policemen and everyone was going, and I couldn't tell where the sounds came from.
Mr. BELIN. So you just started over after them?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did your husband go with you?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes; I grabbed his hand and he couldn't go anyplace else.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have any impression or reaction as to the point of origin when you heard the first noise?
Mr. ROWLAND. Well, I began looking, I didn't look at the building mainly, and as practically any of the police officers that were there then will tell you, the echo effect was such that it sounded like it came from the railroad yards. That is where I looked, that is where all the policemen, everyone, converged on the railroads.
Mr. SPECTER. After the shots occurred, did you ever look back at the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. ROWLAND. No; I did not. In fact, I went over toward the scene of the railroad yards myself.
Mr. SPECTER. Why did you not look back at the Texas School Book Depository Building in view of the fact that you had seen a man with a rifle up there earlier in the day?
Mr. ROWLAND. I don't remember. It was mostly due to the confusion, and then the fact that it sounded like it came from this area "C," and that all the officers, enforcement officers, were converging on that area, and I just didn't pay any attention to it at that time.
Mr. SPECTER. How many officers were converging on that area, to the best of your ability to recollect and estimate?
Mr. ROWLAND. I think it would be a very good estimation of 50, maybe more.
Why would Arnold be looking at the TSBD when both he and his wife thought the shots came from the rail yards and both saw the Police converging there?
Mr. SPECTER. When, if at all, did you first report what you had observed in the Texas School Book Depository Building about the man with the rifle to anyone in an official position?
Mr. ROWLAND. That was approximately 15 minutes after the third report that I went to an officer, he was a plainclothesman who was there combing the area, close to position "C," looking for footprints and such as this, some lady said someone jumped off one of the colonnades and started running, there was an officer looking in this area for footprints and such as this.
Arnold mentioned about the African-American because he found out where the shots had come from.
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 they??
Mr. SPECTER. That was at the interview on the Saturday morning November 23?
Mr. ROWLAND. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you think it of sufficient significance to bring it to the attention of any of the other interviewing FBI agents on the balance of the interviews you have described?
Mr. ROWLAND. Yes; I did on the following Sunday to the agents who interviewed me where I worked.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, at the time you made the Saturday statement, which you say was transcribed and appears as Exhibit 358, did you at that time tell the interviewing FBI agents about the colored gentleman who you testified was in the window which you marked with an "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND. Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you ask them at that time to include the information in the statement which they took from you?
Mr. ROWLAND. No. I think I told them about it after the statement, as an afterthought, an afterthought came up, it came into my mind. I also told the agents that took a statement from me on Sunday. They didn't seem very interested, so I just forgot about it for a while.
Mr. SPECTER. Was that information included in the written portion of the statement which was taken from you on Sunday?
Mr. ROWLAND. No, it wasn't. It shouldn't but the agent deleted it though himself, I mean I included it in what I gave.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say deleted it, did he strike it out after putting it in, or did he omit it in the transcription?
Mr. ROWLAND. Omitted it.
Senator COOPER. I think you said a while ago that when you told the FBI agents on Saturday that you had seen this Negro man in the window, that they indicated to you that they weren't interested in it at all. What did they say which gave you that impression?
Mr. ROWLAND. I don't remember exactly what was said. The context was again the agents were trying to find out if I could positively identify the man that I saw. They were concerned mainly with this, and I brought up to them about the Negro man after I had signed the statement, and at that time he just told me that they were just trying to find out about or if anyone could identify the man who was up there. They just didn't seem interested at all. They didn't pursue the point. They didn't take it down in the notation as such.
Mr. SPECTER. It was more of the fact that they didn't pursue it, didn't include it?
Mr. ROWLAND. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Or that they said something which led you to believe they were not interested?
Mr. ROWLAND. It was just the fact they didn't pursue it. I mean, I just mentioned that I saw him in that window. They didn't ask me, you know, if was this at the same time or such. They just didn't seem very interested in that at all.
Mr. WRIGHT. By man who was up there you mean man with the rifle?
Mr. ROWLAND. They were interested in the man with the rifle, and finding out if anyone could identify him. The other man was the colored man in the other window.
Arnold had mentioned about the African-American male after the interviews were finished as a passing comment to the Agents. You dont know if Barbara was standing next to Arnold when he made the comments.She said she was with him the whole time he was talking with the agents.
The agents were there specifically to determine if Arnold could ID the gunman. He was interviewed seven times.
So because Arnold didn't "react" in the "expected" manner post shots - according to your criteria of not looking at the TSBD - you are now calling into question that he even saw a gunman at the SW corner.
Why then didnt the WC simply reject his testimony outright?
Why do you believe it was necessary to look at the TSBD if both him and Barbara thought the shots came from the rail yard?
Mr. BELIN. Did you particularly watch the sixth floor because of the fact that you had seen or your husband had seen a person on the sixth floor?
Mrs. BOWLAND. We looked at it for a few minutes, but we didn't look back, and when we heard the shots, we didn't look back up there. I grabbed his hand and started running toward the car.
Arnold saw the gunman once for 15 seconds at 12.15 pm.
Except, Rowland did not know the president had been shot. Rowland had no idea where the shots were coming from or who they were directed towards. Arnold stated the man in the SW corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD was specifically there to protect the president. Rowland was not aware of who was shooting at who. He did not even briefly scan the window or the building to see if the place where he stated a man was positioned with a rifle, specifically placed there to guard the president, was firing the rifle to protect the president. This very thought obviously crossed the minds of the panel and the attorneys. They asked him three times and each time he gave a different answer. Yes, No , and maybe he looked at the window
Rowland's answer to Specter confirms he never seen a gunman to begin with or he would have known why he never looked.
Mr. BELIN. Mrs. Rowland, did you have any idea where the shots came from or the sound?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, the people generally ran towards the railroad tracks behind the School Book Depository Building, and so I naturally assumed they came from there, because that is where all the policemen and everyone was going, and I couldn't tell where the sounds came from.
Mr. SPECTER. After the shots occurred, did you ever look back at the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. ROWLAND. No; I did not. In fact, I went over toward the scene of the railroad yards myself.
Mr. SPECTER. Why did you not look back at the Texas School Book Depository Building in view of the fact that you had seen a man with a rifle up there earlier in the day?
Mr. ROWLAND. I don't remember. It was mostly due to the confusion, and then the fact that it sounded like it came from this area "C," and that all the officers, enforcement officers, were converging on that area, and I just didn't pay any attention to it at that time.
The whole idea that he would not look if he really had seen a man with a gun calls into question his whole story .
Mr. SPECTER. How many officers were converging on that area, to the best of your ability to recollect and estimate?'50' cops huh? Came out of the woodwork. Where were they when the shooting started?
Mr. ROWLAND. I think it would be a very good estimation of 50, maybe more.
How about someone on the anti-Rowland bandwagon post a believeable narrative in the context of what he knew at the time and what we know now. Like......how did he know Williams was on the 6th floor at that time?
Was he just guessing and got lucky? What do you think Rowland?s motivation was?
As stated previously he essentially got the basics correct. Still waiting for a LN response to the repeated lies by Jarman and Norman prior to their testifying regarding Williams movements.
Arnold's observation of seeing the African-American male at 12.15 pm at the SE corner had nothing to do with a conspiracy. It was the WC who thought that it implied that the gunman observed by Arnold had an accomplice.
No one was on the fifth floor at the SE corner until ~12.25 pm.
The WC knew that there was an African-American male on the 6th floor after 12 noon. They were also confident that there was no "elderly Negro" in the SE corner. Arnold's observation could therefore be easily discredited.
However from Arnold's vantage point, it would be difficult to determine someone's age. He provided additional and conflicting detail in his testimony that ultimately was used to discredit him.
Despite that, it didn't mean that he was wrong in seeing the African-American male in the SE corner at 12.15 pm on the 6th floor. He was after all the only witness who saw the gunman at the SW corner.
He had no corroboration for either observation. So why did the WC partially believe his testimony?
What part did the WC believe? The line of questioning indicated they did not believe any of what he was saying including the man with a rifle. BRW could see all the way to the west wall and there was nobody there. Ford sums it up best at the end.So you believe that Rowland fabricated the whole thing. He just got lucky in imagining the right building and floor for the shots. His wife lied too in her confirming aspects. He never told her anything about a security guard about 12.15.
The CHAIRMAN - Anything further, Congressman Ford?
Representative FORD - Mr. Rowland, have you ever had occasion to go back to the scene and reconstruct it? Have you ever gone back--
The CHAIRMAN - Supposing we take a few minutes recess.
Mr. ROWLAND - The answer to that question is yes; I do all the time. I pass that area very frequently.
Rowland obviously possess an overactive imagination and it shows throughout his testimony.
When the shooting started BRW was hanging out of the 5th floor window trying to see who was shooting. Not the actions of some one who had been interacting with LHO moments before.
As expected......suddenly nothing happened.
So you believe that Rowland fabricated the whole thing. He just got lucky in imagining the right building and floor for the shots. His wife lied too in her confirming aspects. He never told her anything about a security guard about 12.15.
You lot and your expectations of immediate responses assumes that people are spending all their time sitting on every post that pops up.
Basically yes. He did tell her about a gunman but only after discussing the Stevens incident, what are the odds. He should have been playing the lottery.
His description of the shooter in the window does not work. She never seen anybody and neither did anyone else, which is a common theme to his statement. Even Roger Craig gets it wrong and basically shoots Rowland down by giving a conflicting testimony of what Rowland supposedly stated. BRW could see all the way to the west wall and was actually on the 6th floor and never seen a soul.
Read his testimony, how is it you can't see what a giant BS artist he really was? He could tell the rifle was a 30 "odd" six rifle, something that doesn't even exist, from a distance? The only way to know the caliber of a rifle is read it off the barrel. A foreign rifle? Really? What does he say that actually is the truth?
The only way you can believe his story is you need and want to believe it. The WC obviously had major doubts, it shows in the questions and answers.
'30 "odd" six rifle, something that doesn't even exist'
It's possible that he meant 'aught' or the court reporter took it wrong. in my youth, a friends dad had a 30-30 and we described it as seen below
Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield
The .30-06 Springfield cartridge (pronounced "thirty-aught-six" or "thirty-oh-six")
There is a 30-30 catridge. A 30-30 is a completely different cartridge from a 30-06. Think like some old west lever actions. 30 Oh 6 would be appropriate but there is no such thing as "odd six." Remember what Rowland was trying to do was present hiself as being knowledgable about guns. Similar to what you see from some members on this forum.
Specter understood Rowland had no idea what he was talking about and made him keep repeating 30 odd 6 to show he was just making it up. The same as he did with his whole statement. Everything he stated ended up with multiple answers , multiple descriptions, or seeing 5 foot of a man and room through a 2 1/2 foot opening.
So I made a typo. I was familiar with the terms 30-oh-6 and 30-aught-six as a kid.
Rowland might have mistaken the term 'aught' for 'odd'. Maybe he learned that from someone else who made the same mistake. As an example, a woman at a place I used to work called Alzheimer's disease 'alltimers' FFS.
I personally suspect that the guy he saw parading around in the SW corner was Oswald.
Consider my breath suitably baited for your considered response.
That would be fine except the individual who was on the 6th floor and had an unobstructed view of the SW corner saw no one.
BRW said he was back up on the sixth floor by noon, and for 10, 12, 15 minutes. Wasn't the parading dude seen at around 12:15? Seems that leaves some leeway for BRW having buggered off to join his buddies in the meantime.
I maintain that Oswald could have been doing a final check of firing positions, then hot-dogged?for himself?with the post arms thing.
Maybe read more post less
Rowlands thought the two people below the SN window were two black women!Where did he say that?
Where did he say that?Mr. ROWLAND - Here I know there were two Negro women, I think.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark%3A/67531/metapth49660/m1/1/med_res/)
It's been pointed that if Williams was in the SN corner, he couldn't see over to the SW corner (above: view at SW corner looking east). Rowlands thought the two people below the SN window were two black women! So it's anyone's guess what he actually saw
You should read the testimony more closely, Jerry. The two black women he saw he said were on the second floor.
"Mr. ROWLAND - Those pair of windows. I think this was all on that floor.
Here on this floor.
Mr. SPECTER - Indicating the second floor?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Circle the windows and mark it with a "0" if you will.
Mr. ROWLAND - I think it was this pair immediately over the door, and this pair.
Mr. SPECTER - Mark one "0" and one "D," if you will.
(Witness marking.)
Mr. ROWLAND - Here I know there were two Negro women, I think.
Mr. SPECTER - Indicating window "0." You say two Negro women?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And were those women each in one window, both in one window or what?
Mr. ROWLAND - They were one in each window. Then at the window "D" there was one, one window open.
Mr. SPECTER - Which was that, indicate that by an arrow, if you please.
(Witness marking.)
Mr. ROWLAND - Here I know there were two Negro women, I think.
Mr. SPECTER - Indicating window "0." You say two Negro women?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And were those women each in one window, both in one window or what?
Mr. ROWLAND - They were one in each window. Then at the window "D" there was one, one window open.
Mr. SPECTER - Which was that, indicate that by an arrow, if you please.
(Witness marking.)
..your expectations of immediate responses assumes that people are spending all their time sitting on every post that pops up.Don't you?
Barbara was with him the whole time that he was speaking with the agents and said he didn't tell the agents about a second person.
By that standard, Day told Drain about the palm print late on Friday. Drain could not recall. But "Rusty" Livingstone was in the room at the time and he said Drain was "half listening to Lieutenant Day and half to the other FBI man and evidently didn't get the word about the palm print at that time."
They asked him three times and each time he gave a different answer. Yes, No , and maybe he looked at the window
If it is to be believed then time altered his memory and it is a description of Jarman, Norman, and BRW when they were leaning out of the window while on the fifth floor not the sixth floor.
What part did the WC believe? The line of questioning indicated they did not believe any of what he was saying including the man with a rifle. BRW could see all the way to the west wall and there was nobody there.
Rowland obviously possess an overactive imagination and it shows throughout his testimony.
When the shooting started BRW was hanging out of the 5th floor window trying to see who was shooting. Not the actions of some one who had been interacting with LHO moments before.
Could be.:D
His description of the shooter in the window does not work. She never seen anybody
and neither did anyone else,
Read his testimony, how is it you can't see what a giant BS artist he really was? He could tell the rifle was a 30 "odd" six rifle, something that doesn't even exist, from a distance?
They gave her the opportunity to make the change and went so far as to write the change down but she elected to not make the change while making other changes to her statement, which speaks volumes to the fact she was with him the whole time and he never told the FBI Agents.
:D
How about someone on the anti-Rowland bandwagon post a believeable narrative in the context of what he knew at the time and what we know now. Like......how did he know Williams was on the 6th floor at that time?
Was he just guessing and got lucky? What do you think Rowland?s motivation was?
As stated previously he essentially got the basics correct. Still waiting for a LN response to the repeated lies by Jarman and Norman prior to their testifying regarding Williams movements.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/PDVD_279-tile.jpg)
Sure, Ray. Have it your way. There's two black women each hanging out an open window in the set above the front door.
For those who believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Lone Assassin , well , we can't help you !
You should read the testimony more closely, Jerry. The two black women he saw he said were on the second floor.https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_356.pdf (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_356.pdf)
"Mr. ROWLAND - Those pair of windows. I think this was all on that floor.
Here on this floor.
Mr. SPECTER - Indicating the second floor?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Circle the windows and mark it with a "0" if you will.
Mr. ROWLAND - I think it was this pair immediately over the door, and this pair.
Mr. SPECTER - Mark one "0" and one "D," if you will.
(Witness marking.)
Mr. ROWLAND - Here I know there were two Negro women, I think.
Mr. SPECTER - Indicating window "0." You say two Negro women?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And were those women each in one window, both in one window or what?
Mr. ROWLAND - They were one in each window. Then at the window "D" there was one, one window open.
Mr. SPECTER - Which was that, indicate that by an arrow, if you please.
(Witness marking.)
Mr. ROWLAND - Here I know there were two Negro women, I think.
Mr. SPECTER - Indicating window "0." You say two Negro women?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And were those women each in one window, both in one window or what?
Mr. ROWLAND - They were one in each window. Then at the window "D" there was one, one window open.
Mr. SPECTER - Which was that, indicate that by an arrow, if you please.
(Witness marking.)
Markham: Total drama queen, but that doesn't mean everything she said was wrong, a lie, etc, and she wasn't the only witness. Callaway positively ID'd Oswald as the armed man he encountered leaving the scene, for instance.If one reviews the testimony of Ted Callaway..the name Oswald is never mentioned. According to his affidavit he identified the #2 man that he saw from some 60 feet away in a line up. This witness stated that the time he heard the shots was about 1:00 PM. It seems probable to me that Callaway might have committed an infraction of the law by taking Tippit's gun.
"but I didn't see anything because I am very nearsighted and I didn't have my glasses on"
How many people ever claimed to see LHO shooting at the motorcade?
Your attempts to discredit Rowland are even more amusing than the Warren Commission's. I've heard people refer to a "thirty aught six" as "thirty odd six" all my life.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/PDVD_279-tile.jpg)
Sure, Ray. Have it your way. There's two black women each hanging out an open window in the set above the front door.
I'd still like to know an answer to the original question: Why were there no planted eyewitnesses at the scene to ID Oswald as the assassin?
If you believe all of this evidence was planted to frame Oswald - and that this was done by powerful groups - then why didn't these groups plant four or five people in the Plaza who would say, "I saw Oswald shoot JFK?"
If you think that the witnesses to Oswald's alleged shooting of Tippit were all coached or coerced into implicating him then why aren't there eyewitneses (other than Brennan) who would directly implicate him in shooting JFK?
I'd still like to know an answer to the original question: Why were there no planted eyewitnesses at the scene to ID Oswald as the assassin?Another strawman speculation.
If you believe all of this evidence was planted to frame Oswald - and that this was done by powerful groups - then why didn't these groups plant four or five people in the Plaza who would say, "I saw Oswald shoot JFK?"
If you think that the witnesses to Oswald's alleged shooting of Tippit were all coached or coerced into implicating him then why aren't there eyewitneses (other than Brennan) who would directly implicate him in shooting JFK?
Nelson didn?t know it at the time, but those shots were the ones that Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly fired to assassinate the President as his motorcade went down Dealy Plaza in Dallas.A complete fabrication or lie if you will.
The retired officer says he was at the scene within two minutes and asked a motorcycle patrolman what had happened.
?Somebody shot and killed Kennedy. He was up there (pointing to book depository). I saw the rifle in the window when I looked up.?
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/PDVD_279-tile.jpg)
Sure, Ray. Have it your way. There's two black women each hanging out an open window in the set above the front door.
As for as evidence goes, which pictures posted are correct? We have exhibit 356 as evidence with different windows open than the Jerry Organ pictures. What gives? Compare it for yourself!CE 356 was taken the next day or another day possibly.
Steve Wilson was inside the third floor window sitting at his desk until he heard gunfire....He then got up and stood behind that window looking down onto Dealey plaza. He said that he remained standing there there behind that window, because he was transfixed by the activity going on beneath the window.
Walt Fabrication #49. Wilson never said anything about standing up after he heard gunfire.
Do you have the tape recording?
No, but I have the FBI statement that says nothing about standing up after he heard gunfire. What do you have that says he did?
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0357b.htm (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0357b.htm)
In Dealey Plaza there was an Umbrella Man, Dark Complected Man, guys on walkie talkies, fake SS, Crooked cops, a triangulation of snipers with lookouts, guys planting evidence, guys hiding evidence, guys swapping Mausers for Carcano's and a cast of many others so why the heck didn't these Conspirators place the most important popularly accepted evidence of all, EYEWITNESSES?
EYEWITNESSES who saw Oswald in the 6th floor window, wouldn't that be Patsy Setup 101?
JohnM
Wilson can be seen STANDING behind the window in Dillard's wide angle.....He can also be seen standing behind the window in the Hughes film which was taken just as the Lincoln started west on Elm.
Mr Oswald wasn't set up as the 6th fl shooter!
Thumb1: