JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on January 31, 2023, 12:10:56 AM

Title: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on January 31, 2023, 12:10:56 AM
I have recently seen a few posts that seem to indicate that LHO had to have assembled the SN in the last few minutes before the motorcade arrived. However in the Bronson film segment, which was filmed during the epileptic event at approximately 12:15 12:24-12:25, we can see that the window ledge already has the boxes on it. Here's a copy of the SFM image in Robin Unger's Gallery:

(https://i.vgy.me/AHCN1g.jpg)

And here's a link to the larger image in Robin's Gallery:

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=12705&fullsize=1 (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=12705&fullsize=1)


This is evidence that the SN was built before ~12:15 12:24-12:25. We have no way of knowing how long before ~12:15 12:24-12:25, but it does appear that it didn't need to be built at the last minute...
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on January 31, 2023, 05:40:47 AM
I have recently seen a few posts that seem to indicate that LHO had to have assembled the SN in the last few minutes before the motorcade arrived. However in the Bronson film segment, which was filmed during the epileptic event at approximately 12:15, we can see that the window ledge already has the boxes on it. Here's a copy of the SFM image in Robin Unger's Gallery:

(https://i.vgy.me/AHCN1g.jpg)

And here's a link to the larger image in Robin's Gallery:

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=12705&fullsize=1 (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=12705&fullsize=1)


This is evidence that the SN was built before ~12:15. We have no way of knowing how long before ~12:15, but it does appear that it didn't need to be built at the last minute...

Givens places LHO on the 6th floor after the floor laying crew left and before BRW returns to the 6th floor. Plenty of time to stack a few boxes.

Mr. GIVENS. Well, it was about a quarter till 12, we were on our way downstairs, and we passed him, and he was standing at the gate on the fifth floor.
I came downstairs, and I discovered I left my cigarettes in my jacket pocket upstairs, and I took the elevator back upstairs to get my jacket with my cigarettes in it. When I got back upstairs, he was on the sixth floor in that vicinity, coming from that way.
Mr. BELIN. Coming from what way?
Mr. GIVENS. Toward the window up front where the shots were fired from.

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on January 31, 2023, 03:17:59 PM
Givens places LHO on the 6th floor after the floor laying crew left and before BRW returns to the 6th floor. Plenty of time to stack a few boxes.

Mr. GIVENS. Well, it was about a quarter till 12, we were on our way downstairs, and we passed him, and he was standing at the gate on the fifth floor.
I came downstairs, and I discovered I left my cigarettes in my jacket pocket upstairs, and I took the elevator back upstairs to get my jacket with my cigarettes in it. When I got back upstairs, he was on the sixth floor in that vicinity, coming from that way.
Mr. BELIN. Coming from what way?
Mr. GIVENS. Toward the window up front where the shots were fired from.




Yes, and I suppose that some of it could have been conceived and built before that. The flooring guys were working on the other (west) end of the floor. And LHO was often on the sixth floor when performing his normal duties. I think one of the guys working on the flooring said he thought he noticed LHO up there on the east end of the floor earlier in the morning. This could be seen as normal work activity from that distance and hence he was paid little attention. But he could have been preparing the nest…
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on January 31, 2023, 04:04:39 PM


Yes, and I suppose that some of it could have been conceived and built before that. The flooring guys were working on the other (west) end of the floor. And LHO was often on the sixth floor when performing his normal duties. I think one of the guys working on the flooring said he thought he noticed LHO up there on the east end of the floor earlier in the morning. This could be seen as normal work activity from that distance and hence he was paid little attention. But he could have been preparing the nest…

There were only three possible candidates to have built the SN. Givens, BRW, and LHO. Only one of them (LHO) had his rifle discovered on the floor and it was matched to the shells, bullet, and fragments discovered by the police.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on January 31, 2023, 04:16:40 PM
There were only three possible candidates to have built the SN. Givens, BRW, and LHO. Only one of them (LHO) had his rifle discovered on the floor and it was matched to the shells, bullet, and fragments discovered by the police.


Yep, also, Givens and BRW had real alibis for being elsewhere (than the sniper’s nest)  during the shooting.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on January 31, 2023, 04:47:37 PM

Yep, also, Givens and BRW had real alibis for being elsewhere (than the sniper’s nest)  during the shooting.

And LHO's fingerprints were found on the box. On this information alone it is hard to deny who was the assassin.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on January 31, 2023, 06:29:12 PM
Mr. DULLES. Mr. Williams, were all the boxes of books moved out of this area while you were working, or as you finished a part of it, were some boxes put back in?
Mr. WILLIAMS. To begin with, I think we were working on the wall first. I don't think we moved too many books in this area. I think we just moved them out and right back in, as I remember. But I think after we got a little further over, I think we had to move some books. We had to move these books to the east side of this building, over here, and those books--I would say this would be the window Oswald shot the President from. We moved these books kind of like in a row like that, kind of winding them around.


 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 31, 2023, 06:44:59 PM
I think one of the guys working on the flooring said he thought he noticed LHO up there on the east end of the floor earlier in the morning.

Cite, please.  I've never heard this before.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 31, 2023, 06:47:16 PM
There were only three possible candidates to have built the SN. Givens, BRW, and LHO.

Why, given that we don't know when the boxes were moved there or even if they were put there with the intention of being a "sniper's nest" at all?

Quote
Only one of them (LHO) had his rifle discovered on the floor and it was matched to the shells, bullet, and fragments discovered by the police.

"His rifle".  LOL.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 31, 2023, 06:48:26 PM
And LHO's fingerprints were found on the box. On this information alone it is hard to deny who was the assassin.

Again, why?  Fingerprints on a box from an employee whose job was literally getting books out of boxes.  How odd.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on January 31, 2023, 07:02:55 PM
Cite, please.  I've never heard this before.


I believe that this is what I had in mind:


Mr. BALL. Did you see Oswald on the sixth floor that morning?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I am not sure. I think I saw him once messing around with some cartons or something, back over the east side of the building. But he wasn't in the window that they said he shot the President from. He was more on the east side of the elevator, I think, messing around with cartons, because he always just messed around, kicking cartons around.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 01, 2023, 07:47:39 AM

I believe that this is what I had in mind:


Mr. BALL. Did you see Oswald on the sixth floor that morning?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I am not sure. I think I saw him once messing around with some cartons or something, back over the east side of the building. But he wasn't in the window that they said he shot the President from. He was more on the east side of the elevator, I think, messing around with cartons, because he always just messed around, kicking cartons around.

You had that in mind when you wrote this?:

I think one of the guys working on the flooring said he thought he noticed LHO up there on the east end of the floor earlier in the morning. This could be seen as normal work activity from that distance and hence he was paid little attention. But he could have been preparing the nest

So Mr. Oswald could have been preparing the nest by--------kicking cartons on the east side of the elevator? 

:D
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 01, 2023, 11:39:20 AM
You had that in mind when you wrote this?:

I think one of the guys working on the flooring said he thought he noticed LHO up there on the east end of the floor earlier in the morning. This could be seen as normal work activity from that distance and hence he was paid little attention. But he could have been preparing the nest

So Mr. Oswald could have been preparing the nest by--------kicking cartons on the east side of the elevator? 

:D



Did you get tired of talking to yourself in the other thread?


(https://i.vgy.me/38k85G.png)


Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 01, 2023, 01:28:30 PM
And LHO's fingerprints were found on the box. On this information alone it is hard to deny who was the assassin.

Great point.  The contrarian rebuttal that this is not incriminatory because Oswald "worked there" is weak sauce.  A lot of people "worked there" but Oswald is the only TSBD employee who left his prints on these particular boxes.  He also left his prints on the bag and rifle.  The rifle - LOL.   Imagine how unlucky Oswald would have to be to have left all this evidence because he "worked there" when no other employee who "worked there" did the same.  No reasonable person can believe that.  The prisons are full of criminals who left much less evidence than Oswald. 
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 01, 2023, 02:44:25 PM
Great point.  The contrarian rebuttal that this is not incriminatory because Oswald "worked there" is weak sauce.  A lot of people "worked there" but Oswald is the only TSBD employee who left his prints on these particular boxes.  He also left his prints on the bag and rifle.  The rifle - LOL.   Imagine how unlucky Oswald would have to be to have left all this evidence because he "worked there" when no other employee who "worked there" did the same.  No reasonable person can believe that.  The prisons are full of criminals who left much less evidence than Oswald.

Exactly. The only way you can believe he is innocent is if you want to believe he is innocent.

John I actually makes an excellent point. If the box had been handled by LHO as part of his work, the fingerprints would have been all over the top where he opened it to access the books inside. If memory serves me right, instead there were just a couple of palm prints and a single fingerprint. The SN boxes are just one more example of his guilt.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 01, 2023, 03:30:47 PM


Did you get tired of talking to yourself in the other thread?


(https://i.vgy.me/38k85G.png)

 :D

Yikes, Mr. Collins, my post seems to have upset you! Are you ok?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 01, 2023, 05:03:23 PM
Great point.  The contrarian rebuttal that this is not incriminatory because Oswald "worked there" is weak sauce.  A lot of people "worked there" but Oswald is the only TSBD employee who left his prints on these particular boxes.  He also left his prints on the bag and rifle.  The rifle - LOL.   Imagine how unlucky Oswald would have to be to have left all this evidence because he "worked there" when no other employee who "worked there" did the same.  No reasonable person can believe that.  The prisons are full of criminals who left much less evidence than Oswald.

The contrarian rebuttal that this is not incriminatory because Oswald "worked there" is weak sauce.  A lot of people "worked there" but Oswald is the only TSBD employee who left his prints on these particular boxes.

Really? Show us the report that actually says no other (not) identifiable prints were found on those boxes.

The claim that only Oswald's prints were found on the boxes in the S/N is not only not true but also highly suspect, because it justifies the question how those boxes got there in the first place. Are we to believe those boxes (we know were recently moved) were put there by people who did not leave a single print on them?

He also left his prints on the bag and rifle.

You mean the bag that you can not prove is the same one he brought in that morning? That bag?

And as far as the rifle goes, the FBI found no prints on the rifle or any residue or trace of a print having been lifted.

Lt Day, claiming a week later, that he lifted print of the rifle is highly questionable because he did not mention it to anybody for days and lifting 100% of a print without leaving any residue is just about impossible. So, if you want to claim that Day's print was indeed on the rifle you will have to provide proof of that and you can't.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 01, 2023, 05:40:05 PM
Is this Mr. Charles Givens (man close to camera, bottom-left, in red shirt & with large pencil [?] behind ear)?

(https://i.postimg.cc/Y2gQ97sR/Lovelady-in-Martin.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

Here, for cf, is Mr. Givens in the 1967 CBS special:

(https://i.postimg.cc/505vsqvG/Givens.jpg)

 Thumb1: (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: James Hackerott on February 01, 2023, 06:52:17 PM
I have recently seen a few posts that seem to indicate that LHO had to have assembled the SN in the last few minutes before the motorcade arrived. However in the Bronson film segment, which was filmed during the epileptic event at approximately 12:15, we can see that the window ledge already has the boxes on it. Here's a copy of the SFM image in Robin Unger's Gallery:

(https://i.vgy.me/AHCN1g.jpg)

And here's a link to the larger image in Robin's Gallery:

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=12705&fullsize=1 (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=12705&fullsize=1)


This is evidence that the SN was built before ~12:15. We have no way of knowing how long before ~12:15, but it does appear that it didn't need to be built at the last minute...

This single frame image from Bronson’s film shows the sniper’s nest windows representing less than 0.4% of the entire normally projected frame. Stabilized animated GIFs of the film sequence show the object(s) on the window ledge more like an angry amoeba than boxes. Frame stabilization with subsequent stacking provided an image that shows a single, fairly well defined, box - well illuminated by the sun.

I questioned whether this box was the window box, or possibly the rest box directly behind the window box, from the photographers view. My recollection was the timing for this film sequence was close to 12:23. I modeled in 3D the scene for 12:23 with and without the window box present. When the window box is not present there is shadow from the window’s lower frame that clips the top-left corner of the rest box. Since the stacked image does not seem to show this shadow-clipped box I conclude the Bronson box is most likely the window box, present around 12:23.

(https://i.imgur.com/FrqzVmj.jpg)

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 01, 2023, 06:57:43 PM
The contrarian rebuttal that this is not incriminatory because Oswald "worked there" is weak sauce.  A lot of people "worked there" but Oswald is the only TSBD employee who left his prints on these particular boxes.

Really? Show us the report that actually says no other (not) identifiable prints were found on those boxes.

The claim that only Oswald's prints were found on the boxes in the S/N is highly suspect, because that would mean that no law enforcement officer touched any of the boxes (which by itself is highly unlikely) and it justifies the question how those boxes got there in the first place. Are we to believe those boxes (we know were recently moved) were put there by people who did not leave a single print on the boxes?

He also left his prints on the bag and rifle.

You mean the bag that you can not prove is the same one he brought in that morning? That bag?

And as far as the rifle goes, the FBI found no prints on the rifle or any residue or trace of a print having been lifted.

Lt Day, claiming a week later, that he lifted print of the rifle is highly questionable because he did not mention it to anybody for days and lifting 100% of a print without leaving any residue is just about impossible. So, if you want to claim that Day's print was indeed on the rifle you will have to provide proof of that and you can't.

LOL.  Down the rabbit hole we go! WEEEEE.  I'll play along to pass the time but you have gone over this a thousand times or more rolling out your contrarian nonsense. Oswald's prints were found on the SN boxes.  WC 3131 confirms that prints were taken for comparison from the TSBD employees who had access to the 6th floor.  None of their prints were identified as being on the boxes.  Elvis wasn't fingerprinted, though, for comparison.  So we still can't rule him out using your defense attorney "logic."    Now you are suggesting Day was in on the conspiracy and lied about finding the prints?  Why does "not mention it to anybody for days" make his claim suspect?  If there was a frameup going on with the FBI, why didn't they simply confirm his findings?  HA HA HA.  How do you know who and when he spoke about the prints to anyone?  Have you invented that time machine that you require in every instance relating to Oswald's guilt. 
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 01, 2023, 07:02:08 PM
This single frame image from Bronson’s film shows the sniper’s nest windows representing less than 0.4% of the entire normally projected frame. Stabilized animated GIFs of the film sequence show the object(s) on the window ledge more like an angry amoeba than boxes. Frame stabilization with subsequent stacking provided an image that shows a single, fairly well defined, box - well illuminated by the sun.

I questioned whether this box was the window box, or possibly the rest box directly behind the window box, from the photographers view. My recollection was the timing for this film sequence was close to 12:23. I modeled in 3D the scene for 12:23 with and without the window box present. When the window box is not present there is shadow from the window’s lower frame that clips the top-left corner of the rest box. Since the stacked image does not seem to show this shadow-clipped box I conclude the Bronson box is most likely the window box, present around 12:23.

(https://i.imgur.com/FrqzVmj.jpg)


Great work, as usual, James! It is impressive how well stacking the frames helps define what we can see in the image. Thanks for posting this!

With a little luck, one day we might be able to see the “bald spot”….   ;)    ;D
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 01, 2023, 07:48:37 PM
LOL.  Down the rabbit hole we go! WEEEEE.  I'll play along to pass the time but you have gone over this a thousand times or more rolling out your contrarian nonsense. Oswald's prints were found on the SN boxes.  WC 3131 confirms that prints were taken for comparison from the TSBD employees who had access to the 6th floor.  None of their prints were identified as being on the boxes.  Elvis wasn't fingerprinted, though, for comparison.  So we still can't rule him out using your defense attorney "logic."    Now you are suggesting Day was in on the conspiracy and lied about finding the prints?  Why does "not mention it to anybody for days" make his claim suspect?  If there was a frameup going on with the FBI, why didn't they simply confirm his findings?  HA HA HA.  How do you know who and when he spoke about the prints to anyone?  Have you invented that time machine that you require in every instance relating to Oswald's guilt.

WC 3131 confirms that prints were taken for comparison from the TSBD employees who had access to the 6th floor.  None of their prints were identified as being on the boxes.

As per usual you misrepresent the evidence. WC3131 states that the prints of those employees were compared with latent prints on (only) four boxes and that no identification was effected.
What this means, in the real world, is that there were in fact unidentified prints on those boxes which they could match to anybody. This can happen because the quality of the print simply wasn't good enough for comparison. What it doesn't do is rule out that the prints of others were on the boxes.

Now you are suggesting Day was in on the conspiracy and lied about finding the prints? 

Day doesn't have to be "in on the conspiracy" to lie about finding the prints. We know for a fact he lied about other things, so why not about this? When Day found out, on Friday evening, that Frazier denied that the bag found in the TSBD was the one he had seen Oswald carry in the morning, it was Day who desperately tried to concoct a bogus story to explain away the problem.

Why does "not mention it to anybody for days" make his claim suspect?

Are you for real? On Friday evening, the rifle goes to the FBI lab for examination. They find no prints on the weapon or even residue of a lifted print. Day learns this when the rifle is returned to him, the next day, and he doesn't mention such a crucial piece of evidence (as a previously lifted print) until all the evidence has to be handed over again to the FBI, two days after Oswald was killed. Was Day merely incompetent or did he really withhold crucial evidence for nearly a week?

If there was a frameup going on with the FBI, why didn't they simply confirm his findings?

Clarify the question....

How do you know who and when he spoke about the prints to anyone?

That's easy. There is no contemporary report either by the FBI or DPD that confirms Day said anything to anybody, before the second shipment of evidence to the FBI. This can only mean one of two things; Day himself told nobody or he told somebody who in turn also kept his mouth shut. Either way, not really normal police procedure, right?

You really need to look at the bigger picture here; they have no evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. They have boxes in the S/N with latent prints on them that can't be identified (and thus could belong to anybody) and they have Frazier's denial that the bag found at the TSBD was the one he had seen Oswald carry. In other words, they have nothing even remotely solid, except for the rifle and the evidence card with Oswald's prints on them.

Yet, Day never figures that it might be a good idea if he just did his job and simply compared the print he allegedly lifted from the rifle with Oswald's actual prints.... Really?

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 01, 2023, 08:40:08 PM
Great point.  The contrarian rebuttal that this is not incriminatory because Oswald "worked there" is weak sauce.  A lot of people "worked there" but Oswald is the only TSBD employee who left his prints on these particular boxes.

 BS: You don't know that.  There was one unidentified print.  And not all prints are liftable or identifiable at all. Especially after some time has passed.  Did anybody make any effort to see which employees filled orders from the sixth floor and when?

Quote
He also left his prints on the bag and rifle.

"The bag".  LOL.  You mean the "bag" that you cannot prove was found on the "sniper's nest" floor, or that ever contained a rifle?  That bag?

"His prints on the rifle".  LOL. Wrong again, "Richard".  There were some prints near the trigger guard that were unsuitable for identification purposes and a single partial palmprint turned up a week later on an index card.

Quote
Imagine how unlucky Oswald would have to be to have left all this evidence because he "worked there" when no other employee who "worked there" did the same.  No reasonable person can believe that.  The prisons are full of criminals who left much less evidence than Oswald.

Name one.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 01, 2023, 08:44:18 PM
Exactly. The only way you can believe he is innocent is if you want to believe he is innocent.

John I actually makes an excellent point. If the box had been handled by LHO as part of his work, the fingerprints would have been all over the top where he opened it to access the books inside. If memory serves me right, instead there were just a couple of palm prints and a single fingerprint. The SN boxes are just one more example of his guilt.

I could just as easily claim that his fingerprints would have been all over the undersides of the boxes if he had moved them to fashion a "sniper's nest".
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 01, 2023, 09:02:54 PM
WC 3131 confirms that prints were taken for comparison from the TSBD employees who had access to the 6th floor.  None of their prints were identified as being on the boxes.

As per usual you misrepresent the evidence. WC3131 states that the prints of those employees were compared with latent prints on (only) four boxes and that no identification was effected.
What this means, in the real world, is that there were in fact unidentified prints on those boxes which they could match to anybody. This can happen because the quality of the print simply wasn't good enough for comparison. What it doesn't do is rule out that the prints of others were on the boxes.

Now you are suggesting Day was in on the conspiracy and lied about finding the prints? 

Day doesn't have to be "in on the conspiracy" to lie about finding the prints. We know for a fact he lied about other things, so why not about this? When Day found out, on Friday evening, that Frazier denied that the bag found in the TSBD was the one he had seen Oswald carry in the morning, it was Day who desperately tried to concoct a bogus story to explain away the problem.

Why does "not mention it to anybody for days" make his claim suspect?

Are you for real? On Friday evening, the rifle goes to the FBI lab for examination. They find no prints on the weapon or even residue of a lifted print. Day learns this when the rifle is returned to him, the next day, and he doesn't mention such a crucial piece of evidence (as a previously lifted print) until all the evidence has to be handed over again to the FBI, two days after Oswald was killed. Was Day merely incompetent or did he really withhold crucial evidence for nearly a week?

If there was a frameup going on with the FBI, why didn't they simply confirm his findings?

Clarify the question....

How do you know who and when he spoke about the prints to anyone?

That's easy. There is no contemporary report either by the FBI or DPD that confirms Day said anything to anybody, before the second shipment of evidence to the FBI. This can only mean one of two things; Day himself told nobody or he told somebody who in turn also kept his mouth shut. Either way, not really normal police procedure, right?

You really need to look at the bigger picture here; they have no evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. They have boxes in the S/N with latent prints on them that can't be identified (and thus could belong to anybody) and they have Frazier's denial that the bag found at the TSBD was the one he had seen Oswald carry. In other words, they have nothing even remotely solid, except for the rifle and the evidence card with Oswald's prints on them.

Yet, Day never figures that it might be a good idea if he just did his job and simply compared the print he allegedly lifted from the rifle with Oswald's actual prints.... Really?

So to summarize.  Oswald's prints were found on the SN boxes.  Prints were taken from the other TSBD employees who worked on that floor.  None of their prints were identified, as Oswald's were, as being on those same boxes.  They also "worked there" but left no such identifiable prints.  Only Oswald did.  Such bad luck.  And here we learn that for some unspecified reason, that Day would lie AFTER Oswald's death about finding prints on the rifle EVEN if he were not involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald.  Why he would do this is left to our imagination since there would be no prosecution of Oswald after his death and the only possible reason to lie about the prints would be to frame him for the crime and allow the guilty person to escape.  And Day's confirmation of finding Oswald's prints on the rifle is a "lie" because there is no "report" of him mentioning it for a whole week!  Of course, he very well could have done so verbally and there was simply no report to be made in that timeframe.  And even if he did not mention it, that alone does not cast doubt on his confirmation that it happened. 
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 01, 2023, 09:54:02 PM
So to summarize.  Oswald's prints were found on the SN boxes.  Prints were taken from the other TSBD employees who worked on that floor.  None of their prints were identified, as Oswald's were, as being on those same boxes.  They also "worked there" but left no such identifiable prints.  Only Oswald did.  Such bad luck.  And here we learn that for some unspecified reason, that Day would lie AFTER Oswald's death about finding prints on the rifle EVEN if he were not involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald.  Why he would do this is left to our imagination since there would be no prosecution of Oswald after his death and the only possible reason to lie about the prints would be to frame him for the crime and allow the guilty person to escape.  And Day's confirmation of finding Oswald's prints on the rifle is a "lie" because there is no "report" of him mentioning it for a whole week!  Of course, he very well could have done so verbally and there was simply no report to be made in that timeframe.  And even if he did not mention it, that alone does not cast doubt on his confirmation that it happened.

Nobody asked for your flawed and bogus "summary".

Prints were taken from the other TSBD employees who worked on that floor.  None of their prints were identified, as Oswald's were, as being on those same boxes.  They also "worked there" but left no such identifiable prints.  Only Oswald did.

And didn't that come in handy, right?

And here we learn that for some unspecified reason, that Day would lie AFTER Oswald's death about finding prints on the rifle EVEN if he were not involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald.  Why he would do this is left to our imagination since there would be no prosecution of Oswald after his death and the only possible reason to lie about the prints would be to frame him for the crime and allow the guilty person to escape.

A far better question to ask (which is why you ignore it, of course) is; Why didn't Day say something when the FBI reported there were no prints on the rifle and Oswald was still alive? What possible reason could Day have had to stay silent?

the only possible reason to lie about the prints would be to frame him for the crime

You've answered your own question!  Thumb1:

How many (now proven) innocent people were convicted again over the years by Henry Wade and his corrupt ilk? In all those cases they allowed the guilty person to escape, right?

And Day's confirmation of finding Oswald's prints on the rifle is a "lie" because there is no "report" of him mentioning it for a whole week!  Of course, he very well could have done so verbally and there was simply no report to be made in that timeframe.

And now we're in La La Land. Again, finding a print of Oswald on the rifle used to kill Kennedy would be a big thing. The mere fact that Day allegedly managed to keep that print in his desk for six days means nobody knew about it or it simply wasn't there to begin with. Besides, nobody has ever come forward to confirm that Day told him about the print before Oswald died!

And even if he did not mention it, that alone does not cast doubt on his confirmation that it happened.

Only in your fantasy world. In the real world holding back a crucial piece of evidence for six days is not only a massive dereliction of duty but also destroys the chain of custody required for such evidence.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 01, 2023, 11:21:35 PM
I could just as easily claim that his fingerprints would have been all over the undersides of the boxes if he had moved them to fashion a "sniper's nest".

Feel free to make all the claims you would like. Nothing will change the fact there were not any of LHO’s fingerprints found on top of the box supporting your claim that LHO had opened the box to remove books. Fingerprints or the lack of them on the bottom of the box actually is irrelevant.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 02, 2023, 12:26:52 AM
Feel free to make all the claims you would like. Nothing will change the fact there were not any of LHO’s fingerprints found on top of the box supporting your claim that LHO had opened the box to remove books. Fingerprints or the lack of them on the bottom of the box actually is irrelevant.

My recollection is that some of those boxes didn't even contain books.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 02, 2023, 12:31:19 AM
Feel free to make all the claims you would like. Nothing will change the fact there were not any of LHO’s fingerprints found on top of the box supporting your claim that LHO had opened the box to remove books. Fingerprints or the lack of them on the bottom of the box actually is irrelevant.

So lack of fingerprints on the top is somehow relevant, but not lack of fingerprints anywhere else. Nice special pleading. But the real question is, how are fingerprints anywhere on a cardboard box evidence of murder?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 02, 2023, 12:32:22 AM
Nobody asked for your flawed and bogus "summary".

Prints were taken from the other TSBD employees who worked on that floor.  None of their prints were identified, as Oswald's were, as being on those same boxes.  They also "worked there" but left no such identifiable prints.  Only Oswald did.

And didn't that come in handy, right?

And here we learn that for some unspecified reason, that Day would lie AFTER Oswald's death about finding prints on the rifle EVEN if he were not involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald.  Why he would do this is left to our imagination since there would be no prosecution of Oswald after his death and the only possible reason to lie about the prints would be to frame him for the crime and allow the guilty person to escape.

A far better question to ask (which is why you ignore it, of course) is; Why didn't Day say something when the FBI reported there were no prints on the rifle and Oswald was still alive? What possible reason could Day have had to stay silent?

the only possible reason to lie about the prints would be to frame him for the crime

You've answered your own question!  Thumb1:

How many (now proven) innocent people were convicted again over the years by Henry Wade and his corrupt ilk? In all those cases they allowed the guilty person to escape, right?

And Day's confirmation of finding Oswald's prints on the rifle is a "lie" because there is no "report" of him mentioning it for a whole week!  Of course, he very well could have done so verbally and there was simply no report to be made in that timeframe.

And now we're in La La Land. Again, finding a print of Oswald on the rifle used to kill Kennedy would be a big thing. The mere fact that Day allegedly managed to keep that print in his desk for six days means nobody knew about it or it simply wasn't there to begin with. Besides, nobody has ever come forward to confirm that Day told him about the print before Oswald died!

And even if he did not mention it, that alone does not cast doubt on his confirmation that it happened.

Only in your fantasy world. In the real world holding back a crucial piece of evidence for six days is not only a massive dereliction of duty but also destroys the chain of custody required for such evidence.

Again, Oswald would have been dead by that point.  So why would a member of the DPD feel the need to lie about finding the print?  There would be no prosecution of Oswald to present that evidence at trial.  The sole and only purpose would be to cover up the involvement of someone else and frame Oswald for the crime.   That means you are implying Day's lie was part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald - not prosecute him for the crime.  Can you understand the importance of that distinction?  The police might sometimes manufacture evidence to assist in the prosecution of a suspect but there is no reason to do so if there will be no trial.  What you are alleging is an intentional lie to cover up the crime even if you are not bright enough to realize it.  That means you are a CTer.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2023, 01:39:00 AM
Again, Oswald would have been dead by that point.  So why would a member of the DPD feel the need to lie about finding the print?  There would be no prosecution of Oswald to present that evidence at trial.  The sole and only purpose would be to cover up the involvement of someone else and frame Oswald for the crime.   That means you are implying Day's lie was part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald - not prosecute him for the crime.  Can you understand the importance of that distinction?  The police might sometimes manufacture evidence to assist in the prosecution of a suspect but there is no reason to do so if there will be no trial.  What you are alleging is an intentional lie to cover up the crime even if you are not bright enough to realize it.  That means you are a CTer.

Again, Oswald would have been dead by that point.

At what point would that be? Day claimed he lifted the print of the rifle on Friday evening, before the evidence was shipped to the FBI lab in Washington.
The evidence was returned the next day when Oswald was still alive. So, when the FBI did not find any prints on the rifle, why did Day stay quiet?

The police might sometimes manufacture evidence to assist in the prosecution of a suspect but there is no reason to do so if there will be no trial.

BS. There may not have been a trial in a court of law, but there's also the court of public opinion and Hoover as well as Katzenbach had already concluded that Oswald was a lone gunman. Against that background Day remarkably "remembering" this print turned out to be more than handy.

And btw, there never is a reason for police to "manufacture evidence to assist the prosecution"!

What you are alleging is an intentional lie to cover up the crime even if you are not bright enough to realize it.  That means you are a CTer.

Nope. Unlike you, I just look at the evidence honestly. There are more than enough indicators to justify the conclusion that the case was wrapped around Oswald regardless of his guilt or innocence.

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 02, 2023, 01:50:19 AM
Quote
The FBI requested and received the remaining physical evidence from the Dallas police on the Tuesday following the assassination, not aware of the palm print's existence. To say the least, they were surprised upon discovering the palm print included with the evidence. By matching irregularities found on the rifle barrel to it, the FBI later verified that the palm print lift that was delivered was, in fact, genuine.

Lieutenant Day believed at the time that he had not completely obliterated the palm print on the barrel after his lift and later stated that he had pointed out the area of the palm print to FBI Agent Drain when turning the rifle over to him. Drain, on the other hand, did not recall being shown the palm print.

Rusty was standing, by as Lieutenant Day gave the rifle to Drain. Rusty told me that Drain was in a hurry to leave and was distracted by another FBI agent who was hurrying him to leave. According to Rusty, "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."

     -- "JFK First Day Evidence" (1993 book)
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2023, 02:02:45 AM
     -- "JFK First Day Evidence" (1993 book)

Irrelevant as it is about what happened the second time the evidence was given to the FBI.

The first time this happened was on Friday evening at around 11 PM. It was flown to Washington, examined and returned to the DPD on Saturday, when Oswald was still alive.
The FBI found no trace of a print on the rifle, yet Day said nothing about the print he had allegedly lifted from the rifle until the evidence was turned over to the FBI the second time!

Why did Day stay silent after the FBI found no print or even a trace of a lifted print? What possible reason could Day have had to say nothing?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 02, 2023, 04:14:49 AM
According to Rusty, "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."

“Evidently”.

Or Day never said a word to Drain because it didn’t exist yet.

Rusty to the rescue 30 years later with his magic briefcase…
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 02, 2023, 11:20:23 AM
“However much you deny the truth, the truth goes on existing” — George Orwell
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 02, 2023, 12:11:31 PM
Gary Savage, “JFK First Day Evidence”, page 77 (quote of R.W. Livingston):

….“I am sure that Lieutenant Day, who was in charge of the Crime Lab, dusted the rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository, and lifted a partial palm print off the underside of the barrel after the rifle was taken apart. 2. They had the actual print there in the office that night. I compared it my self with Oswald’s palm print, and it looked to me like there was enough there to say yes, it was Oswald’s palm print. I think all the other people on the day shift had already looked at the palm print before I arrived that night, but I went ahead and looked at the palm print myself and was satisfied that it was Oswald’s.”

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 02, 2023, 01:47:46 PM
Irrelevant as it is about what happened the second time the evidence was given to the FBI.

The first time this happened was on Friday evening at around 11 PM. It was flown to Washington, examined and returned to the DPD on Saturday, when Oswald was still alive.
The FBI found no trace of a print on the rifle, yet Day said nothing about the print he had allegedly lifted from the rifle until the evidence was turned over to the FBI the second time!

Why did Day stay silent after the FBI found no print or even a trace of a lifted print? What possible reason could Day have had to say nothing?

So many false premises, contradictions, and absence of common sense and logic.  Here you are alleging that the fact that Day did not mention the print to anyone means that he fabricated that evidence.  You can't even prove that he didn't mention it to anyone.  But even if he didn't, why would he lie to fabricate evidence after Oswald was dead?  There would be no prosecution of Oswald by the DPD.  If the DPD was satisfied by the evidence without this print - and they were, and there would never be any trial why in the world would someone risk their reputation and career lying about the evidence in the most important case in his career?  It makes absolutely no sense.  In fact, it is baseless and idiotic.   
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 02, 2023, 02:35:13 PM
My recollection is that some of those boxes didn't even contain books.

Might be right, if nothing else, using the prevailing Conspiracy Land Logic, LHO took all the books out and then retaped the empty box during the actual shooting and then ran to the lunchroom where he encountered Officer Baker. Totally innocent. Really, it could have happened that way you know.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 02, 2023, 02:39:38 PM
So lack of fingerprints on the top is somehow relevant, but not lack of fingerprints anywhere else. Nice special pleading. But the real question is, how are fingerprints anywhere on a cardboard box evidence of murder?

According to the claim you made of LHO’s innocence that is exactly right. His fingerprints place him building the SN and not the result if him retrieving books from the box. If there is a better candidate for the assassin, other than the individual who built the SN and brought his rifle to the TSBD where it was found on the 6th floor and matched to the shells, bullet and fragments, now would be a good time to reveal who it is.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 02, 2023, 03:16:21 PM
Here’s CE 506 which depicts the position of the clipboard when found. This is the first time I have seen this photo. I cannot help but speculate that the rifle was hidden amongst those boxes when LHO arrived at the TSBD that morning. And that he might have left his clipboard there as he retrieved his rifle just after being seen by Givens.


(https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0122b.jpg)
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2023, 03:30:26 PM
So many false premises, contradictions, and absence of common sense and logic.  Here you are alleging that the fact that Day did not mention the print to anyone means that he fabricated that evidence.  You can't even prove that he didn't mention it to anyone.  But even if he didn't, why would he lie to fabricate evidence after Oswald was dead?  There would be no prosecution of Oswald by the DPD.  If the DPD was satisfied by the evidence without this print - and they were, and there would never be any trial why in the world would someone risk their reputation and career lying about the evidence in the most important case in his career?  It makes absolutely no sense.  In fact, it is baseless and idiotic.

Did you take classes to become so patheticly ignorant?

You can't even prove that he didn't mention it to anyone

A negative can't be proven. Instead prove that Day did mention it to somebody. You can't!

But even if he didn't, why would he lie to fabricate evidence after Oswald was dead?  There would be no prosecution of Oswald by the DPD.

If you had read my previous post you would have your answer.

If the DPD was satisfied by the evidence without this print - and they were,

Really? And you know this, how?

The reality is of course that we know now they had no case of any significance against Oswald for the Kennedy murder, despite the bogus claims made by Henry Wade.

why in the world would someone risk their reputation and career lying about the evidence in the most important case in his career?

What risk? Day would tell the WC, behind closed doors, and the evidence (including his testimony) would be locked away as top secret for decades. Who was going to call out Day for lying?

Btw, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question;

When the FBI examined the rifle on Friday evening or early Saturday morning and found no trace of a print or residue of a print that was lifted, why did Day keep his mouth shut?  Oswald was still alive at that point and his print found on the rifle would be crucial evidence, yet Day said nothing and by doing so discredited the evidence and the chain of custody. Does that make sense to you?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 02, 2023, 04:02:12 PM
Did you take classes to become so patheticly ignorant?

You can't even prove that he didn't mention it to anyone

A negative can't be proven. Instead prove that Day did mention it to somebody. You can't!

But even if he didn't, why would he lie to fabricate evidence after Oswald was dead?  There would be no prosecution of Oswald by the DPD.

If you had read my previous post you would have your answer.

If the DPD was satisfied by the evidence without this print - and they were,

Really? And you know this, how?

The reality is of course that we know now they had no case of any significance against Oswald for the Kennedy murder, despite the bogus claims made by Henry Wade.

why in the world would someone risk their reputation and career lying about the evidence in the most important case in his career?

What risk? Day would tell the WC, behind closed doors, and the evidence (including his testimony) would be locked away as top secret for decades. Who was going to call out Day for lying?

Btw, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question;

When the FBI examined the rifle on Friday evening or early Saturday morning and found no trace of a print or residue of a print that was lifted, why did Day keep his mouth shut?  Oswald was still alive at that point and his print found on the rifle would be crucial evidence, yet Day said nothing and by doing so discredited the evidence and the chain of custody. Does that make sense to you?

The DPD arrested and charged LHO for the murder of JFK based upon the evidence that they had available on Nov. 22.  This act confirms that they believed they had sufficient evidence to do so as of that time.  Oswald is then murdered two days later meaning there would never be a criminal prosecution.  Thus, the DPD would have no incentive to then fabricate any additional evidence to bolster the prosecution of Oswald for that crime.  They had the sole legal responsibility for investigating the case.  They were satisfied Oswald was responsible for the crime based upon the evidence that they had as demonstrated by charging him with that crime.  Oswald's death closed the case from their perspective.  The guilty person was dead.

Day would have no apparent incentive to fabricate any additional evidence after this point.  There is no evidence to suggest that he did so.  Your baseless allegation (unproven) that he told no one about the fingerprints for a week is not evidence of any fabrication.  That is idiot logic.  The fact that you would question why it is risky to fabricate evidence in the murder of the president is unreal.   It is incredibly risky to fabricate evidence in any murder case and a crime much less the crime of the century.  Why would any law enforcement person do so when they knew that the DPD was satisfied of Oswald's guilt and there would be no trial?  What incentive would Day even have to frame Oswald for this crime?  Particularly in the complete absence of a trial. 
Why would he risk his career and potential jail for fabricating evidence against a dead man?   This is not an OJ-type situation where it can be argued that the police were framing a guilty person by planting evidence.  Oswald was dead.  There would be no incentive to fabricate additional evidence.  To suggest that is what happened is sheer contrarian, defense attorney stupidity. 
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2023, 04:19:17 PM
The DPD arrested and charged LHO for the murder of JFK based upon the evidence that they had available on Nov. 22.  This act confirms that they believed they had sufficient evidence to do so as of that time.  Oswald is then murdered two days later meaning there would never be a criminal prosecution.  Thus, the DPD would have no incentive to then fabricate any additional evidence to bolster the prosecution of Oswald for that crime.  They had the sole legal responsibility for investigating the case.  They were satisfied Oswald was responsible for the crime based upon the evidence that they had as demonstrated by charging him with that crime.  Oswald's death closed the case from their perspective.  The guilty person was dead.

Day would have no apparent incentive to fabricate any additional evidence after this point.  There is no evidence to suggest that he did so.  Your baseless allegation (unproven) that he told no one about the fingerprints for a week is not evidence of any fabrication.  That is idiot logic.  The fact that you would question why it is risky to fabricate evidence in the murder of the president is unreal.   It is incredibly risky to fabricate evidence in any murder case and a crime much less the crime of the century.  Why would any law enforcement person do so when they knew that the DPD was satisfied of Oswald's guilt and there would be no trial?  What incentive would Day even have to frame Oswald for this crime?  Particularly in the complete absence of a trial. 
Why would he risk his career and potential jail for fabricating evidence against a dead man?   This is not an OJ-type situation where it can be argued that the police were framing a guilty person by planting evidence.  Oswald was dead.  There would be no incentive to fabricate additional evidence.  To suggest that is what happened is sheer contrarian, defense attorney stupidity.

Repeating the same BS over and over again doesn't make it any more significant.

The DPD arrested and charged LHO for the murder of JFK based upon the evidence that they had available on Nov. 22.

Which was absolutely nothing. They had a rifle and a bag which at the time of charging Oswald neither could be linked to him.

Why do you keep avoiding the main question? When the FBI said, on Saturday morning, when Oswald was still alive, that they had found no print or residue of a lifted print on the rifle, why did Day keep his mouth shut? On Saturday, the expectation was still that Oswald would be going to trial, so why would Day compromise crucial evidence by not reporting he had lifted a print of the rifle? Don't you think that Fritz could have used a matching print in his interrogation of Oswald?

What incentive would Day even have to frame Oswald for this crime?

Who knows why Day did what he did? You would have to ask him. And then also ask him why he was so desperate to fabricate a bogus yjeory to explain why Frazier did not identify the bag found at the TSBD as the one Oswald had carried that morning?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Michael Walton on February 02, 2023, 05:51:09 PM
OK I'm confused about this thread. First, and elsewhere, there are folks here who said there really wasn't much to construct for the sniper's nest. Now, with this thread and the usual cast of characters here, an elaborate sniper's nest was constructed and it was constructed before 12:15. And oh by the way, one of the boxes had LHO's prints.

So which is it? And yes, if you really went into it, I'm sure LHO's prints were all over the place in that building. He did work there after all for a month or so.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 02, 2023, 06:01:39 PM
Sixth Floor Museum, Oral History Collection, J.C. Day, 8/15/96, pages 18-19, interviewer - Bob Porter:

Carl:  Anyway, I found traces of a print that extended out on the barrel, part of them apparently went up under the barrel between the barrel and the stock. So then I took the gun off and finished dusting the area, and then I found a piece of a palm print there. It looked reasonably good for comparison purposes. The usual method of collecting those prints after you develop them and can see them, is take a piece of Scotch tape and mash down over it good. And the powder will cling to the tape when you pull it off, and you can put the powder on a 3 by 5 card like this, (holding up a small card) put it on the back. And then you‟ve got the print under that tape, and you can take it and compare it. But this was very dim, which indicated that was not a new print. It didn‟t take much powder. But reflection of the light showed the dried print on the barrel. I looked at the print and it looked like this part of his palm where the gun had been laying across his hand. I‟ve forgotten now which hand it was, but I was pretty sure that this part of the palm was what I‟d collected. But it was a very dim print, and for presentation to a jury, you like the best print you could show. I could see it, but I don‟t think a jury could. But the reflection of the light when I shined it on there, I could still see pretty good impressions of that print on that barrel. So I was fixing to set up my cameras to try to take a photograph of that print, and of course on something round the light makes a streak right down one part. If you‟ve got a light here, it won‟t light up the whole thing. You‟ll see a streak of light and if you move that light a little, the light on the barrel will move around. I was going to set up a time exposure, and get it set, and then take that light and move it around the barrel to get all of the print, what I was fixing to do. About that time, I got orders from my captain, Captain Dowdy…don‟t do anything else to the gun. Stop what you‟re doing, [unclear Drain], the FBI will be in at 11:30 to pick it up. Well it, of course it caught me right in the middle of the stream. I didn‟t know just exactly what to do. I had powder all over it. They say, “Don‟t do anything else to it,” and that‟s what I do. I followed orders (chuckling). But it was kind of a frustrating thing when you‟re working with it and be interrupted in mid stream that way. I don‟t think the chief‟s office at that time knew just exactly where I stood on checking that. But anyway, I stopped and stripped it back in the stock and put it aside. I didn‟t try to wrap it up or anything because you could mess those prints up wrapping them up and handling them. I didn‟t have time to write reports or anything like that, it must have been after ten o‟clock then, so I just put the gun back in the evidence room and left it alone until Drain came in at 11:30. He had two or three people with him.
Bob: Did you know him, or was this just a…
Carl: Yes, I‟d known Drain a long time. And I told him at the time, there‟s a print here. I showed him where it is, where it was. But I don‟t know whether it registered with him or not. Anyway, he took the gun. But that‟s all that I turned over. I didn‟t turn over the lift that I‟d previously made of that dim print, because I thought that they would find that under there and come up with their own print. My orders were turn over the gun, and so I don‟t remember if I gave them anything else or not - there may have been one or two other things. But I didn‟t even thing of giving them this print that I had lifted off of there. Well, the gun was taking about 11:30 that night. I worked all night - I didn‟t come in the next day. Sunday the gun was returned, but I wasn‟t there when it was returned, and it was in a box, a big box. But again, I was directed not to do anything else with it, just leave it alone. And I didn‟t open the box. And I never did get back to checking the print, they told me not to do anything else with it, and I didn‟t. I felt sure it was his print when I briefly examined it…that palm print that I got off the barrel.
Bob: Yes.
Carl: And when I went to, no I‟m getting ahead of myself. I didn‟t hear anymore of the gun after I gave it to Drain. I knew it came back and was in our evidence room. But I didn‟t examine it or do anything else with the evidence at all.


Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 02, 2023, 06:10:49 PM
OK I'm confused about this thread. First, and elsewhere, there are folks here who said there really wasn't much to construct for the sniper's nest. Now, with this thread and the usual cast of characters here, an elaborate sniper's nest was constructed and it was constructed before 12:15. And oh by the way, one of the boxes had LHO's prints.

So which is it? And yes, if you really went into it, I'm sure LHO's prints were all over the place in that building. He did work there after all for a month or so.


Most of the boxes surrounding the sniper's nest (and obscuring it from view) were already moved there due to the flooring work. Arranging a few boxes at the window is what we are discussing. Functional, but not "elaborate."


Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 02, 2023, 06:39:13 PM
Repeating the same BS over and over again doesn't make it any more significant.

The DPD arrested and charged LHO for the murder of JFK based upon the evidence that they had available on Nov. 22.

Which was absolutely nothing. They had a rifle and a bag which at the time of charging Oswald neither could be linked to him.

Why do you keep avoiding the main question? When the FBI said, on Saturday morning, when Oswald was still alive, that they had found no print or residue of a lifted print on the rifle, why did Day keep his mouth shut? On Saturday, the expectation was still that Oswald would be going to trial, so why would Day compromise crucial evidence by not reporting he had lifted a print of the rifle? Don't you think that Fritz could have used a matching print in his interrogation of Oswald?

What incentive would Day even have to frame Oswald for this crime?

Who knows why Day did what he did? You would have to ask him. And then also ask him why he was so desperate to fabricate a bogus yjeory to explain why Frazier did not identify the bag found at the TSBD as the one Oswald had carried that morning?

False premise.  There is no proof that Day "kept his mouth shut."  In fact, others have already noted evidence to the contrary.  And after using your Ouija board/time machine to reach this conclusion (which, even if it were true, doesn't validate your idiotic suggestion that Day fabricated the prints) you follow this by asking "Who knows why Day did what he did"?  LOL.  I almost feel bad for you.  There is no evidence whatsoever - as in absolutely none - that Day fabricated this or any evidence.  In fact, for the reasons noted, there was absolutely no reason to do so and plenty of reasons not to.  You certainly have suggested none nor even spun us a fantasy fable to explain why Day would risk his career and jail to frame a dead guy.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 02, 2023, 06:49:42 PM
OK I'm confused about this thread. First, and elsewhere, there are folks here who said there really wasn't much to construct for the sniper's nest. Now, with this thread and the usual cast of characters here, an elaborate sniper's nest was constructed and it was constructed before 12:15. And oh by the way, one of the boxes had LHO's prints.

So which is it? And yes, if you really went into it, I'm sure LHO's prints were all over the place in that building. He did work there after all for a month or so.

The majority of SN boxes were already in place due to the floor project.  Oswald likely took that into consideration in selecting his shooting location.  It was perfect for his needs offering a good combination of seclusion and shooting angle.  He only moved a few small boxes for his purposes and the prints on those boxes confirm that is what he did.  The long bag with his prints being left next to the SN and his rifle on the same floor make it a rock-solid case.  It is difficult to conceive how there could even be much more evidence than was found to link Oswald to this crime.  And, of course. the great logical inconsistency of CTers is that they argue that this evidence was planted to frame Oswald but then claim this same evidence doesn't link Oswald to the crime.  Logic not being a trait much utilized by CTers when it interferes with a desired narrative, but still entertaining.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 02, 2023, 07:01:33 PM
In his interview with Bob Porter, Lt. Day mentions a "3 by 5" card", probably a standard size card for most prints. The palm print was lifted with 2" wide tape, so the paper it was mounted on was non-standard.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/a6/67/DDHMN74m_o.jpg)

Thought worth mentioning before the Kooks ran with it.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2023, 07:04:39 PM
False premise.  There is no proof that Day "kept his mouth shut."  In fact, others have already noted evidence to the contrary.  And after using your Ouija board/time machine to reach this conclusion (which, even if it were true, doesn't validate your idiotic suggestion that Day fabricated the prints) you follow this by asking "Who knows why Day did what he did"?  LOL.  I almost feel bad for you.  There is no evidence whatsoever - as in absolutely none - that Day fabricated this or any evidence.  In fact, for the reasons noted, there was absolutely no reason to do so and plenty of reasons not to.  You certainly have suggested none nor even spun us a fantasy fable to explain why Day would risk his career and jail to frame a dead guy.

So, you can't answer my question. Duly noted! Not really surprising, though....

Asking for a negative to be proven is typical for those who can not provide evidence of a positive themselves. In this case, there is not a shred of evidence that Day told anybody about the print he allegedly lifted, which, to say the least, is highly remarkable given the crucial nature of the evidence in question.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 02, 2023, 07:25:31 PM
But even if he didn't, why would he lie to fabricate evidence after Oswald was dead?  There would be no prosecution of Oswald by the DPD.  If the DPD was satisfied by the evidence without this print - and they were, and there would never be any trial why in the world would someone risk their reputation and career lying about the evidence in the most important case in his career?  It makes absolutely no sense.  In fact, it is baseless and idiotic.

The infamous "why would X do Y?" argument.  Two can play that game.  Why would Day refuse to make a sworn statement regarding his handling of the print?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 02, 2023, 07:26:10 PM
Might be right, if nothing else, using the prevailing Conspiracy Land Logic, LHO took all the books out and then retaped the empty box during the actual shooting and then ran to the lunchroom where he encountered Officer Baker. Totally innocent. Really, it could have happened that way you know.

Literally nobody has ever made such an argument.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 02, 2023, 07:28:18 PM
So, you can't answer my question. Duly noted! Not really surprising, though....

Asking for a negative to be proven is typical for those who can not provide evidence of a positive themselves. In this case, there is not a shred of evidence that Day told anybody about the print he allegedly lifted, which, to say the least, is highly remarkable given the crucial nature of the evidence in question.

""You can't prove a negative" is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic."

"You Can Prove a Negative"
     -- Stephen Law, Psychology Today ( Link (https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative) )
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 02, 2023, 07:29:39 PM
According to the claim you made of LHO’s innocence that is exactly right.

I didn't make a claim of LHO's innocence.  Are you trying to wrest the title away from Strawman "Smith"?

Quote
His fingerprints place him building the SN and not the result if him retrieving books from the box.

And you determined these were left as a result of "building the SN", how, exactly?

Quote
If there is a better candidate for the assassin, other than the individual who built the SN and brought his rifle to the TSBD where it was found on the 6th floor and matched to the shells, bullet and fragments, now would be a good time to reveal who it is.

If you can actually prove that he "built the SN" and "brought his rifle to the TSBD", now would be a good time to demonstrate it.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 02, 2023, 07:38:39 PM
The DPD arrested and charged LHO for the murder of JFK based upon the evidence that they had available on Nov. 22.  This act confirms that they believed they had sufficient evidence to do so as of that time.

And we should care what the DPD "believed", why, exactly?  They apparently "believed" that they even had probable cause to arrest him for murder in the theater with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

Quote
Oswald is then murdered two days later meaning there would never be a criminal prosecution.  Thus, the DPD would have no incentive to then fabricate any additional evidence to bolster the prosecution of Oswald for that crime.

'I just don't believe there was ever a print,' said Drain, He noted that there was increasing pressure on the Dallas police to build evidence in the case. Asked to explain what might have happened, Agent Drain stated, “All I can figure is that it (Oswald's print) was some sort of cushion, because they were getting a lot of heat by Sunday night. You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.” -- Henry Hurt , "Reasonable Doubt", p. 109

Quote
It is incredibly risky to fabricate evidence in any murder case and a crime much less the crime of the century.

And yet that is exactly what the Dallas PD did in the case of Randall Dale Adams.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 02, 2023, 07:46:11 PM
From FBI report of interview of Mr. Charles Givens (11/22/63):

(https://i.postimg.cc/FRYnjSHf/Givens-FBI-22-nov.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Extraordinary, simply extraordinary, that Mr. Givens has clear memory on 11/22 of plenty of things (incl. LHO-related things), but NOT of his trip back up to six for cigarettes, NOR of his sighting up there of Mr. Oswald! No, his most significant----------------and last---------------LHO-memory is of Mr. Oswald on five, wanting the elevator gates closed..........
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 02, 2023, 07:50:31 PM
The kooks are really getting stirred up by this spanking. Where is Otto to chime in?  Does he live in "Europe" too?  I do wonder if they believe any of their own nonsense or whether this is just a hobby to extend the discussion.  Like arguing with someone who says the sky is blue to get a rise out them or seek attention.   Do they really believe there is any real possibility that Day fabricated the print evidence or is this defense attorney nonsense in which they don't believe their opinion matters.  All that matters is suggesting false doubt in the mind of others even if they themselves know it is bull.  What is more frightening?  That they don't believe their own arguments or that they do? 
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2023, 07:52:08 PM
""You can't prove a negative" is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic."

"You Can Prove a Negative"
     -- Stephen Law, Psychology Today ( Link (https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative) )

Enlighten me. How do you prove that something didn't happen?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 02, 2023, 07:56:32 PM
Enlighten me. How do you prove that something didn't happen?

Asks the same guy who claims to have proven that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and that Day didn't mention the prints to anyone.  LOL.  Granted you haven't actually proven those things but apparently believe the concept is possible.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 02, 2023, 07:59:53 PM
From Secret Service report, 8 Jan 1964:

(https://i.postimg.cc/C1WJNcc3/Givens-SS-8-Jan.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

And there we have it, in black and white. The sighting of Mr. Oswald with a clipboard on six happened BEFORE the Depository floor-laying crew broke for lunch.

By the time of his WC testimony, Mr. Givens has obligingly invented a return trip upstairs for jacket and cigarettes, all so the 'investigating' authorities can put Mr. Oswald on an empty sixth floor.

And this is the kind of nonsense the Warren Gullibles build their fantasy scenario on!  :D
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2023, 08:00:17 PM
The kooks are really getting stirred up by this spanking. Where is Otto to chime in?  Does he live in "Europe" too?  I do wonder if they believe any of their own nonsense or whether this is just a hobby to extend the discussion.  Like arguing with someone who says the sky is blue to get a rise out them or seek attention.   Do they really believe there is any real possibility that Day fabricated the print evidence or is this defense attorney nonsense in which they don't believe their opinion matters.  All that matters is suggesting false doubt in the mind of others even if they themselves know it is bull.  What is more frightening?  That they don't believe their own arguments or that they do?

How do you know for sure that Richard Smith is once again stuck with no answers to basic questions?

The answer is; he starts babbling on about Otto and "Europe".

Do they really believe there is any real possibility that Day fabricated the print evidence

FBI Special Agent Drain seems to think so, as you can read in John's most recent post, in which he quotes Drain.

The fact that you are so naive that you can not believe Day would do such a thing doesn't mean he couldn't or wouldn't have done it. It just means you are a narrowminded fool who believes anything at face value.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2023, 08:11:04 PM
Asks the same guy who claims to have proven that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and that Day didn't mention the prints to anyone.  LOL.  Granted you haven't actually proven those things but apparently believe the concept is possible.

who claims to have proven

you haven't actually proven those things

Stop babbling and make up your mind. Did I, or did I not, claim to have proven either?

Asks the same guy who claims to have proven that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and that Day didn't mention the prints to anyone.

Says the guy who, for the past 7 months now, has failed to prove that Oswald did come down the stairs and now also can not prove that Day told anybody about the print he allegedly lifted from the rifle.


Btw, in the part of Day's interview for the Sixth Floor Museum, Oral History Collection, in 1996, Day claims that he showed Drain where the print he lifted from the rifle had been. He states;

And I told him at the time, there‟s a print here. I showed him where it is, where it was.

which implies that there must have been residue of the print on the weapon. Yet, when the FBI examined the rifle, a few hours later, they found no print or residue.

How Day can show Drain something that the FBI lab said wasn't there is beyond me.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 02, 2023, 08:27:30 PM
It’s just like “Richard” to flail around a wet noodle and call it a “spanking”.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 02, 2023, 08:28:54 PM
Asks the same guy who claims to have proven that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and that Day didn't mention the prints to anyone.  LOL.  Granted you haven't actually proven those things but apparently believe the concept is possible.

Says the guy whose evidence that Oswald came down the stairs is that he did.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 02, 2023, 08:55:26 PM
who claims to have proven

you haven't actually proven those things

Stop babbling and make up your mind. Did I, or did I not, claim to have proven either?

Asks the same guy who claims to have proven that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and that Day didn't mention the prints to anyone.

Says the guy who, for the past 7 months now, has failed to prove that Oswald did come down the stairs and now also can not prove that Day told anybody about the print he allegedly lifted from the rifle.


Btw, in the part of Day's interview for the Sixth Floor Museum, Oral History Collection, in 1996, Day claims that he showed Drain where the print he lifted from the rifle had been. He states;

And I told him at the time, there‟s a print here. I showed him where it is, where it was.

which implies that there must have been residue of the print on the weapon. Yet, when the FBI examined the rifle, a few hours later, they found no print or residue.

How Day can show Drain something that the FBI lab said wasn't there is beyond me.

So is it possible to prove something didn't happen or not?  I'm losing track.  You are all over the place. 
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2023, 09:24:39 PM
So is it possible to prove something didn't happen or not?  I'm losing track.  You are all over the place.

You've lost track a very long time ago.

You can't even prove that something did happen.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 02, 2023, 09:47:05 PM
In his interview with Bob Porter, Lt. Day mentions a "3 by 5" card", probably a standard size card for most prints. The palm print was lifted with 2" wide tape, so the paper it was mounted on was non-standard.

This illustrates nicely that "Day said so" (especially 33 years later) doesn't make something correct.

Summary from Pat Speer of how Day's story evolved through the years:

--------
1. 11-29-63--4-22-64 Lt. Day's initial story regarding the rifle is that he removed the wood stock after noticing a print going under the wood stock down at the bottom of the barrel near the trigger guard, and that he then discovered a print that had been completely covered by the wood stock near the firing end of the barrel. He says he then lifted this print, and was pressured into turning the rifle over to the FBI before he could photograph both what remained of this print and the other print on the barrel he hadn't even started to work on.

2. 9-9-64 Lt. Day stops claiming he removed the wood stock from the rifle after noticing a print on the barrel by the trigger guard. As this print was not lifted by Day nor developed by the FBI, the FBI's failure to observe or document this print was quite a problem, and its disappearance from Day's story within days of the FBI's telling the Warren Commission they found evidence supporting Day's claim CE 637 was lifted from the rifle... is quite the coincidence.

3. 9-9-64 Lt. Day names the person he claims pressured him into discontinuing work on the rifle, and it's Chief of Police Jesse Curry.

4. 10-18-77 Lt. Day begins claiming it was the print down by the end of the barrel--the print he claimed he lifted--that he observed before removing the wood stock. This is quite the change considering he originally claimed this print was completely covered by the wood stock.

5. 10-18-77 Lt. Day also begins claiming it was Capt. Will Fritz, as opposed to Chief Jesse Curry, who pressured him into discontinuing work on the rifle.

6. 10-18-77 Lt. Day also begins claiming he told FBI agent Vincent Drain about the print on the underside of the rifle barrel before handing him the rifle on 11-22-63.

7. 1993 Lt. Day begins claiming it was Capt. George Doughty who pressured him into discontinuing work on the rifle, as opposed to Curry and Fritz.

8. 1993 Lt. Day also begins claiming he not only told Vincent Drain about the print on the underside of the barrel, but pointed out its location.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 03, 2023, 04:02:04 AM
Is Charles certain about this 12:15 time stamp for the Bronson film clip of the box on the SN window ledge?

For years it’s been stated that the Bronson film
sequence showing the box was approx 12:25

Is a siren ambulance arriving for the epileptic man enough to cause a  shooter to completely abandon his plan to use a (theoretically) previously prepared SE window , and move hastily with rifle in hand and STAND close to a wide open SW window ?

The “gun holding” person (imo) would not need to have gotten as close as 3-5 ft to the SW window to be able to see that no motorcade had yet entered Dealey plaza.

One siren and the shooter is apparently over reacting and he wanted to know the source of that siren, thus he had to move to within 5ft to be able to have LOS to that  source which was the ambulance below in front of the TSBD entrance?

He must have  forgotten momentarily that he had his rifle displayed and being that close to a fully open window would allow a potential LARGE no. of Persons gathered in Dealey plaza to have LOS to himself and the rifle?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 03, 2023, 11:29:52 AM
Is Charles certain about this 12:15 time stamp for the Bronson film clip of the box on the SN window ledge?

For years it’s been stated that the Bronson film
sequence showing the box was approx 12:25

Is a siren ambulance arriving for the epileptic man enough to cause a  shooter to completely abandon his plan to use a (theoretically) previously prepared SE window , and move hastily with rifle in hand and STAND close to a wide open SW window ?

The “gun holding” person (imo) would not need to have gotten as close as 3-5 ft to the SW window to be able to see that no motorcade had yet entered Dealey plaza.

One siren and the shooter is apparently over reacting and he wanted to know the source of that siren, thus he had to move to within 5ft to be able to have LOS to that  source which was the ambulance below in front of the TSBD entrance?

He must have  forgotten momentarily that he had his rifle displayed and being that close to a fully open window would allow a potential LARGE no. of Persons gathered in Dealey plaza to have LOS to himself and the rifle?


The time of 12:15 is based on my memory (which is not always accurate) of what Arnold Rowland said and the time stamps on the DPD tapes. James indicated a time of 12:23 which I think is reasonable because it must have taken a little time to attend to the patient and get him onboard the ambulance.

It is just a possible theory which would explain (to me at least) Arnold Rowland’s alleged sighting of a man with a rifle. You can disagree with the theory. I am not offering it as anything more than conjecture.



Edit: My memory seems to be pretty good regarding the time:


Mr. Rowland.  …There was--just before I observed him there was a police motorcycle parked just on the street, not in front of us, just a little past us, and the radio was on it giving the details of the motorcade, where it was positioned, and right after the time I noticed him and when my wife was pointing this other thing to me, I don't remember what that was, the dispatcher came on and gave the position of the motorcade as being on Cedar Springs. This would be in the area of Turtle Creek, down in that area. I can't remember the street's name but I know where it is at. And this was the position of the motorcade and it was about 15 or 16 after 12.   



DPD Channel II:

12:15 pm  Station break.

531-9 On Cedar Springs off Turtle Creak.


 http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/Dallas%20Police%20Department/Dallas%20Police%20Department%20Records/Volume%2004/Item%2001.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/Dallas%20Police%20Department/Dallas%20Police%20Department%20Records/Volume%2004/Item%2001.pdf)
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 03, 2023, 11:58:15 AM
He must have  forgotten momentarily that he had his rifle displayed and being that close to a fully open window would allow a potential LARGE no. of Persons gathered in Dealey plaza to have LOS to himself and the rifle?

And what exactly would be the problem here, Mr. Mason?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 03, 2023, 12:04:11 PM
Edit: My memory seems to be pretty good regarding the time:


Mr. Rowland.  …There was--just before I observed him there was a police motorcycle parked just on the street, not in front of us, just a little past us, and the radio was on it giving the details of the motorcade, where it was positioned, and right after the time I noticed him and when my wife was pointing this other thing to me, I don't remember what that was, the dispatcher came on and gave the position of the motorcade as being on Cedar Springs. This would be in the area of Turtle Creek, down in that area. I can't remember the street's name but I know where it is at. And this was the position of the motorcade and it was about 15 or 16 after 12.   



DPD Channel II:

12:15 pm  Station break.

531-9 On Cedar Springs off Turtle Creak.

Actually it shows Mr. Rowland's memory to be exceptionally good. He was a brilliant witness, only not for the WC. Explains Mr. Specter's exasperation, I guess!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 03, 2023, 12:43:10 PM
Actually it shows Mr. Rowland's memory to be exceptionally good. He was a brilliant witness, only not for the WC. Explains Mr. Specter's exasperation, I guess!  Thumb1:


Mrs. Rowland straightened things out:


Mr. BELIN. Now, has he ever told you that he had seen anyone else on the sixth floor other than this man with the gun that you described in the southwest corner window?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Has he ever told you that he told anyone else that he saw anyone else on the sixth floor?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No, sir.
.
.
.
Mr. BELIN. Sometimes some people are prone to exaggerate more than others, and without in any way meaning to take away from the testimony of your husband as to what he saw in the building at the time, just from your general experience, do you feel you can rely on everything that your husband says?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I don't feel that I can rely on everything anybody says.
Mr. BELIN. Well, this is really an unfair question for me to ask any wife about her husband, and I am not asking it very correctly, but---
Mrs. ROWLAND. At times my husband is prone to exaggerate. Does that answer it?
Mr. BELIN. I think it does.
Is there anything else you want to add to that, or not?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Usually his exaggerations are not concerned with anything other than himself. They are usually to boast his ego. They usually say that he is really smarter than he is, or he is a better salesman than he is, something like that.
Mr. BELIN. Anything else you care to add?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No, sir.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 03, 2023, 12:54:25 PM

Mrs. Rowland straightened things out:


Mr. BELIN. Now, has he ever told you that he had seen anyone else on the sixth floor other than this man with the gun that you described in the southwest corner window?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Has he ever told you that he told anyone else that he saw anyone else on the sixth floor?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No, sir.

~Grin~

So what? The man with the rifle was highly significant to Mr. Rowland, at the time and then even more so in hindsight. The unarmed 'elderly Negro' (bald, bright-plaid-shirt-wearing) not so much.

But nice try!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 03, 2023, 01:48:53 PM
~Grin~

So what? The man with the rifle was highly significant to Mr. Rowland, at the time and then even more so in hindsight. The unarmed 'elderly Negro' (bald, bright-plaid-shirt-wearing) not so much.

But nice try!  Thumb1:

Here are a few more. As you can see, we humans do not have instant replay memories that get all the details accurately every time. If Arnold Rowland really thought he saw a black man in the southeast corner window, I believe that he could have seen one of the ones on the fifth floor and misremembered it as being the sixth floor.

Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything about any other people in any other windows?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No; I don't think so.
Mr. BELIN. Now, did you notice any other people standing in any other windows or leaning out?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I am not sure if I did at that moment.
Mr. BELIN. Later on?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I saw some people either earlier or later looking out the windows.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember anything about any of the people you saw?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Some of them were colored men. I don't think I saw any women.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see any white men?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I am not positive.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember where you saw any of these Negro men?
Mrs. ROWLAND. On a lower floor, about the fourth floor, I think, and nearer the center window. The windows nearer the center.



Mr. BELIN - Did you see any other people on the sixth floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - No.
Mr. BELIN - Did you notice whether or not there were any, or just did you look and see any?
Mr. EDWARDS - I notice that there---I just didn't see any.
Mr. BELIN - What about the next floor above? Did you see any people on the floor above?
Mr. EDWARDS - No.
Mr. BELIN - What about on any floors below? See any people on the fifth floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - No.
Mr. BELIN - Fourth floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - No.
Mr. BELIN - Third floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - Possibly.
Mr. BELIN - Second floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - I believe so.
Mr. BELIN - First floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - I don't know.



Mr. BELIN. Did you see any other people in any other windows that you can recollect?
Mr. BRENNAN. Not on that floor.
There was no other person on that floor that ever came to the window that I noticed.
There were people on the next floor down, which is the fifth floor, colored guys. In particular, I only remember two that I identified.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 03, 2023, 02:44:05 PM
Literally nobody has ever made such an argument.

Are you sure?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 03, 2023, 02:48:37 PM
I didn't make a claim of LHO's innocence.  Are you trying to wrest the title away from Strawman "Smith"?

And you determined these were left as a result of "building the SN", how, exactly?

If you can actually prove that he "built the SN" and "brought his rifle to the TSBD", now would be a good time to demonstrate it.

So you think BRWilliams or/and Givens built it and made sure they used boxes with LHO's fingerprints on them.


The claim was the fingerprints LHO left on the boxes were the result of “Fingerprints on a box from an employee whose job was literally getting books out of boxes.  How odd.”

The boxes were still taped shut. The FBI testing indicated fingerprints lasted a maximum of 1 day on cardboard. The boxes were not stacked as much as arranged. There weren’t other TSBD employes’ fingerprints on the boxes. There weren’t any fingerprints from LHO indicating he had opened the boxes. The boxes were all still sealed. That is really odd for a guy doing just his job of removing books from boxes.

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 03, 2023, 03:17:39 PM
The “Rolling Readers” boxes contained, instead of books, light blocks used as reading aids.


 https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html (https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html)


Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2023, 03:29:09 PM
This is an unfair question, Mrs. Rowland, but I'm going to ask it anyway....  ::)

Notice how they didn't ask Mrs. Brennan if she could rely on everything her husband said.  Or the spouses of any other witnesses.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2023, 03:31:04 PM
Here are a few more. As you can see, we humans do not have instant replay memories that get all the details accurately every time. If Arnold Rowland really thought he saw a black man in the southeast corner window, I believe that he could have seen one of the ones on the fifth floor and misremembered it as being the sixth floor.

Only because that fits with what you already believe.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2023, 03:35:20 PM
So you think BRWilliams or/and Givens built it and made sure they used boxes with LHO's fingerprints on them.

No, Strawman Nessan.  You can either prove that Oswald "built" a sniper's nest, or you cannot.

Quote
The claim was the fingerprints LHO left on the boxes were the result of “Fingerprints on a box from an employee whose job was literally getting books out of boxes.  How odd.”

No, the claim was that it's not unusual for prints of employees who handle boxes to be on boxes.  It doesn't prove that they "built" anything.

Quote
The boxes were still taped shut.

Cite?

Quote
The FBI testing indicated fingerprints lasted a maximum of 1 day on cardboard.

Latona said 3 days.

Quote
The boxes were not stacked as much as arranged. There weren’t other TSBD employes’ fingerprints on the boxes.

You don't know that.

Quote
There weren’t any fingerprints from LHO indicating he had opened the boxes.

Fingerprints cannot indicate such a thing.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2023, 03:37:55 PM
The “Rolling Readers” boxes contained, instead of books, light blocks used as reading aids.

Was it not within the responsibility of the depository workers to fill orders for these as well as books?

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 03, 2023, 03:46:42 PM
Only because that fits with what you already believe.


 BS:


Now you think that you have become a mind reader?    ???
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 03, 2023, 03:56:34 PM
It is simply a fact that Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes.  Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave his prints on the long bag found next to the SN.  Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave a print on the rifle.  Imagine the terrible luck that would be involved if Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to touch these objects and leave identifiable prints because he "worked there."  No person - even a contrarian - can believe that is what happened.  They are like defense attorneys who don't have to believe their own nonsense.  They are just trying to create doubt by any means.   Providing bizarre explanation after explanation for the mountain of evidence against Oswald in a desperate attempt to suggest any doubt.  Why they feel compelled to do this over and over if something that a psychiatrist would need to sort out. 
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 03, 2023, 04:10:14 PM
It is simply a fact that Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes.  Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave his prints on the long bag found next to the SN.  Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave a print on the rifle.  Imagine the terrible luck that would be involved if Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to touch these objects and leave identifiable prints because he "worked there."  No person - even a contrarian - can believe that is what happened.  They are like defense attorneys who don't have to believe their own nonsense.  They are just trying to create doubt by any means.   Providing bizarre explanation after explanation for the mountain of evidence against Oswald in a desperate attempt to suggest any doubt.  Why they feel compelled to do this over and over if something that a psychiatrist would need to sort out.

It is simply a fact that Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes.

Which doesn't negate the possibility that there were prints of other TSBD employees on those boxes which they simply (or perhaps conveniently) could/did not identify.

Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave his prints on the long bag found next to the SN.

You mean the bag that wasn't seen by the first six officers in or near the S/N and that was never photographed in situ?
The bag that Frazier and Randle said wasn't the bag they had seen Oswald carry that morning?

There are more questions than answers for that bag.

Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave a print on the rifle.

It is in no way certain that Oswald left any print on the rifle. Just because Day said so, doesn't make it true. FBI SA Vincent Drain certainly didn't believe Day, so why should we?

No person - even a contrarian - can believe that is what happened.

And once again you are wrong. There are plenty of people who do not believe that is what happened.

the mountain of evidence against Oswald

This BS never gets old. LOL
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 03, 2023, 05:22:51 PM
It is simply a fact that Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes.

Which doesn't negate the possibility that there were prints of other TSBD employees on those boxes which they simply (or perhaps conveniently) could/did not identify.

Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave his prints on the long bag found next to the SN.

You mean the bag that wasn't seen by the first six officers in or near the S/N and that was never photographed in situ?
The bag that Frazier and Randle said wasn't the bag they had seen Oswald carry that morning?

There are more questions than answers for that bag.

Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave a print on the rifle.

It is in no way certain that Oswald left any print on the rifle. Just because Day said so, doesn't make it true. FBI SA Vincent Drain certainly didn't believe Day, so why should we?

No person - even a contrarian - can believe that is what happened.

And once again you are wrong. There are plenty of people who do not believe that is what happened.

the mountain of evidence against Oswald

This BS never gets old. LOL

This is just the old impossible standard of proof argument.  Day confirms that he found Oswald's print on the rifle.   You just dismiss this by suggesting that it is possible that he lied.  You make no effort whatsoever to support this claim.  It would be impossible to convict anyone of a crime if a defense could be raised that there is doubt because it is merely possible that the police are lying about the evidence.  Which is why even in a criminal trial in which there is a presumption of innocence, that the defense can't introduce such a claim without some evidence to support it.

And you really want to suggest it was just bad luck that Oswald happened to be the ONLY TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes?  Wow. 
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 03, 2023, 05:45:57 PM
Here are a few more. As you can see, we humans do not have instant replay memories that get all the details accurately every time. If Arnold Rowland really thought he saw a black man in the southeast corner window, I believe that he could have seen one of the ones on the fifth floor and misremembered it as being the sixth floor.

Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything about any other people in any other windows?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No; I don't think so.
Mr. BELIN. Now, did you notice any other people standing in any other windows or leaning out?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I am not sure if I did at that moment.
Mr. BELIN. Later on?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I saw some people either earlier or later looking out the windows.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember anything about any of the people you saw?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Some of them were colored men. I don't think I saw any women.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see any white men?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I am not positive.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember where you saw any of these Negro men?
Mrs. ROWLAND. On a lower floor, about the fourth floor, I think, and nearer the center window. The windows nearer the center.



Mr. BELIN - Did you see any other people on the sixth floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - No.
Mr. BELIN - Did you notice whether or not there were any, or just did you look and see any?
Mr. EDWARDS - I notice that there---I just didn't see any.
Mr. BELIN - What about the next floor above? Did you see any people on the floor above?
Mr. EDWARDS - No.
Mr. BELIN - What about on any floors below? See any people on the fifth floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - No.
Mr. BELIN - Fourth floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - No.
Mr. BELIN - Third floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - Possibly.
Mr. BELIN - Second floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - I believe so.
Mr. BELIN - First floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - I don't know.



Mr. BELIN. Did you see any other people in any other windows that you can recollect?
Mr. BRENNAN. Not on that floor.
There was no other person on that floor that ever came to the window that I noticed.
There were people on the next floor down, which is the fifth floor, colored guys. In particular, I only remember two that I identified.

V. weak sauce, Mr. Collins.........

Mrs. Rowland is not Mr. Rowland

Mr. Edwards is referring to a later point in time

Mr. Brennan is referring to a later point in time

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 03, 2023, 05:50:05 PM
Here's an image of CE 880 which is a photo of a scale model of Dealey Plaza. It shows part of the sixth floor with the sniper's nest boxes (including the boxes that extend to the third set of windows). The reason I think this is significant is that it shows the relationship of the size of the sixth floor to the boxes specified above. The typical photos that we see of the sixth floor do not depict this size relationship very well. Granted, it doesn't show the other stacks of boxes on the floor that form the various aisles. But to me it shows why some of the officers indicated the remains of BRW's lunch were near those boxes. They are photographed under the cart in front of the third set of windows which was adjacent to those boxes.


(https://i.vgy.me/v2rE3w.png)


Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 03, 2023, 05:50:20 PM
This is just the old impossible standard of proof argument.  Day confirms that he found Oswald's print on the rifle.   You just dismiss this by suggesting that it is possible that he lied.  You make no effort whatsoever to support this claim.  It would be impossible to convict anyone of a crime if a defense could be raised that there is doubt because it is merely possible that the police are lying about the evidence.  Which is why even in a criminal trial in which there is a presumption of innocence, that the defense can't introduce such a claim without some evidence to support it.

And you really want to suggest it was just bad luck that Oswald happened to be the ONLY TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes?  Wow.

This is just the old impossible standard of proof argument.

Not really. It's more the superficiality of your arguments that fail to convince.

Day confirms that he found Oswald's print on the rifle.

"Day said so" isn't compelling evidence, when his actions are suspect (to say the least) and there is no credible record or chain of custody for a print taped on a piece of paper.
FBI SA Vincent Drain didn't believe him, so why should we?

You just dismiss this by suggesting that it is possible that he lied.

No, it's the circumstances as a whole, the FBI not finding any prints or residue of a lifted print on the rifle, the complete failure of following procedure by Day, the total lack of a credible chain of custody and the fact that Day allegedly kept the print in his desk for a week without telling anybody. The record shows that everybody was completely surprised when Day suddenly produced the card with the print on it, just before all the evidence was shipped to Washington for the second time.

You make no effort whatsoever to support this claim.

Already done. You just don't like it. Explain to me why Day did not produce the print, when Oswald was still alive and the FBI said they could not find even a trace of a print on the rifle?

It would be impossible to convict anyone of a crime if a defense could be raised that there is doubt because it is merely possible that the police are lying about the evidence.

To eliminate the possibility of police misconduct there are procedures in place and a credible chain of custody needs to be provided. When this is not done, it can not be ruled out that the evidence is tainted.

Which is why even in a criminal trial in which there is a presumption of innocence, that the defense can't introduce such a claim without some evidence to support it.

No defense lawyer will argue that "it is merely possible that the police are lying". The argument doesn't have to be made when evidence can not be authenticated.

And you really want to suggest it was just bad luck that Oswald happened to be the ONLY TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes?

Did he?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 03, 2023, 05:56:57 PM
This is just the old impossible standard of proof argument.  Day confirms that he found Oswald's print on the rifle.   You just dismiss this by suggesting that it is possible that he lied.

Nope, Mr. Weidmann has queried the integrity of Lt. Day's claim by citing Agent Drain's belief that this claim is not to be trusted

 Thumb1:

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 03, 2023, 06:02:05 PM
V. weak sauce, Mr. Collins.........

Mrs. Rowland is not Mr. Rowland

Mr. Edwards is referring to a later point in time

Mr. Brennan is referring to a later point in time

 Thumb1:

Mrs. Rowland's testimony is relevant regardless of whether you like it or not. You cannot just dismiss it because "she isn't Mr. Rowland". She was with him at the time and discussed what he saw with him at that time.

Mr. Edwards time frame is only a few minutes later in time. What is significant is that he said he didn't see anyone on the fifth floor at that time. However we have solid evidence that there was three men looking out the fifth floor windows directly below the sniper's nest (and one set of windows west). It shows that if Mr. Edwards could be mistaken, then so could Mr. Rowland.

Mr Brennan said he arrived as the epileptic event was happening. And he said he observed the sniper in the window very soon afterward and well before the motorcade arrived. So, I don't think it was much later at all.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 03, 2023, 09:04:38 PM
Mrs. Rowland's testimony is relevant regardless of whether you like it or not. You cannot just dismiss it because "she isn't Mr. Rowland". She was with him at the time and discussed what he saw with him at that time.

She discussed with him the thing he considered as worthy of remark: an armed man. You've got nothing here

Quote
Mr. Edwards time frame is only a few minutes later in time. What is significant is that he said he didn't see anyone on the fifth floor at that time. However we have solid evidence that there was three men looking out the fifth floor windows directly below the sniper's nest (and one set of windows west). It shows that if Mr. Edwards could be mistaken, then so could Mr. Rowland.

Mr Brennan said he arrived as the epileptic event was happening. And he said he observed the sniper in the window very soon afterward and well before the motorcade arrived. So, I don't think it was much later at all.

Another nice try, Mr. Collins, but I'm afraid you need to re-read those portions of Mr. Rowland's testimony pertaining to the times he saw the 'elderly Negro' at the SN window. You've got nothing here either

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 03, 2023, 09:17:57 PM
She discussed with him the thing he considered as worthy of remark: an armed man. You've got nothing here

Another nice try, Mr. Collins, but I'm afraid you need to re-read those portions of Mr. Rowland's testimony pertaining to the times he saw the 'elderly Negro' at the SN window. You've got nothing here either

 Thumb1:


“However much you deny the truth, the truth goes on existing.” - George Orwell

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 03, 2023, 09:20:08 PM

“However much you deny the truth, the truth goes on existing.” - George Orwell

Mr. Orwell is right! (And thanks for folding)

Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2023, 09:28:25 PM

 BS:


Now you think that you have become a mind reader?    ???

Why else would you postulate that Rowland mistook 3 black men on a different floor at a different time for a single black man in the "sniper's nest" at 12:15?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2023, 09:30:14 PM
It is simply a fact that Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes.  Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave his prints on the long bag found next to the SN.  Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave a print on the rifle.  Imagine the terrible luck that would be involved if Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to touch these objects and leave identifiable prints because he "worked there."

Is this rhetoric supposed to constitute evidence of murder?  P.S. "long bag found next to the SN". LOL. "Leave a print on the rifle". LOL.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2023, 09:33:21 PM
This is just the old impossible standard of proof argument.

No, it's the old "Richard" will swallow any unverifiable claim argument.

Quote
Day confirms that he found Oswald's print on the rifle.   You just dismiss this by suggesting that it is possible that he lied.  You make no effort whatsoever to support this claim.  It would be impossible to convict anyone of a crime if a defense could be raised that there is doubt because it is merely possible that the police are lying about the evidence.

If "cop said so" is good enough, then why are evidence handling and chain of custody procedures even a thing at all?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2023, 09:38:22 PM
Mr Brennan said he arrived as the epileptic event was happening. And he said he observed the sniper in the window very soon afterward and well before the motorcade arrived.

A "sniper"?  BS:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 03, 2023, 09:39:25 PM
Mr. Orwell is right! (And thanks for folding)

Thumb1:


 ::)


Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 03, 2023, 11:05:25 PM
Why else would you postulate that Rowland mistook 3 black men on a different floor at a different time for a single black man in the "sniper's nest" at 12:15?


Misremembered is not the same thing as mistook.   ::)


Just as you apparently misremembered the words I used, both of the Rowlands apparently misremembered some of the details.



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. My wife and I were both looking and making remarks that the people were hanging out the windows I think the majority of them were colored people, some of them were hanging out the windows to their waist, such as this. We made several remarks to this fact, and then she started watching the colored boy, and I continued to look, and then I saw the man with the rifle.



Mr. BELIN. Now, did you notice any other people standing in any other windows or leaning out?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I am not sure if I did at that moment.
Mr. BELIN. Later on?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I saw some people either earlier or later looking out the windows.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember anything about any of the people you saw?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Some of them were colored men. I don't think I saw any women.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see any white men?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I am not positive.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember where you saw any of these Negro men?
Mrs. ROWLAND. On a lower floor, about the fourth floor, I think, and nearer the center window. The windows nearer the center.
Mrs. BELIN. On some floor lower than the sixth floor, which you think was the fourth floor?
Mrs. ROWLAND. About the fourth floor.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 03, 2023, 11:07:23 PM
No, it's the old "Richard" will swallow any unverifiable claim argument.

If "cop said so" is good enough, then why are evidence handling and chain of custody procedures even a thing at all?

If "cop said so" is good enough, then why are evidence handling and chain of custody procedures even a thing at all?

What poor superficial "Richard" fails to understand is that Day would have been destroyed as a witness (and all of his "evidence" with him) if this case had ever gone to trial.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 03, 2023, 11:13:00 PM
A "sniper"?  BS:


A sniper…  8)

Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I was more or less observing the crowd and the people in different building windows, including the fire escape across from the Texas Book Store on the east side of the Texas Book Store, and also the Texas Book Store Building windows. I observed quite a few people in different windows. In particular, I saw this one man on the sixth floor which left the window to my knowledge a couple of times.
.
.
.
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, then something, just right after this explosion, made me think that it was a firecracker being thrown from the Texas Book Store. And I glanced up. And this man that I saw previous was aiming for his last shot.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 03, 2023, 11:37:27 PM

Misremembered is not the same thing as mistook.   ::)


Just as you apparently misremembered the words I used, both of the Rowlands apparently misremembered some of the details.



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. My wife and I were both looking and making remarks that the people were hanging out the windows I think the majority of them were colored people, some of them were hanging out the windows to their waist, such as this. We made several remarks to this fact, and then she started watching the colored boy, and I continued to look, and then I saw the man with the rifle.



Mr. BELIN. Now, did you notice any other people standing in any other windows or leaning out?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I am not sure if I did at that moment.
Mr. BELIN. Later on?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I saw some people either earlier or later looking out the windows.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember anything about any of the people you saw?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Some of them were colored men. I don't think I saw any women.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see any white men?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I am not positive.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember where you saw any of these Negro men?
Mrs. ROWLAND. On a lower floor, about the fourth floor, I think, and nearer the center window. The windows nearer the center.
Mrs. BELIN. On some floor lower than the sixth floor, which you think was the fourth floor?
Mrs. ROWLAND. About the fourth floor.

1. Mr. Rowland and Mrs. Rowland remarked on the general fact that there were some folks hanging out the windows

2. Mr. Rowland drew specific attention to a window where he had seen an armed man

3. The near-sighted Mrs. Rowland's powers of observation and recall were not as strong as Mr. Rowland's

Thanks for the latest nothingburger, Mr. Collins!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 03, 2023, 11:51:13 PM
1. Mr. Rowland and Mrs. Rowland remarked on the general fact that there were some folks hanging out the windows

2. Mr. Rowland drew specific attention to a window where he had seen an armed man

3. The near-sighted Mrs. Rowland's powers of observation and recall were not as strong as Mr. Rowland's

Thanks for the latest nothingburger, Mr. Collins!  Thumb1:


Making up spombleprofglidnoctobuns is what you do. No surprise that you continue to deny so that you can continue to live in your fantasy world.


 ::)
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 04, 2023, 12:18:33 AM
I’m going to side with Mr.Collins that Rowlands  later versions of his story should be regarded as possible mistaken memory. Perhaps Rowland saw BRW at the 5th floor window a few seconds after the last shot fired and the dust that fell may have been in BRW s hair and that might make BRW appear older.  (Now before you smart CTs like Mr.Ford, post a 😂 in response, please consider that Rowlands early affidavit does not mention the elderly black negro.

Then there’s the timing problem as the window at the SW 6th floor is only about 15 inches open and if there’s also a box already placed on the ledge there at 12:15, then there is  great doubt that BRW or any other person would be leaning out this window at that time.

Then the rolling reader cart is a question as it’s seems a bit odd for BRW to be 4 to 5 ft away which blocks some of  his LOS to the area right in front of the TSBD. And that window was closed as far I remember so it’s not likely BRE would have been leaning out that window at 12:15 either.

Then, although Mr.Ford doesn’t have a problem
With a gunman who is unnecessarily exposing himself at 12:15 at a fully open window , it is nonetheless a questionable thing to do if the gunman is a professional sniper trained by USMC or the CIA. And it’s more absurd if the SE window was the original intended position previously prepared before 12:15.

So maybe the “crew” is just 2 people, one who is going to aid a somewhat not so experienced sniper to flee the 6th floor by operating west elevator to get the shooter to the 2nd floor (unseen) by 50 secs post shots and then the accomplice returns elevator to the 5th floor by 70sec posts where it will appear when Truly looks up the that shaft about that time.

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2023, 12:48:46 AM
Just as you apparently misremembered the words I used, both of the Rowlands apparently misremembered some of the details.

Or they remembered the details better than you would like.  The three amigos weren't even on the fifth floor yet at 12:15, but BRW was on the sixth floor.

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2023, 12:58:07 AM

A sniper…  8)

Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I was more or less observing the crowd and the people in different building windows, including the fire escape across from the Texas Book Store on the east side of the Texas Book Store, and also the Texas Book Store Building windows. I observed quite a few people in different windows. In particular, I saw this one man on the sixth floor which left the window to my knowledge a couple of times.

No mention of "sniping", or even a rifle.

Quote
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, then something, just right after this explosion, made me think that it was a firecracker being thrown from the Texas Book Store. And I glanced up. And this man that I saw previous was aiming for his last shot.

A man "taking aim" for the final shot would necessarily be crouched down behind boxes with a rifle next to his face.  So on what basis did he decide it was "the man that I saw previous"?  Or was it just an assumption?  He doesn't say and they didn't ask.

But either way, Brennan observed no "sniper" when the epileptic event occurred.

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 04, 2023, 01:25:34 AM
No mention of "sniping", or even a rifle.

A man "taking aim" for the final shot would necessarily be crouched down behind boxes with a rifle next to his face.  So on what basis did he decide it was "the man that I saw previous"?  Or was it just an assumption?  He doesn't say and they didn't ask.

But either way, Brennan observed no "sniper" when the epileptic event occurred.


No ifs ands or buts about it, Brenan saw the sniper in the sixth floor window when the Bronson film segment was filmed and the ambulance was still there.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 04, 2023, 01:37:28 AM
Or they remembered the details better than you would like.  The three amigos weren't even on the fifth floor yet at 12:15, but BRW was on the sixth floor.


So?   


Mrs. ROWLAND. I saw some people either earlier or later looking out the windows.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 04, 2023, 10:27:12 AM

Making up spombleprofglidnoctobuns is what you do. No surprise that you continue to deny so that you can continue to live in your fantasy world.


 ::)

Do get back to us when you have come up with something more substantial, Mr. Collins!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 04, 2023, 10:41:54 AM

No ifs ands or buts about it, Brenan saw the sniper in the sixth floor window when the Bronson film segment was filmed and the ambulance was still there.

An If and a But coming up!:

Mr. BELIN. And then what did you do when you got to the southwest corner of Houston and Elm?
Mr. BRENNAN. I stayed around a couple of minutes. There was a man having an epileptic fit, a possibility of 20 yards east--south of this corner. And they were being attended by some civilians and officers, and I believe an ambulance picked him up.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BRENNAN. And I walked over to this retainer wall of this little park pool and jumped up on the top ledge.
Mr. BELIN. You jumped up on the retaining wall?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
[...]
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you please tell the Commission what happened from the time you sat on that retaining wall, what you saw?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I was more or less observing the crowd and the people in different building windows, including the fire escape across from the Texas Book Store on the east side of the Texas Book Store, and also the Texas Book Store Building windows. I observed quite a few people in different windows. In particular, I saw this one man on the sixth floor which left the window to my knowledge a couple of times.


 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 04, 2023, 01:05:57 PM
From “Eyewitness to History”, by Howard L. Brenan, page 7:


  “Then, looking at the corner of the building, I noticed one man in the window. What drew my attention to him with all the other people in the area, I don’t know. I looked at my watch and it was about 12:22. As I watched him, he went away from the window for a few seconds and then returned. I thought perhaps he was doing a special job and had just broken away from it for a moment to see what was happening outside.

  There was nothing about this young man at first glance that seemed unusual. He appeared to be about average height, maybe 5’8’ to 5’10” and of average weight, tending more toward the slender side. I’m not good at guessing ages, but he seemed to be 25-35. He had on light colored clothing. The thing that caught my attention was that he was alone. Most others were sharing this magic moment with someone, but he was a solitary figure who seemed to be in his own little world. After watching him for a while, I turned to look at some of the others and noticed two black men in the window directly underneath the lone man. They were exactly the opposite. They were laughing, smiling, waving to all who could see them and “having the time of their lives.” It was a festive mood which everyone seemed to find contagious.

  After looking around at the crown for a few moments, I fastened my attention again on the curious young man who was alone on the sixth floor of the building. The most unusual thing about him, I decided, was his demeanor. It stood out in sharp contrast to that of everyone else. …

  …As I looked at the man, it struck me how unsmiling and calm he was. He didn’t seem to feel one bit of excitement. His face was almost expressionless. I couldn’t detect either happiness or hate. Again he left the window for a few seconds, but almost as quickly he resumed his position there. …

  …At about 12:26 the word spread that the Presidential motorcade was approaching…

  …I looked up at the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository where that quiet, strange man was hunched. He hadn’t changed his position or expression a bit. He was perfectly calm and his face revealed nothing out of the ordinary. …

  …Looking back, I know that the man was too calm, too unconcerned. If one can’t  become excited at seeing the President of the United States, I wondered what it would take to move him. But the thought of assassination never entered my mind. During the several minutes I studied him, our eyes never met and he didn’t know I was watching him. I have often wondered since that time what would have happened if he had known. Would he have changed his plan? I doubt it…He seemed not to be looking at anything in particular, rather gazing blankly into space, as if his mind were a thousand miles away. I’ve thought since that he was looking at hthe corner of Houston and Main from where the President would come. He seemed preoccupied. He left the window one last time for just a few seconds and then returned to his lonely vigil. At no time during all these many minutes did I see any rifle or anything that would have led me to believe that he was any kind of threat to the President.

  I heard the wail of sirens from cars that were slowly approaching the corner of Main and Houston and swung around in that direction. Everyone around me was trying to do the same thing. …

  …When the Presidential car moved just a few feet past where I was sitting, President Kennedy looked back to our side of the street. Just at that moment the whole joy and good will of the day was shattered by the sound of a shot. …

  …I looked up then at the Texas Book Depository Building. What I saw made my “blood run cold!”

  Poised in the corner window of the sixth floor was the same young man I had noticed several times before the motorcade arrived. There was one difference - this time he held a rifle in his hands, pointing toward the Presidential car. He steadied the rifle against the cornice and while he moved quickly, he didn’t seem to be in any kind of panic. All of this happened in the matter of a second or two. Then came the sickening sound of a second shot and I looked quickly back to the presidential car which had moved only a few feet, still not apparently aware that it was the assassin’s target. …

  …Just then a woman close to me screamed in full realization of what was happening. She uttered something like, “oh, my God!” But even as she did my eyes darted back to that solitary figure who was changing history. He was aiming again and I wanted to pray, to beg God to somehow make him miss his target. There wasn’t tome to pray, not even time to think about what I was seeing but the sight became so fixed in my mind that I’ll never forget it for as long as I live. … Then another shot rang out.

  All of this took only a few seconds. I didn’t realize at that moment that I was the only person who was actually watching the man firing the rifle.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 04, 2023, 01:14:12 PM
From “Eyewitness to History”, by Howard L. Brenan, page 7:


  “Then, looking at the corner of the building, I noticed one man in the window. What drew my attention to him with all the other people in the area, I don’t know. I looked at my watch and it was about 12:22.

One of many places in that book where he gilds the lily!

Representative Ford. Are those the positions where you were sitting on November 22?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. At about 12
Mr. BRENNAN. From about 12:22 or 12:24 until the time of the assassination.


 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 04, 2023, 03:50:56 PM
No, Strawman Nessan.  You can either prove that Oswald "built" a sniper's nest, or you cannot.

No, the claim was that it's not unusual for prints of employees who handle boxes to be on boxes.  It doesn't prove that they "built" anything.

Cite?

Latona said 3 days.

You don't know that.

Fingerprints cannot indicate such a thing.

I think the only strawman here is the individual who is always claiming everyone else is a strawman. Almost like being back in grade school with silly nicknames.

 

No that was not your claim. I will quote it again for you. It was not about "handling" boxes it was about opening them and retrieving books. You are not able to tell what a box that was sealed looks like compared to when it is now opened up. This is not about all the boxes in the TSBD but just the four arranged by LHO to make a rifle rest and a place to sit. They were arranged to be used by the assassin. 

 

 

 

John Iacoletti

Re: When the SN was built

« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2023, 06:48:26 PM »

Quote from: Jack Nessan on January 31, 2023, 04:47:37 PM

And LHO's fingerprints were found on the box. On this information alone it is hard to deny who was the assassin.
 

 
JI: Again, why?  Fingerprints on a box from an employee whose job was literally getting books out of boxes.  How odd.

 

This post is about him doing his job retrieving books out of boxes not just mindlessly placing his hands on boxes. 

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

Again, there were three people on the 6th floor after everyone else left for lunch. Only LHO’s fingerprints were on the SN boxes. The same as his rifle, same as the bag.

 
If you feel the only other two men on the 6th floor, BRW or Givens, really built the SN now would be a really good time to elaborate. If not, it only leaves LHO as the person left who arranged the SN.

 
No, Latona, he worked for the FBI. It is not the FBI and Latona. 
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2023, 04:29:58 PM
I think the only strawman here is the individual who is always claiming everyone else is a strawman. Almost like being back in grade school with silly nicknames.

No that was not your claim. I will quote it again for you. It was not about "handling" boxes it was about opening them and retrieving books. You are not able to tell what a box that was sealed looks like compared to when it is now opened up. This is not about all the boxes in the TSBD but just the four arranged by LHO to make a rifle rest and a place to sit. They were arranged to be used by the assassin. 

John Iacoletti

Re: When the SN was built

« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2023, 06:48:26 PM »

Quote from: Jack Nessan on January 31, 2023, 04:47:37 PM

And LHO's fingerprints were found on the box. On this information alone it is hard to deny who was the assassin.
 
JI: Again, why?  Fingerprints on a box from an employee whose job was literally getting books out of boxes.  How odd.

 
This post is about him doing his job retrieving books out of boxes not just mindlessly placing his hands on boxes. 

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

Again, there were three people on the 6th floor after everyone else left for lunch. Only LHO’s fingerprints were on the SN boxes. The same as his rifle, same as the bag.
 
If you feel the only other two men on the 6th floor, BRW or Givens, really built the SN now would be a really good time to elaborate. If not, it only leaves LHO as the person left who arranged the SN.
 
No, Latona, he worked for the FBI. It is not the FBI and Latona.

I think the only strawman here is the individual who is always claiming everyone else is a strawman. Almost like being back in grade school with silly nicknames.

The term strawman is not a silly nickname. Could it be you don't know what the meaning of the term is?


Only LHO’s fingerprints were on the SN boxes. The same as his rifle, same as the bag.

None of this is true.

There were in fact latent prints on the boxes which could not be identified (conveniently only Oswald's prints were identified).

There was no print on (or even a trace of a print having been lifted of) the rifle when the FBI lab in Washington examined the weapon!

And the bag that was allegedly found at the S/N wasn't the one Frazier or Randle saw Oswald carry that morning. Because of the type of tape used to make the bag, it had to have been made at the TSBD and there is no evidence whatsoever it ever left the TSBD, making it just a bag made from TSBD materials and allegedly found at the TSBD. Oswald was never seen near the packing tables where the bag had to have been made, but we know for a fact that DPD officers were at that table and actually made a (allegedly duplicate) bag. Now what possible reason could they have had to make a duplicate of a bag, when they had the original?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2023, 04:31:56 PM
No ifs ands or buts about it, Brenan saw the sniper in the sixth floor window when the Bronson film segment was filmed and the ambulance was still there.

 BS:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2023, 04:35:23 PM
From “Eyewitness to History”, by Howard L. Brenan, page 7:

Published 24 years later and highly embellished.  Yeah, I'm sure Brennan really thought "my God, they're going to kill them all".  What a coinky-dink.

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 04, 2023, 04:51:53 PM
I think the only strawman here is the individual who is always claiming everyone else is a strawman. Almost like being back in grade school with silly nicknames.

The term strawman is not a silly nickname. It seems you don't know what the meaning of the term is,


Only LHO’s fingerprints were on the SN boxes. The same as his rifle, same as the bag.

None of this is true.

There were in fact latent prints on the boxes which could not be identified (conveniently only Oswald's prints were identified).

There was no print on (or even a trace of a print having been lifted of) the rifle when the FBI lab in Washington examined the weapon!

And the bag that was allegedly found at the S/N wasn't the one Frazier or Randle saw Oswald carry that morning. Because of the type of tape used to make the bag, it had to have been made at the TSBD and there is no evidence whatsoever it ever left the TSBD, making it just a bag made from TSBD materials and allegedly found at the TSBD. Oswald was never seen near the packing tables where the bag had to have been made, but we know for a fact that DPD officers were at that table and actually made a (allegedly duplicate) bag. Now what possible reason could they have had to make a duplicate of a bag, when they had the original?

How many of these "prints" remained unidentified after eliminating the DPD and FBI agents who touched these boxes?  This is all just more weak defense attorney nonsense.  No reasonable person can believe the explanation for Oswald's prints on all these objects relating to the assassination was just bad luck or the police fabricating evidence to frame a dead guy.  That is contrarian bull. 
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2023, 04:53:30 PM
I think the only strawman here is the individual who is always claiming everyone else is a strawman.

No, when you make up a claim to argue with (like "you think BRWilliams or/and Givens built it"), that's a strawman.  I didn't say I think that.

Quote
No that was not your claim. I will quote it again for you. It was not about "handling" boxes it was about opening them and retrieving books. You are not able to tell what a box that was sealed looks like compared to when it is now opened up. This is not about all the boxes in the TSBD but just the four arranged by LHO to make a rifle rest and a place to sit. They were arranged to be used by the assassin. 

You don't know that any boxes "were used as a rifle rest" or "a place to sit".  Or even that they were "arranged" for that purpose.  This is pure speculation.

Quote
This post is about him doing his job retrieving books out of boxes not just mindlessly placing his hands on boxes.

This may shock you to hear, but sometimes employees have to move boxes in order to do their jobs too.

Quote
Again, there were three people on the 6th floor after everyone else left for lunch.

Are you suggesting that boxes were moved or prints were left after everyone else left for lunch on 11/22?  There is no basis for that.

Quote
Only LHO’s fingerprints were on the SN boxes.

You don't know that.

Quote
The same as his rifle

"His rifle", LOL.  Correction:  the CE139 rifle had prints by the trigger guard that were unsuitable for identification purposes, and a single partial palmprint turned up a week later on an index card.

Quote
, same as the bag.

You mean "the bag" that doesn't appear in any crime scene photos where it was allegedly found and that nobody can agree on where or when it was found, who found it, or how or if it was folded?  That "bag"?  The "bag" that you cannot demonstrate ever held a rifle?

Quote
No, Latona, he worked for the FBI. It is not the FBI and Latona.

What are you talking about now?  I didn't say "the FBI and Latona".  You claimed that "The FBI testing indicated fingerprints lasted a maximum of 1 day on cardboard".  Where did you get this idea?  What FBI testing?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2023, 04:56:02 PM
How many of these "prints" remained unidentified after eliminating the DPD and FBI agents who touched these boxes?  This is all just more weak defense attorney nonsense.  No reasonable person can believe the explanation for Oswald's prints on all these objects relating to the assassination was just bad luck or the police fabricating evidence to frame a dead guy.  That is contrarian bull.

And your evidence that these boxes were "relating to the assassination" is.....what, exactly?  Sounds like weak prosecuting attorney nonsense.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2023, 05:01:50 PM
How many of these "prints" remained unidentified after eliminating the DPD and FBI agents who touched these boxes?  This is all just more weak defense attorney nonsense.  No reasonable person can believe the explanation for Oswald's prints on all these objects relating to the assassination was just bad luck or the police fabricating evidence to frame a dead guy.  That is contrarian bull.

What is really bull is claiming that only Oswald's prints were on those boxes, that Oswald's print was on the rifle and that a bag made from TSBD materials was found at the sniper's nest.

There isn't a shred of evidence for any of those claims except "the DPD said so".
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 04, 2023, 05:32:30 PM
No, when you make up a claim to argue with (like "you think BRWilliams or/and Givens built it"), that's a strawman.  I didn't say I think that.

You don't know that any boxes "were used as a rifle rest" or "a place to sit".  Or even that they were "arranged" for that purpose.  This is pure speculation.

This may shock you to hear, but sometimes employees have to move boxes in order to do their jobs too.

Are you suggesting that boxes were moved or prints were left after everyone else left for lunch on 11/22?  There is no basis for that.

You don't know that.

"His rifle", LOL.  Correction:  the CE139 rifle had prints by the trigger guard that were unsuitable for identification purposes, and a single partial palmprint turned up a week later on an index card.

You mean "the bag" that doesn't appear in any crime scene photos where it was allegedly found and that nobody can agree on where or when it was found, who found it, or how or if it was folded?  That "bag"?  The "bag" that you cannot demonstrate ever held a rifle?

What are you talking about now?  I didn't say "the FBI and Latona".  You claimed that "The FBI testing indicated fingerprints lasted a maximum of 1 day on cardboard".  Where did you get this idea?  What FBI testing?

NOUN

strawman (noun)

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument:


 

This is what I thought. You have no idea what it means. Realizing you have a faulty understanding of the JFK Assassination in no way constitutes a straw argument. Do you honestly believe your contrarian opinion is considered a fact?

 

Basically you present no argument. What little you have stated you were quick to claim you did not. You even misrepresented what Latona stated and offered it as a fact. 

 

There were 10 Rolling Reader boxes. Only two of them ended up in the SN where they were used in the construction of the rifle rest and seat. Those two had LHO’s prints on them. They contained blocks not books. As per your statement of LHO opening the boxes and retrieving books, that did not happen and in way is an explanation for his prints being on the boxes. An explanation for his prints being on the two boxes is he carried them there from where the other eight boxes were located. All the other TSBD employees fingerprints, who had access to the 6th floor were ruled out by Latona.

 
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2023, 06:30:12 PM
NOUN

strawman (noun)

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument:


This is what I thought. You have no idea what it means. Realizing you have a faulty understanding of the JFK Assassination in no way constitutes a straw argument. Do you honestly believe your contrarian opinion is considered a fact?

Basically you present no argument. What little you have stated you were quick to claim you did not. You even misrepresented what Latona stated and offered it as a fact. 

There were 10 Rolling Reader boxes. Only two of them ended up in the SN where they were used in the construction of the rifle rest and seat. Those two had LHO’s prints on them. They contained blocks not books. As per your statement of LHO opening the boxes and retrieving books, that did not happen and in way is an explanation for his prints being on the boxes. An explanation for his prints being on the two boxes is he carried them there from where the other eight boxes were located. All the other TSBD employees fingerprints, who had access to the 6th floor were ruled out by Latona.

This is absolutely a strawman;


So you think BRWilliams or/and Givens built it and made sure they used boxes with LHO's fingerprints on them.


Claiming that John thinks that when he has never made such a claim is, just like the description says;

"an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument:"

In other words, you falsely attributed an incorrect claim to John for the sole purpose of subsequently being able to knock it down!

Do you honestly believe your contrarian opinion is considered a fact?

John is reasonable enough to accept that his opinion is not a fact. You, on the other hand, seem to consider every opinion you have to be factual.

An explanation for his prints being on the two boxes is he carried them there from where the other eight boxes were located.

That is indeed one possible explanation. The problem is that you can't rule out other explanations, which makes your entire argument a moot point.

All the other TSBD employees fingerprints, who had access to the 6th floor were ruled out by Latona.

How could he rule them out when there were unidentifiable prints on those boxes?

Mr. EISENBERG. How many identifiable prints did you find on this carton?
Mr. LATONA. There were seven fingerprints and two palmprints developed on Commission Exhibit 653.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, identifiable prints?
Mr. LATONA. Identifiable prints.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you identify any of those prints as belonging to a specific person?
Mr. LATONA. I did not.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have 654 marked, Box C, Mr. Chairman? Did you also examine Box C?
Mr. LATONA. Box C, yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have that admitted as 654?
Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit 654.
(Commission Exhibit No. 654 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any latent identifiable prints on 654?
Mr. LATONA. I found two fingerprints and one palmprint.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you identify them as belonging to a specific individual?
Mr. LATONA. I did not identify them.

Latona also confirmed those unidentifiable prints are not Oswald's;

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you attempt to identify them with Lee Harvey Oswald's known prints?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; and they are not Lee Harvey Oswald's print.

So, if it is true that no other TSBD employee left prints on those boxes, and the unidentifiable prints did not belong to Oswald, who else touched those boxes in the roughly 24 hours before the assassination?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2023, 08:59:16 PM
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument:

Which is exactly what you did.  You claimed I made the proposition that "BRWilliams or/and Givens built it and made sure they used boxes with LHO's fingerprints on them".  Strawman.
 
Quote
Do you honestly believe your contrarian opinion is considered a fact?

I never claimed that any of my opinions were facts.  That's yet another strawman.  You're really racking them up.  And calling an opinion "contrarian" doesn't somehow make your opinions correct.
 
Quote
Basically you present no argument. What little you have stated you were quick to claim you did not.

Sure I did.  My argument is that fingerprints on boxes in the TSBD tell you nothing about who killed Kennedy.  Despite your creative speculation for how they got there.

Quote
You even misrepresented what Latona stated and offered it as a fact. 

 BS:

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "not too long," would you say not 3 weeks, or not 3 days, or not 3 hours?
Mr. LATONA. Very definitely I'd say not 3 days. I'd say not 3 weeks.
Mr. EISENBERG. And not 3 days, either?
Mr. LATONA. No; I don't believe so, because I don't think that the print on here that is touched on a piece of cardboard will stay on a piece of cardboard for 3 days.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you bring that any closer?
Mr. LATONA. I am afraid I couldn't come any closer.
Mr. EISENBERG. 3 days?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Quote
There were 10 Rolling Reader boxes. Only two of them ended up in the SN where they were used in the construction of the rifle rest and seat. Those two had LHO’s prints on them. They contained blocks not books. As per your statement of LHO opening the boxes and retrieving books, that did not happen and in way is an explanation for his prints being on the boxes. An explanation for his prints being on the two boxes is he carried them there from where the other eight boxes were located. All the other TSBD employees fingerprints, who had access to the 6th floor were ruled out by Latona.

A made-up "explanation" that has no substantiation whatsoever is not an explanation -- it's a fantasy.  You have no evidence that they were used in the construction of any rifle rest and seat -- that's pure speculation.  You have no evidence that LHO moved them there, or when they were moved, or for what purpose -- that's pure speculation.  You're ignoring that people who handle boxes don't always leave identifiable prints, at least one print was never identified, and not all the employees in the building were fingerprinted.  Therefore you cannot state as a fact that "Only LHO’s fingerprints were on the SN boxes".
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 04, 2023, 11:52:07 PM
What is really bull is claiming that only Oswald's prints were on those boxes, that Oswald's print was on the rifle and that a bag made from TSBD materials was found at the sniper's nest.

There isn't a shred of evidence for any of those claims except "the DPD said so".

How many of the prints remained unidentified after eliminating the DPD and FBI agents who touched the boxes?  Dismissing the evidence solely because the DPD "said so" is completely bizarre even from you.  Taking the old impossible standard of proof to a new level.  They were responsible for investigating the case.  They found Oswald's prints on the boxes, rifle, and bag.  Guilty.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 05, 2023, 01:10:16 AM
How many of the prints remained unidentified after eliminating the DPD and FBI agents who touched the boxes?  Dismissing the evidence solely because the DPD "said so" is completely bizarre even from you.  Taking the old impossible standard of proof to a new level.  They were responsible for investigating the case.  They found Oswald's prints on the boxes, rifle, and bag.  Guilty.

How many of the prints remained unidentified after eliminating the DPD and FBI agents who touched the boxes?

It doesn't matter. When there's only one print that remains unidentified the claim that only Oswald handled those boxes is nullified.
Latona found prints on at least two of the boxes which he could not identify.

Dismissing the evidence solely because the DPD "said so" is completely bizarre even from you.

There's nothing bizarre about it. The bag that was allegedly found at the sniper's nest was never photographed in situ and the print that allegedly came from the rifle was only produced by Day after Oswald was dead. In both cases all we have to "authenticate" both pieces of evidence is "the DPD said so"!

They were responsible for investigating the case.

And they made a complete mess of it. Fritz wanted Frazier to sign a confession on Friday evening and even threatened violence. Day concocted a bogus story to explain why Frazier did not identify the bag found at the TSBD as the one he had seen Oswald carry. Studebaker failed to take a photograph showing the bag in situ. Westbrook couldn't identify the cop who showed him where the white jacket was under a car, nor could he name the officer he gave the jacket to, nor could he explain how he got the jacket back at the police station or why it was marked by officers who were not even present or involved when the jacket was found. Hill walked around for at least two hours with a revolver that allegedly belonged to Oswald and had fellow officers in the DPD lunchroom make their mark on the revolver despite the fact that none of them was involved in Oswald's arrest, thus falsifying the chain of custody.

It goes on and on.... but for a superficial person like you "the DPD said so" is enough    :D

Besides, Hoover (and Katzenbach) had already decided that Oswald was the lone gunman before they had any evidence to support that conclusion, so don't tell me the DPD were in charge of theinvestigation. If they really were, Kennedy's autopsy would have taken place in Dallas, the limo would never have been flown back to Washington and none of the evidence would have been shipped to the FBI lab on Friday evening.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Michael Walton on February 05, 2023, 11:35:13 AM

Besides, Hoover (and Katzenbach) had already decided that Oswald was the lone gunman before they had any evidence to support that conclusion, so don't tell me the DPD were in charge of theinvestigation. If they really were, Kennedy's autopsy would have taken place in Dallas, the limo would never have been flown back to Washington and none of the evidence would have been shipped to the FBI lab on Friday evening.

Yeah, can you imagine what would happen in any other case in the history of jurisprudence if the judge wrote a note to the prosecution saying something along the lines of what Nick wrote? "You should make it your goal to make the accused look as guilty as possible so the public will buy into his/her guilt." Think of the outrage.

Yet, no one here ever seems to think that's important.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 05, 2023, 02:10:53 PM
No mention of "sniping", or even a rifle.

A man "taking aim" for the final shot would necessarily be crouched down behind boxes with a rifle next to his face.  So on what basis did he decide it was "the man that I saw previous"?  Or was it just an assumption?  He doesn't say and they didn't ask.

But either way, Brennan observed no "sniper" when the epileptic event occurred.




A man "taking aim" for the final shot would necessarily be crouched down behind boxes with a rifle next to his face.


Here's a couple of my early images of the sniper's nest ergonomics study. They depict two views of the sniper aiming for the third shot. one is from the west on the sixth floor. And the other is from Brenan's position. I don't believe that from Brenan's viewpoint that his face would have been obscured by boxes or the rifle.

(https://i.vgy.me/JsYJil.jpg)



(https://i.vgy.me/Owi0pe.jpg)



A hypothetical question for you:

If you walk into a room with a bunch of people in it and soon see a man who is standing away from everybody. And you notice his demeanor is a bit odd. Then say about seven minutes later this same man walks up to you and for no apparent reason punches you in the nose. Did you see the bully soon after you walked into the room?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 05, 2023, 04:46:16 PM
Which is exactly what you did.  You claimed I made the proposition that "BRWilliams or/and Givens built it and made sure they used boxes with LHO's fingerprints on them".  Strawman.
 
I never claimed that any of my opinions were facts.  That's yet another strawman.  You're really racking them up.  And calling an opinion "contrarian" doesn't somehow make your opinions correct.
 
Sure I did.  My argument is that fingerprints on boxes in the TSBD tell you nothing about who killed Kennedy.  Despite your creative speculation for how they got there.

 BS:

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "not too long," would you say not 3 weeks, or not 3 days, or not 3 hours?
Mr. LATONA. Very definitely I'd say not 3 days. I'd say not 3 weeks.
Mr. EISENBERG. And not 3 days, either?
Mr. LATONA. No; I don't believe so, because I don't think that the print on here that is touched on a piece of cardboard will stay on a piece of cardboard for 3 days.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you bring that any closer?
Mr. LATONA. I am afraid I couldn't come any closer.
Mr. EISENBERG. 3 days?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.

A made-up "explanation" that has no substantiation whatsoever is not an explanation -- it's a fantasy.  You have no evidence that they were used in the construction of any rifle rest and seat -- that's pure speculation.  You have no evidence that LHO moved them there, or when they were moved, or for what purpose -- that's pure speculation.  You're ignoring that people who handle boxes don't always leave identifiable prints, at least one print was never identified, and not all the employees in the building were fingerprinted.  Therefore you cannot state as a fact that "Only LHO’s fingerprints were on the SN boxes".

So, it is exactly what I stated, anything short of accepting your opinion as a fact is what you are calling a strawman argument. 

Oddly enough, it seems the strawman thing never came up until you were shown the errors of your statements. I think the strawman thing came about as your way of trying to escape the faulty details from your own argument.

 

What is it called when you make statements and then deny them because you realize they are flat out wrong. I know what I would call it.

 

No, actually they do know the boxes came from the group of ten Rolling Readers.

 

No, All the people with a known access to the 6th floor were tested and determined to not have handled the boxes. There would be no other reason to test them.

 

Yes they do know the boxes was used in the construction of the rifle rest. I do not know why you are unable to figure that out, but is not a crime to be ignorant of something.

 

It is OK to use common sense and apply it to different aspects of information, but please don’t tell me I am lame because of your short comings.

 

Nothing in life is as black and white as you pretend it is. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. 

 

 

 

 

Here is what Latobna really explained.

Mr. Latona.

Assuming that the same print was left on an object or a series of similar prints were left on an object, and powdering them, say, at intervals of every 4 hours or so, we would fail to develop a latent print of that particular type on that particular surface, say, within a 24-hour period.

 

 

Mr. Latona.

Assuming that the same print was left on an object or a series of similar prints were left on an object, and powdering them, say, at intervals of every 4 hours or so, we would fail to develop a latent print of that particular type on that particular surface, say, within a 24-hour period.

Mr. Eisenberg.

So that is a maximum of 24 hours?

Mr. Latona.

That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg.

You would not care, you say, though----

Mr. Latona.

No.

Mr. Eisenberg.

To employ that here, but your experiments produced a maximum time of 24 hours.

Mr. Latona.

Bear that out; yes. Like I say, undoubtedly this print was left on there----between the time that the print was left and the time that it was powdered could not have been too long a time. Otherwise, the print would not have developed with the clarity that it did.


 
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: James Hackerott on February 05, 2023, 06:08:44 PM



A man "taking aim" for the final shot would necessarily be crouched down behind boxes with a rifle next to his face.


Here's a couple of my early images of the sniper's nest ergonomics study. They depict two views of the sniper aiming for the third shot. one is from the west on the sixth floor. And the other is from Brenan's position. I don't believe that from Brenan's viewpoint that his face would have been obscured by boxes or the rifle.

(https://i.vgy.me/JsYJil.jpg)



(https://i.vgy.me/Owi0pe.jpg)



A hypothetical question for you:

If you walk into a room with a bunch of people in it and soon see a man who is standing away from everybody. And you notice his demeanor is a bit odd. Then say about seven minutes later this same man walks up to you and for no apparent reason punches you in the nose. Did you see the bully soon after you walked into the room?
Looks pretty good Charles and look forward for more!
 
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 05, 2023, 06:10:37 PM
So, it is exactly what I stated, anything short of accepting your opinion as a fact is what you are calling a strawman argument. 

Oddly enough, it seems the strawman thing never came up until you were shown the errors of your statements. I think the strawman thing came about as your way of trying to escape the faulty details from your own argument.

 

What is it called when you make statements and then deny them because you realize they are flat out wrong. I know what I would call it.

 

No, actually they do know the boxes came from the group of ten Rolling Readers.

 

No, All the people with a known access to the 6th floor were tested and determined to not have handled the boxes. There would be no other reason to test them.

 

Yes they do know the boxes was used in the construction of the rifle rest. I do not know why you are unable to figure that out, but is not a crime to be ignorant of something.

 

It is OK to use common sense and apply it to different aspects of information, but please don’t tell me I am lame because of your short comings.

 

Nothing in life is as black and white as you pretend it is. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. 

 

 

 

 

Here is what Latobna really explained.

Mr. Latona.

Assuming that the same print was left on an object or a series of similar prints were left on an object, and powdering them, say, at intervals of every 4 hours or so, we would fail to develop a latent print of that particular type on that particular surface, say, within a 24-hour period.

 

 

Mr. Latona.

Assuming that the same print was left on an object or a series of similar prints were left on an object, and powdering them, say, at intervals of every 4 hours or so, we would fail to develop a latent print of that particular type on that particular surface, say, within a 24-hour period.

Mr. Eisenberg.

So that is a maximum of 24 hours?

Mr. Latona.

That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg.

You would not care, you say, though----

Mr. Latona.

No.

Mr. Eisenberg.

To employ that here, but your experiments produced a maximum time of 24 hours.

Mr. Latona.

Bear that out; yes. Like I say, undoubtedly this print was left on there----between the time that the print was left and the time that it was powdered could not have been too long a time. Otherwise, the print would not have developed with the clarity that it did.


You argue like a teenager. Why is that?

And you also constantly violate one of the forum rules;

"There must be no more than one single line of empty space between any written text, including quotes or posted images."
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 05, 2023, 07:41:28 PM
Looks pretty good Charles and look forward for more!

Thanks James!   :)
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 05, 2023, 11:24:52 PM
So, it is exactly what I stated, anything short of accepting your opinion as a fact is what you are calling a strawman argument. 

No, pay attention this time. A strawman is making up a claim that I never said and using it to argue against. I never said I believe that Williams or Givens constructed a sniper’s nest.

Strangely enough, you never explained why you suggested that these boxes were placed there after the employees went to lunch.

Quote
No, actually they do know the boxes came from the group of ten Rolling Readers.

I never said they didn’t, Strawman Nessan. I said that you have no evidence that they were used as a “rifle rest” or that they were deliberately moved there for that purpose.
 
Quote
No, All the people with a known access to the 6th floor were tested and determined to not have handled the boxes. There would be no other reason to test them.

Every employee had access to the 6th floor. It’s not like it was locked up.

Quote
Yes they do know the boxes was used in the construction of the rifle rest.

Who’s “they”, and how did “they” determine that a rifle rest was used at all? Be specific.

Quote
It is OK to use common sense and apply it to different aspects of information, but please don’t tell me I am lame because of your short comings.

When did I call you “lame”, Strawman Nessan? “Common sense” is what people appeal to when they don’t have actual evidence. It’s not equal to fact.

Quote
Here is what Latobna really explained.

He really said the thing I quoted him saying — that he couldn’t come any closer than 3 days. You can ignore that, because it doesn’t suit your “common sense”, but don’t pretend like he didn’t say it.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 05, 2023, 11:33:25 PM
Here's a couple of my early images of the sniper's nest ergonomics study. They depict two views of the sniper aiming for the third shot. one is from the west on the sixth floor. And the other is from Brenan's position. I don't believe that from Brenan's viewpoint that his face would have been obscured by boxes or the rifle.

Thanks Charles. A couple of questions, because the images are fuzzy to me. It looks like gunman’s head is not down far enough to be aiming through the scope or the sights. And I can’t really make out the barrel in the “Brennan” view. Is it angled down? What angle are you using for the head shot?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 06, 2023, 12:00:54 AM
Nothing in life is as black and white as you pretend it is. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

If it looks like a man in a very light-colored open-neck tshirt/shirt, then it ain't Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 06, 2023, 01:28:27 AM
How many of the prints remained unidentified after eliminating the DPD and FBI agents who touched the boxes?

It doesn't matter. When there's only one print that remains unidentified the claim that only Oswald handled those boxes is nullified.
Latona found prints on at least two of the boxes which he could not identify.



You begin by claiming that the discovery of Oswald's prints on the SN boxes is not incriminatory because he "worked there."  It can be expected for that reason that his prints might be found on the boxes.  When it is pointed out that his were the ONLY TSBD employee's prints identified on the boxes, you ramble about unidentified prints (plural) as though multiple other TSBD employees might have left prints on these same boxes because they "worked there."  Of course, the TSBD employees who worked on the 6th floor were printed and their prints were not matched to any prints on these boxes.  In fact, when the prints of the DPD and FBi agent who touched the boxes are eliminated, the number drops to a single print. 

Poor Oswald.  Of all the TSBD employees who worked on that floor, he just happens to be the only one who leaves identifiable prints on the SN boxes and bag.   No one can believe that this is just the result of terrible luck.  And even though you stupidly make that claim despite all logic, you also question the word of the DPD and suggesting that they fabricated evidence.  You don't even see the logical inconsistency of arguing that this evidence is fabricated to frame Oswald for the crime (e.g. his print on the rifle) with your equally stupid and baseless claim that this evidence doesn't link Oswald to the crime.   It is very amusing.   In your contrarian world, the DPD lies to fabricate evidence in the assassination of the president, risking ruined careers and prison, but the evidence that they go to such risk to fabricate doesn't prove Oswald's involvement in the crime in your opinion!  The entire and sole purpose of the fabrication.  HA HA HA.   Round and round down the rabbit hole.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 06, 2023, 02:00:56 AM
Thanks Charles. A couple of questions, because the images are fuzzy to me. It looks like gunman’s head is not down far enough to be aiming through the scope or the sights. And I can’t really make out the barrel in the “Brennan” view. Is it angled down? What angle are you using for the head shot?


It looks like gunman’s head is not down far enough to be aiming through the scope or the sights.


Articulating the limbs, head, etc. of the human figures isn't feasible in the software that I use. So, I typically improvise. Those images were generated a few years ago. And my model has evolved (in some of the details) since then. It is still a work-in-progress and is rather crude compared to James' & Jerry's models. I used a male figure that is supposed to be sitting crossed-legged on the floor and tilted it forward 22-degrees such that it appears he is looking in the same direction as the rifle aim. The rifle is aimed at the location of the limo at Z313, including the elevation difference. The angle of elevation of the rifle is 17-degrees. I updated the position of the rifle so that it appears the sniper has the scope to his right eye. The rifle obviously isn't a model of a Carcano or proportioned and shouldn't be considered anything other than a crude model. But I think it is adequate for the purpose of showing that the sniper would not be crouched down behind boxes with a rifle obscuring Brenan's view.


(https://i.vgy.me/UMMFTz.png)



Here is Brenan's viewpoint. Please note that some of the window parts are a work in progress and need to be either moved or removed. The only thing that has changed is the viewpoint (location of the camera (aka: virtual visitor) The rifle is still aimed down at 17-degrees. It looks almost level from that lower elevation (looking up from below). That is another example of how photograph angles can fool us. This also agrees with the old image from Brenan's viewpoint that I posted earlier.

(https://i.vgy.me/aB0tEB.png)

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 06, 2023, 02:08:49 AM
You begin by claiming that the discovery of Oswald's prints on the SN boxes is not incriminatory because he "worked there."  It can be expected for that reason that his prints might be found on the boxes.  When it is pointed out that his were the ONLY TSBD employee's prints identified on the boxes, you ramble about unidentified prints (plural) as though multiple other TSBD employees might have left prints on these same boxes because they "worked there."  Of course, the TSBD employees who worked on the 6th floor were printed and their prints were not matched to any prints on these boxes.  In fact, when the prints of the DPD and FBi agent who touched the boxes are eliminated, the number drops to a single print. 

Poor Oswald.  Of all the TSBD employees who worked on that floor, he just happens to be the only one who leaves identifiable prints on the SN boxes and bag.   No one can believe that this is just the result of terrible luck.  And even though you stupidly make that claim despite all logic, you also question the word of the DPD and suggesting that they fabricated evidence.  You don't even see the logical inconsistency of arguing that this evidence is fabricated to frame Oswald for the crime (e.g. his print on the rifle) with your equally stupid and baseless claim that this evidence doesn't link Oswald to the crime.   It is very amusing.   In your contrarian world, the DPD lies to fabricate evidence in the assassination of the president, risking ruined careers and prison, but the evidence that they go to such risk to fabricate doesn't prove Oswald's involvement in the crime in your opinion!  The entire and sole purpose of the fabrication.  HA HA HA.   Round and round down the rabbit hole.

You begin by claiming that the discovery of Oswald's prints on the SN boxes is not incriminatory because he "worked there."  It can be expected for that reason that his prints might be found on the boxes. 

Thank you for agreeing with me. His prints on those boxes have indeed no evidentiary value, regardless of how much spin you want to put on it.

Of course, the TSBD employees who worked on the 6th floor were printed and their prints were not matched to any prints on these boxes.  In fact, when the prints of the DPD and FBi agent who touched the boxes are eliminated, the number drops to a single print. 

Even if true, which it isn't, a single unidentifiable print is still one too many. You can not simply ignore that some unidentified person must have left that print!

And it wasn't one print. Latona found unidentifiable prints on at least two boxes;

Mr. EISENBERG. How many identifiable prints did you find on this carton?
Mr. LATONA. There were seven fingerprints and two palmprints developed on Commission Exhibit 653.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, identifiable prints?
Mr. LATONA. Identifiable prints.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you identify any of those prints as belonging to a specific person?
Mr. LATONA. I did not.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have 654 marked, Box C, Mr. Chairman? Did you also examine Box C?
Mr. LATONA. Box C, yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have that admitted as 654?
Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit 654.
(Commission Exhibit No. 654 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any latent identifiable prints on 654?
Mr. LATONA. I found two fingerprints and one palmprint.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you identify them as belonging to a specific individual?
Mr. LATONA. I did not identify them.

Latona also confirmed those unidentifiable prints are not Oswald's;

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you attempt to identify them with Lee Harvey Oswald's known prints?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; and they are not Lee Harvey Oswald's print.

The bottom line is simple; somebody, who was not Oswald left prints on at least two boxes.

Of all the TSBD employees who worked on that floor, he just happens to be the only one who leaves identifiable prints on the SN boxes and bag. 

Then, who did those unidentified prints belong to? If those prints did not belong to Oswald, another TSBD employee or a law enforcement officer, who else was on the 6th floor and touched those boxes within some 24 hours before the crime?

No one can believe that this is just the result of terrible luck.

Indeed! So what was really going on?

And even though you stupidly make that claim despite all logic, you also question the word of the DPD and suggesting that they fabricated evidence.

And there is the pathetic "The DPD said so" claim again. Your blind admiration for a police force that was responsible for countless innocent people being convicted for crimes they did not commit.

You don't even see the logical inconsistency of arguing that this evidence is fabricated to frame Oswald for the crime (e.g. his print on the rifle) with your equally stupid and baseless claim that this evidence doesn't link Oswald to the crime. 

There is no inconsistency. If the evidence was fabricated, it was done so to link Oswald to the crime. That would have been the sole purpose. However, as it would be false evidence it proves nothing at all, or is that to difficult to understand for you?

the DPD lies to fabricate evidence in the assassination of the president,

Well, we know for a fact that they did fabricate evidence. You only need to look at the marks made on the jacket by officers who were not in the chain of custody. That's falsifying the chain of custody. We also know for a fact that the DPD claimed the BY photos were found during the second search (with a warrant) of Ruth Paine's house on Saturday afternoon and that this claim was false because an FBI agent showed one of the photos to Michael Paine on Friday evening and Fritz had the photo when he interrogated Oswald on Saturday morning.

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 06, 2023, 02:17:38 AM
In fact, when the prints of the DPD and FBi agent who touched the boxes are eliminated, the number drops to a single print. 

What part of “unidentified” do you not understand?

Quote
Poor Oswald.  Of all the TSBD employees who worked on that floor, he just happens to be the only one who leaves identifiable prints on the SN boxes and bag.   

Poor “Richard”. He thinks any of this is evidence of murder.

Quote
In your contrarian world, the DPD lies to fabricate evidence in the assassination of the president, risking ruined careers and prison, but the evidence that they go to such risk to fabricate doesn't prove Oswald's involvement in the crime in your opinion!

Nobody ever accused the DPD of being competent. They don’t need to be when “cop said so” is good enough for people like you.


 
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 06, 2023, 02:11:50 PM
No one can believe that this is just the result of terrible luck.

Indeed! So what was really going on?

Good question, Mr. Weidmann!

Let us-------for the sake purely of argument--------be naive enough to admit into evidence, as solid evidence wholly free of taint or suspicion, the fingerprints on rifle, box(es) & bag.

What we then have is evidence consistent with six scenarios:

a) Mr. Oswald (the shooter, acting alone) clumsily left behind incriminating evidence
b) Mr. Oswald (the shooter, as part of a conspiracy) clumsily left behind incriminating evidence
c) Mr. Oswald (innocent of any involvement) was framed by the conspirators as the shooter
d) Mr. Oswald (innocent of any involvement) was framed by the conspirators as an accomplice
e) Mr. Oswald (not the shooter, but guilty of complicity) clumsily left behind incriminating evidence of his involvement
f) Mr. Oswald (not the shooter, but guilty of complicity) naively left behind incriminating evidence of his involvement which his double-crossing fellow-conspirators did not take care of, because they wished it to come to the investigators' attention.

We then must ask ourselves the question:
IF Mr. Oswald was being framed by those behind the assassination, would they or would they not take any pains to incriminate him?

To put this question in another form:
IF Mr. Oswald was being framed by those behind the assassination, how surprising would it be for evidence incriminating him to be found?
Would it not in fact be more surprising if no incriminating evidence were found?

So......... the thing is pretty much a wash. The very best the Warren Gullibles have is evidence consistent with six different scenarios, only one of which fits their own beloved theory.

And that, note, is the very furthest the Warren Gullibles can get on the most generous reading of the evidence provided by the 'investigating' authorities who were under tremendous pressure to pin the crime on him and on him alone. Not even that super-naive allowance enables the Warren Gullibles to put Mr. Oswald at that window at that time firing that rifle. Because all the 'evidence' he handled certain items at an indeterminable time may be taken to cut both ways: self-incrimination vs. frame-up.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 06, 2023, 02:19:16 PM
Good question, Mr. Weidmann!

Let us-------for the sake purely of argument--------be naive enough to admit into evidence, as solid evidence wholly free of taint or suspicion, the fingerprints on rifle, box(es) & bag.

What we then have is evidence consistent with six scenarios:

a) Mr. Oswald (the shooter, acting alone) clumsily left behind incriminating evidence
b) Mr. Oswald (the shooter, as part of a conspiracy) clumsily left behind incriminating evidence
c) Mr. Oswald (innocent of any involvement) was framed by the conspirators as the shooter
d) Mr. Oswald (innocent of any involvement) was framed by the conspirators as an accomplice
e) Mr. Oswald (not the shooter, but guilty of complicity) clumsily left behind incriminating evidence of his involvement
f) Mr. Oswald (not the shooter, but guilty of complicity) naively left behind incriminating evidence of his involvement which his double-crossing fellow-conspirators did not take care of, because they wished it to come to the investigators' attention.

We then must ask ourselves the question:
IF Mr. Oswald was being framed by those behind the assassination, would they or would they not take any pains to incriminate him?

To put this question in another form:
IF Mr. Oswald was being framed by those behind the assassination, how surprising would it be for evidence incriminating him to be found?
Would it not in fact be more surprising if no incriminating evidence were found?

So......... the thing is pretty much a wash. The very best the Warren Gullibles have is evidence consistent with six different scenarios, only one of which fits their own beloved theory.

And that, note, is the very furthest the Warren Gullibles can get on the most generous reading of the evidence provided by the 'investigating' authorities who were under tremendous pressure to pin the crime on him and on him alone. Not even that super-naive allowance enables the Warren Gullibles to put Mr. Oswald at that window at that time firing that rifle. Because all the 'evidence' he handled certain items at an indeterminable time may be taken to cut both ways: self-incrimination vs. frame-up.

 Thumb1:

In which we learn that Oswald left so much evidence behind that we can only conclude he was innocent.  So amusing.  Criminals often leave behind evidence of their involvement in a crime. THAT IS HOW MOST CRIMES ARE SOLVED!  LOL.  Evidence linking someone to a crime is not indicative of their being framed.  Unreal.  To demonstrate that the police framed someone for a crime involves more than just noting that there is a lot of evidence against the suspect.  HA HA HA.  It involves some evidence that the police actually fabricated the evidence.  But this nonsense does provide a great insight into the "mind" of a CTer and the mislogic used to exonerate Oswald.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 06, 2023, 02:22:35 PM
In which we learn that Oswald left so much evidence behind that we can only conclude he was innocent.

In which we receive further confirmation that reading comprehension is not Mr. Smith's forte!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 06, 2023, 02:24:23 PM
In which we receive further confirmation that reading comprehension is not Mr. Smith's forte!  Thumb1:

So Oswald was not framed according to you? 
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 06, 2023, 02:34:16 PM
So Oswald was not framed according to you?

(https://i.postimg.cc/fLb4L3R8/Strawman.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 06, 2023, 02:41:39 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/fLb4L3R8/Strawman.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Not a trick question.  Is it your opinion that Oswald was framed or not? 
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 06, 2023, 02:46:24 PM
In which we learn that Oswald left so much evidence behind that we can only conclude he was innocent.  So amusing.  Criminals often leave behind evidence of their involvement in a crime. THAT IS HOW MOST CRIMES ARE SOLVED!  LOL.  Evidence linking someone to a crime is not indicative of their being framed.  Unreal.  To demonstrate that the police framed someone for a crime involves more than just noting that there is a lot of evidence against the suspect.  HA HA HA.  It involves some evidence that the police actually fabricated the evidence.  But this nonsense does provide a great insight into the "mind" of a CTer and the mislogic used to exonerate Oswald.

Here we learn that, after having argued himself into a corner, Richard Smith finds himself unable (as so often) to answer a simple question, which was;


Then, who did those unidentified prints belong to? If those prints did not belong to Oswald, another TSBD employee or a law enforcement officer, who else was on the 6th floor and touched those boxes within some 24 hours before the crime?


and decides to run away as fast as he can, pretending the question was never asked.....
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 06, 2023, 02:50:40 PM
No, pay attention this time. A strawman is making up a claim that I never said and using it to argue against. I never said I believe that Williams or Givens constructed a sniper’s nest.

Strangely enough, you never explained why you suggested that these boxes were placed there after the employees went to lunch.

I never said they didn’t, Strawman Nessan. I said that you have no evidence that they were used as a “rifle rest” or that they were deliberately moved there for that purpose.
 
Every employee had access to the 6th floor. It’s not like it was locked up.

Who’s “they”, and how did “they” determine that a rifle rest was used at all? Be specific.

When did I call you “lame”, Strawman Nessan? “Common sense” is what people appeal to when they don’t have actual evidence. It’s not equal to fact.

He really said the thing I quoted him saying — that he couldn’t come any closer than 3 days. You can ignore that, because it doesn’t suit your “common sense”, but don’t pretend like he didn’t say it.

Maybe this one helps clarify Strawman a little better for you. You seem to be struggling with it a little bit. It is probably because you are trying to use the concept to hide the fact you posted something that was completely wrong then denied it and are now embarrased by having done it.

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.   

 

LHO leaving his fingerprints all over the place seems to be causing a lot of anguish. With your help we now know he constructed the SN. The fingerprints on the bag indicate he carried the bag exactly the way Linnie Mae Randal described. It is proven he purchased and possessed the rifle which was found on the 6th floor and matched to the bullet, fragments, and shells. Brennan saw a man firing the second and last shot from the SN. Nothing further is needed to understand who was the assassin.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 06, 2023, 03:00:11 PM
Here we learn that, after having argued himself into a corner, Richard Smith finds himself unable (as so often) to answer a simple question, which was;

and decides to run away as fast as he can, pretending the question was never asked.....

You still don't follow.  You alleged that finding Oswald's prints on these boxes was merely a function of his "working there" citing the possibility that other TSBD employees left their prints on the boxes to support this claim.  That is demonstrably false.  There were numerous TSBD employees who worked on that floor.  There was only one unidentified print.  It belonged to none of them.  Thus, your explanation that Oswald's prints were left on the box because he "worked there" is totally undermined.  No other employee who "worked there" left any such prints.  ONLY Oswald.  If you want to entertain that some fantasy assassin who DIDN"T WORK THERE left his prints on these boxes, then knock yourself out.  That is an entirely different claim.  But your explanation for Oswald's prints being on these boxes is completely destroyed by the evidence.  Just because one print is still unidentified after being compared to the TSBD employees who worked on the floor actually undermines your original premise.  It is "unidentified" because it did not belong to anyone who "worked there."  There is no doubt that some others must have touched the box at some point.  Someone packed its contents, and someone delivered it to the TSBD.  That, however, has no relevance for why only Oswald's prints are on the box among the TSBD employees who had access to the 6th floor on 11.22.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 06, 2023, 03:34:52 PM
You still don't follow.  You alleged that finding Oswald's prints on these boxes was merely a function of his "working there" citing the possibility that other TSBD employees left their prints on the boxes to support this claim.  That is demonstrably false.  There were numerous TSBD employees who worked on that floor.  There was only one unidentified print.  It belonged to none of them.  Thus, your explanation that Oswald's prints were left on the box because he "worked there" is totally undermined.  No other employee who "worked there" left any such prints.  ONLY Oswald.  If you want to entertain that some fantasy assassin who DIDN"T WORK THERE left his prints on these boxes, then knock yourself out.  That is an entirely different claim.  But your explanation for Oswald's prints being on these boxes is completely destroyed by the evidence.  Just because one print is still unidentified after being compared to the TSBD employees who worked on the floor actually undermines your original premise.  It is "unidentified" because it did not belong to anyone who "worked there."  There is no doubt that some others must have touched the box at some point.  Someone packed its contents, and someone delivered it to the TSBD.  That, however, has no relevance for why only Oswald's prints are on the box among the TSBD employees who had access to the 6th floor on 11.22.

So many words, and not an answer to my question in sight.

You alleged that finding Oswald's prints on these boxes was merely a function of his "working there" citing the possibility that other TSBD employees left their prints on the boxes to support this claim.  That is demonstrably false.

There is nothing false about it.

There were numerous TSBD employees who worked on that floor.  There was only one unidentified print.  It belonged to none of them.  Thus, your explanation that Oswald's prints were left on the box because he "worked there" is totally undermined.

BS. Even if no other TSBD employee touched those boxes, it still remains factual that Oswald worked in the building and that his job was to take books from boxes as well as moving boxes around.

There is no doubt that some others must have touched the box at some point.

At last he sees the light!  Thumb1:

Someone packed its contents, and someone delivered it to the TSBD.

Prints on cardboard boxes don't last very long. Is it your claim now that somebody delivered those boxes to the TSBD within roughly a day before the crime?

If so, that would also explain how Oswald's prints got on those boxes, as some TSBD employee must have brought those boxes to the 6th floor. That somebody could have been Oswald, right?

Which brings us back to the basic fact that fingerprints found on boxes from an employee whose job it was to move and open those boxes have no evidentiary value at all.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 06, 2023, 04:44:02 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/g28S5sx8/Truly-fingerprints.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/xXj3NKy1)
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 06, 2023, 11:05:28 PM


Prints on cardboard boxes don't last very long. Is it your claim now that somebody delivered those boxes to the TSBD within roughly a day before the crime?

If so, that would also explain how Oswald's prints got on those boxes, as some TSBD employee must have brought those boxes to the 6th floor. That somebody could have been Oswald, right?

Which brings us back to the basic fact that fingerprints found on boxes from an employee whose job it was to move and open those boxes have no evidentiary value at all.

You got one thing correct.  Oswald touched the boxes very shortly before the DPD discovered them on 11.22!  HA HA HA.  Good catch.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 06, 2023, 11:42:17 PM
Yet, If no prints of LHO had been found in the sniper’s nest these clowns would claim the evidentiary value was of extreme importance.  ::)   :D
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 06, 2023, 11:45:02 PM
You got one thing correct.  Oswald touched the boxes very shortly before the DPD discovered them on 11.22!  HA HA HA.  Good catch.

Which means absolutely jack squat, as we know at least one other unidentified person must have touched those boxes as well.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 06, 2023, 11:59:19 PM
Yet, If no prints of LHO had been found in the sniper’s nest these clowns would claim the evidentiary value was of extreme importance.  ::)   :D

Why would a reasonable person do that? Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. There is no evidentiary value either way, but it is extremely telling that LNs need this kind of desparate argument to even begin to make a case.

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 07, 2023, 01:14:10 AM
In which we learn that Oswald left so much evidence behind that we can only conclude he was innocent. 

Says the guy who still has yet to demonstrate that Oswald left any evidence behind.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 07, 2023, 01:25:24 AM
Maybe this one helps clarify Strawman a little better for you. You seem to be struggling with it a little bit. It is probably because you are trying to use the concept to hide the fact you posted something that was completely wrong then denied it and are now embarrased by having done it.

I don’t know how to make this any simpler for you. You claimed that I believe that Williams or Givens constructed a sniper’s nest. I don’t believe that, and I never said anything like that. You made it up. It’s a strawman. Now what was the thing I posted that was “completely wrong”? And answer that without making up another strawman. Use a direct quote.

Quote
LHO leaving his fingerprints all over the place seems to be causing a lot of anguish.

The only one who seems to be in anguish is you, trying to do backflips to turn this into evidence of murder.

Quote
With your help we now know he constructed the SN.

We know nothing of the kind.

Quote
The fingerprints on the bag indicate he carried the bag exactly the way Linnie Mae Randal described.

 BS:, how? And even if this is true, this is evidence of …. what? What about the way Frazier said he carried his package? And the fact that they described a different package than the magic, invisible CE142?

Quote
It is proven he purchased and possessed the rifle which was found on the 6th floor and matched to the bullet, fragments, and shells.

 BS: “Proven” how?

Quote
Brennan saw a man firing the second and last shot from the SN.

Also  BS:. Brennan didn’t even say that.

Quote
Nothing further is needed to understand who was the assassin.

Maybe not for somebody who bases his “understandings” on claims that are false, unsubstantiated, or irrelevant.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 07, 2023, 01:28:56 AM
You got one thing correct.  Oswald touched the boxes very shortly before the DPD discovered them on 11.22!  HA HA HA.  Good catch.

Even if that is correct, it’s still anybody’s guess what “Richard” thinks this proves. “Very shortly”. LOL.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 07, 2023, 01:29:46 AM
Yet, If no prints of LHO had been found in the sniper’s nest these clowns would claim the evidentiary value was of extreme importance.  ::)   :D

The straw is getting really thick in here.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 07, 2023, 01:31:23 AM
Why would a reasonable person do that? Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. There is no evidentiary value either way, but it is extremely telling that LNs need this kind of desparate argument to even begin to make a case.

 Thumb1:

Exactly. Anything and everything becomes “evidence” when speculation is all you’ve got.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 07, 2023, 11:26:28 AM
The straw is getting really thick in here.

Only hypothetically.


Thumb1:

Exactly. Anything and everything becomes “evidence” when speculation is all you’ve got.


Yet, we have seen it insinuated many times that the absence of anyone reporting seeing LHO on the stairs just after the assassination is evidence that he couldn’t have been there.


And if there had been no LHO prints found in the sniper’s nest we would have a loud chorus of nay sayers and CTers asking “how could he have built the sniper’s nest and left no prints?” Also, “how could he have even been in the sniper’s nest and left no prints?”

I smell something….
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 07, 2023, 01:41:26 PM
Yet, we have seen it insinuated many times that the absence of anyone reporting seeing LHO on the stairs just after the assassination is evidence that he couldn’t have been there.

We have seen it insinuated many times that the absence of anyone reporting seeing LHO on the front steps during the assassination is evidence that he couldn’t have been there.

Quote
And if there had been no LHO prints found in the sniper’s nest we would have a loud chorus of nay sayers and CTers asking “how could he have built the sniper’s nest and left no prints?” Also, “how could he have even been in the sniper’s nest and left no prints?”

And if there had been no LHO print presented as having been found in the sniper's nest we would have a loud chorus of Warren Gullibles asking "could he not have wiped the box clean?" Also, "doesn't this prove he wasn't framed for the crime?"

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 07, 2023, 02:10:17 PM
Only hypothetically.



Yet, we have seen it insinuated many times that the absence of anyone reporting seeing LHO on the stairs just after the assassination is evidence that he couldn’t have been there.


And if there had been no LHO prints found in the sniper’s nest we would have a loud chorus of nay sayers and CTers asking “how could he have built the sniper’s nest and left no prints?” Also, “how could he have even been in the sniper’s nest and left no prints?”

I smell something….

CTers have suggested many times that there should have been MORE prints on the rifle and bag if Oswald had handled it.  They note the absence of rifle oils etc on the bag.  And on and on.  It is a hopeless and impossible task to use facts, common sense, and logic on contrarians playing defense attorney.  When you use logic, they respond with illogic.  When you use illogic, they respond with logic.  A circle of futility. 
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on February 07, 2023, 02:37:59 PM
CTers have suggested many times that there should have been MORE prints on the rifle and bag if Oswald had handled it.  They note the absence of rifle oils etc on the bag.  And on and on.  It is a hopeless and impossible task to use facts, common sense, and logic on contrarians playing defense attorney.  When you use logic, they respond with illogic.  When you use illogic, they respond with logic.  A circle of futility.
It's revealing that every piece of evidence they demand be shown in the assassination of JFK to persuade them of Oswald's guilt can be provided in the shooting of Tippit. If they complain about the absence of "A" in one case it can be shown to exist in another. Their demands in the second case are met.

The two cases then can be a sort of test or comparison to show the sincerity of a person's demands.

So do they accept that evidence in the shooting of Tippit? Their demands have been satisfied, their questions answered: the same ones they want in the assassination of JFK. But again they reject the evidence there as well. The multiple witnesses, the physical evidence, the circumstantial evidence. Everything they wanted in one event can be found in the other. But they reject this too.

There are "good faith" arguments to be made. And "bad faith" ones too. Putting the two events side-by-side reveals the good ones from the bad.

Shorter: If you want to believe in a conspiracy, if you have some weird need to absolve Oswald, you can say and believe in a lot of strange things along the way. This is an example of it.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 07, 2023, 02:40:57 PM
We have seen it insinuated many times that the absence of anyone reporting seeing LHO on the front steps during the assassination is evidence that he couldn’t have been there.

And if there had been no LHO print presented as having been found in the sniper's nest we would have a loud chorus of Warren Gullibles asking "could he not have wiped the box clean?" Also, "doesn't this prove he wasn't framed for the crime?"

 Thumb1:


We have seen it insinuated many times that the absence of anyone reporting seeing LHO on the front steps during the assassination is evidence that he couldn’t have been there.

The photographic record indicates that many of those people who said they didn’t see LHO on the steps were, um, actually there during the assassination.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 07, 2023, 03:33:58 PM
Only hypothetically.

Yet, we have seen it insinuated many times that the absence of anyone reporting seeing LHO on the stairs just after the assassination is evidence that he couldn’t have been there.


And if there had been no LHO prints found in the sniper’s nest we would have a loud chorus of nay sayers and CTers asking “how could he have built the sniper’s nest and left no prints?” Also, “how could he have even been in the sniper’s nest and left no prints?”

I smell something….

Yet, we have seen it insinuated many times that the absence of anyone reporting seeing LHO on the stairs just after the assassination is evidence that he couldn’t have been there.

Well, the WC seemed to think that. That's why they tried to discredit with a bogus argument and why they ignored Dorothy Garner completely.

The actual claim, by the LNs, is that Oswald came down the stairs after the last shot, but there is not a shred of evidence for that claim. In fact, all the available evidence, considered in the correct context, makes it just about impossible that he could have gone down the stairs unseen, within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot. But that he wasn't seen isn't evidence that he wasn't there. You just don't get to assume that he was there. If you claim that he came down the stairs, you need to prove it.

And if there had been no LHO prints found in the sniper’s nest we would have a loud chorus of nay sayers and CTers asking “how could he have built the sniper’s nest and left no prints?” Also, “how could he have even been in the sniper’s nest and left no prints?”

This is just silly. There is no evidence that Oswald or anybody else placed those boxes in that corner. They all must have left prints, but - as Latona tells us - prints on cardboard don't hold very well or very long. The whole fingerprint thing has no evidentiary value one way of the other.

I smell something….

Let me guess... your own BS perhaps?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 07, 2023, 03:55:18 PM
I don’t know how to make this any simpler for you. You claimed that I believe that Williams or Givens constructed a sniper’s nest. I don’t believe that, and I never said anything like that. You made it up. It’s a strawman. Now what was the thing I posted that was “completely wrong”? And answer that without making up another strawman. Use a direct quote.

The only one who seems to be in anguish is you, trying to do backflips to turn this into evidence of murder.

We know nothing of the kind.

 BS:, how? And even if this is true, this is evidence of …. what? What about the way Frazier said he carried his package? And the fact that they described a different package than the magic, invisible CE142?

 BS: “Proven” how?

Also  BS:. Brennan didn’t even say that.

Maybe not for somebody who bases his “understandings” on claims that are false, unsubstantiated, or irrelevant.

No, Strawman has just now replaced gaslighting as the popular term to use to escape a faltering argument. 

There were only three possible choices to build the SN. Givens, BRW, and LHO. Pick your favorite. All of the men working on the 6th floor that morning was cleared. LHO’s prints are on every piece of evidence. He purchased the rifle and had no alibi during the assassination. The Rolling Reader boxes specifically have his prints on them and were moved from the other 8 boxes and they were specifically used in the construction of the rifle rest. They were moved there for the express purpose of being used to build the SN. Brennan saw and stated he saw the second shot being fired from the SN. 
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 07, 2023, 04:55:54 PM

We have seen it insinuated many times that the absence of anyone reporting seeing LHO on the front steps during the assassination is evidence that he couldn’t have been there.

The photographic record indicates that many of those people who said they didn’t see LHO on the steps were, um, actually there during the assassination.

Yes, looking at the motorcade. Your point?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 07, 2023, 05:05:24 PM
It's revealing that every piece of evidence they demand be shown in the assassination of JFK to persuade them of Oswald's guilt can be provided in the shooting of Tippit. If they complain about the absence of "A" in one case it can be shown to exist in another. Their demands in the second case are met.

The two cases then can be a sort of test or comparison to show the sincerity of a person's demands.

The 'investigating' authorities (your heroes) felt a lot more confident they could make a Tippit charge stick than a JFK charge. Knowing as they did, very early on, that Mr. Oswald had been in the doorway for the motorcade, they couldn't go as far there towards implicating him definitively as shooter: too big a hostage to fortune. So their shenanigans went all in on circumstantial/'best inference' stuff. 

Hence (e.g.) the paraffin tests: 'incriminating' for Tippit; 'inconclusive' for JFK.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 07, 2023, 05:06:53 PM
Yes, looking at the motorcade. Your point?


No photographic evidence of anyone who stated they didn’t see LHO on the stairs near or on the stairs between the sixth floor and second floor during the time in question. That’s one significant difference.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 07, 2023, 05:11:49 PM

No photographic evidence of anyone who stated they didn’t see LHO on the stairs near or on the stairs between the sixth floor and second floor during the time in question. That’s one significant difference.

Do you have photographic evidence of Mr. Truly and Officer Baker in the second-floor lunchroom during the time in question? And does the lack of such lead you to doubt their claims?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 07, 2023, 05:22:49 PM
Do you have photographic evidence of Mr. Truly and Officer Baker in the second-floor lunchroom during the time in question? And does the lack of such lead you to doubt their claims?


Timed trials and film of Baker entering the building are significant.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 07, 2023, 06:04:01 PM

Timed trials and film of Baker entering the building are significant.

The only thing that you find significant is anything that fits your predetermined opinion about what allegedly happened.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 07, 2023, 06:48:53 PM
No, Strawman has just now replaced gaslighting as the popular term to use to escape a faltering argument.

“Strawman” is the popular term to use when somebody is making a strawman argument.
 
Quote
There were only three possible choices to build the SN. Givens, BRW, and LHO.

Why are those the only three possible choices? And how do you even know that boxes were moved for the purpose of building a “sniper’s nest” at all?

Quote
LHO’s prints are on every piece of evidence. He purchased the rifle and had no alibi during the assassination. The Rolling Reader boxes specifically have his prints on them and were moved from the other 8 boxes and they were specifically used in the construction of the rifle rest. They were moved there for the express purpose of being used to build the SN. Brennan saw and stated he saw the second shot being fired from the SN.

Well, that’s certainly a laundry list of unsubstantiated claims. Would you care to substantiate them with actual evidence?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 07, 2023, 07:30:21 PM

Timed trials and film of Baker entering the building are significant.

So........... no photographic evidence of them in the lunchroom at the time in question. Do you believe that this renders their story open to doubt?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 07, 2023, 07:41:54 PM
Mr. Shelley (or some other member of the flooring crew [internal OR external] who is in on the plot) sees Mr. Oswald, in the course of his order-filling duties, touching a box on six, before the internal crew take their lunch break. He takes note of the box. This box is later singled out and brought to the SN window (by a conspirator wearing gloves) and placed there to incriminate Mr. Oswald.

**

CAPTAIN FRITZ: Okay, Lee, have you ever seen this sack before? Here, take a good look at it before you answer.

**

See how easy this is?

And what makes it so easy is the abject inability of the Warren Gullibles to place
-------------a sufficiently lengthy package in Mr. Oswald's hands that morning
-------------Mr. Oswald at the SN window at 12.30pm that day

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 07, 2023, 07:58:29 PM
So........... no photographic evidence of them in the lunchroom at the time in question. Do you believe that this renders their story open to doubt?

 Thumb1:


I have no reason to doubt.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 07, 2023, 08:01:26 PM
Mr. Shelley (or some other member of the flooring crew [internal OR external] who is in on the plot) sees Mr. Oswald, in the course of his order-filling duties, touching a box on six, before the internal crew take their lunch break. He takes note of the box. This box is later singled out and brought to the SN window (by a conspirator wearing gloves) and placed there to incriminate Mr. Oswald.

**

CAPTAIN FRITZ: Okay, Lee, have you ever seen this sack before? Here, take a good look at it before you answer.

**

See how easy this is?

And what makes it so easy is the abject inability of the Warren Gullibles to place
-------------a sufficiently lengthy package in Mr. Oswald's hands that morning
-------------Mr. Oswald at the SN window at 12.30pm that day

 Thumb1:


What makes this nonsense so easy is that making up stories with no basis in reality is child’s play.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 07, 2023, 08:09:07 PM

What makes this nonsense so easy is that making up stories with no basis in reality is child’s play.

You know this from experience, do you?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 07, 2023, 09:51:35 PM

I have no reason to doubt.

So photographic evidence that a person was where they said they were at a given time was never the real issue for you. QED  Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 07, 2023, 09:54:45 PM

What makes this nonsense so easy is that making up stories with no basis in reality is child’s play.

As your heroes in the official investigation amply showed  Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 07, 2023, 10:25:51 PM
From the HSCA interview of Mr. Harold Norman:

(https://i.postimg.cc/wM6ykvCt/Norman-HSCA-Givens-LHO.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Nothing about seeing Mr. Oswald coming from the SN window on an empty sixth floor. (That story, on which the Warren Gullibles build so much, is still of course several months away!)

But if Mr. Givens was making these dark mutterings about Mr.-Oswald-on-the-freight-elevator that same day, were they relayed by a co-worker------------with the result that they reached the ears of Insp. Herbert Sawyer? This Givens fellow has some information about Oswald.............

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 08, 2023, 04:03:58 AM
This new presumptive  Bronson film 12:15 time stamp for the box on ledge is causing a bigger problem logically , especially if Oswald is the presumptive shooter.

The SM prepared late just after BRW left by 12:23:30 , by a shooter who had decided to change his original SW window position to the SE window after having been surprised at the presence of BRW at 12:15, is the more plausible theory imo. It works best with some other person than Oswald as the shooter, however.

Otherwise, it’s a situation where if the shooter is Oswald, he had already prepared the SN just before BRW was on the 6th floor and then Oswald had left the 6th floor to go down to ground floor to speak to Piper at 12:00

Then Oswald would have to  be seen by Carolyn Arnold about 12:12 rather than 12:15 in the 2nd floor lunchroom. ( Thus is not likely because all the women, including Mrs Reid had not yet left the lunchroom. )

Then Oswald would go back up the staircase to the 6th floor landing and grab a rifle from a hiding place nearby, and he would decide to abandon running over to the prepared SN , choosing the SW unprepared window instead.

Getting as close to within 3-5ft of a fully open SW window holding the rifle at the ready , suggests possibly the shooter had mistaken the noise of the siren of the 12:15 ambulance (for the epileptic man) as heralding the arrival of the JFK motorcade to Dealey plaza.

The shooter then realized his mistake upon being able to have LOS to the ground level of Dealey plaza, and so he backed away from SW window.

Now this shooter could have then just walked right down that 3ft wide corridor along the South facing wall to go directly to the prepared SW window, however he apparently did not otherwise he would surely have seen and be seen by BRW supposedly sitting low to floor on the cart.

possibilities:

1. The shooter thought it more stealthy to go back to the staircase than via past the rear elevators to get to the SW window

2. The shooter , after making his impulsive move to the SW window on the mistaken siren noise stimulus, also saw or heard BRW upon getting to within 3-5 ft from the SW window, therefore knew he couldn’t go directly to the SN.

3. The shooter did not wish to have to break apart some of the stacked west side wall of boxes to enter the SN.

In any case , Carolyn Arnold’s FBI report of sighting Oswald at 12:25 on the ground floor , front entrance lobby of TSBD would make it an impossible feat for the shooter to be Oswald.

And Oswald coincidentally describing Norman and Jarman out of all the employees he might have named , suggests Oswald was also in the Domino room around 12:25-26 and saw N/J returning.

So although I’m willing to discard Arnold Rowlands later statements of an elderly negro leaning out the SN at 12:15, while retaining his earliest affidavit statement of sighting the Latin/white man at the SW window at 12:15, the probability is very low that the person holding the 30.06 hunting rifle with large scope , was Oswald holding an MC rifle.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 08, 2023, 12:37:21 PM
So although I’m willing to discard Arnold Rowlands later statements of an elderly negro leaning out the SN at 12:15, while retaining his earliest affidavit statement of sighting the Latin/white man at the SW window at 12:15,

Mr. Rowland told Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig about the 'elderly Negro' within minutes of the shooting on 11/22. Those officials taking his subsequent statements evidently saw 'no significance' in this 'elderly Negro' detail, such as might merit inclusion in his account. Go figure!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 08, 2023, 02:34:55 PM
Here's part of the DPD radio channel 1 transcript which tells us more about the time of the epileptic event:

(https://i.vgy.me/dY7pep.png)


(https://i.vgy.me/rKqsQG.png)


As you can see, the call for an ambulance happened about 12:19 pm. And the ambulance reported "out" (which, if I remember correctly, means arrived at the scene) at about 12:24 pm. The ambulance reported en route to Parkland before the 12:25 time stamp. This appears to mean that the Bronson film segment happened between 12:24 and 12:25, and I have modified my original post to reflect this.

This is approximately the same time that BRW, Norman, and Jarman were making their way to the fifth floor. And it could be that they never saw the epileptic event due to their travels. None of them mentioned it in their testimonies. And if they had seen the epileptic event, it seems to me that they might have used it to help describe the time of day that they moved. Regardless, the boxes (as we can see in the Bronson film) were already assembled in the sniper's nest by this time (12:24-12:25).

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 08, 2023, 08:36:14 PM
That’s reasonable data there substantiating that the time was  approx not later than 12:25 for the Bronson film beginning.

The ambulance arriving later at 12:19 imo rules out the idea that the ambulance siren had anything to do with the shooters choice to advance to the SW window at 12:15.

Is it reasonable to conclude the shooter very probably had initially planned to shoot from the SW window , but then changed his mind for some reason upon nearing it and then decided to move over to SE window , decided it was a better  vantage point and then probably placed the window ledge box just after BRW left the floor about 12:24?

I think it’s entirely plausible the shooter could have gone around past BRW , to the NE side of the floor without BRW seeing him do so.

It’s also probable that the shooter could have then just waited on that east side wall aisle leading to the SN and able to peek around some of the rows of boxes to observe if BRW was ever going to leave the floor, and exit via stairs  or board an elevator.

Probably  the shooter would never have fired his rifle if BRW had not left the floor.

The shooter must have felt confident enough that If BRW had remained on the floor, the shooter could hide his rifle again somewhere and exit from the floor.

It may be that the shooter was  a member of the outside contracted floor laying crew, who had actually worked on the floor earlier. So perhaps he felt confident that if he were seen by chance on the 6th floor after no event happens,  that no one would be suspicious of him.

He could later get his rifle from hiding place late night entering TSBD via some left open window in darkness just as he probably had entered TSBD on late Thursday 11/21/63 night or early am hour Friday 11/22/63, to plant an MC rifle to frame Oswald.

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 09, 2023, 12:38:54 AM
I just happened to run across the Powell photo of the TSBD just after the shots. I couldn't help but notice that BRW does appear to be an elderly black man to me. It might just be the sunlight/shadows playing visual tricks, but that's the appearance that I see.

(https://i.vgy.me/73wAKU.png)

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 09, 2023, 06:19:53 AM
I just happened to run across the Powell photo of the TSBD just after the shots. I couldn't help but notice that BRW does appear to be an elderly black man to me. It might just be the sunlight/shadows playing visual tricks, but that's the appearance that I see.

It might be the fact that you're looking at a grainy photograph, lol
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 09, 2023, 07:26:01 AM
It might be the fact that you're looking at a grainy photograph, lol

Then it's a good match for Arnold Rowland's eyesight.

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 09, 2023, 11:05:31 AM
Then it's a good match for Arnold Rowland's eyesight.

~Grin~

Do let us know when you guys have come up with something substantial!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 09, 2023, 11:52:18 AM
Then it's a good match for Arnold Rowland's eyesight.


Yes, only so much detail can be discerned from the distance Arnold Rowland was from the TSBD. Even he indicated the distance prevented him from being able to identify the man with the rifle. Here's a relative close up from professional photographer Dillard. And, to me BRW looks older than he really was. Also, consider that Arnold Rowland was only 18-years old on 11/22/63. To a teenager, "elderly" is quite different to what a middle-aged person would consider elderly.


(https://i.vgy.me/f737tr.png)


I can see how Arnold Rowland (from his distance to the TSBD) might describe BRW as appearing elderly.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 09, 2023, 01:13:38 PM

Yes, only so much detail can be discerned from the distance Arnold Rowland was from the TSBD. Even he indicated the distance prevented him from being able to identify the man with the rifle. Here's a relative close up from professional photographer Dillard. And, to me BRW looks older than he really was. Also, consider that Arnold Rowland was only 18-years old on 11/22/63. To a teenager, "elderly" is quite different to what a middle-aged person would consider elderly.


(https://i.vgy.me/f737tr.png)


I can see how Arnold Rowland (from his distance to the TSBD) might describe BRW as appearing elderly.

Still nothing substantial? Oh dear!

What's next? A Soopah-Doopah-Sun-Analysis from Mr. Organ showing that Mr. Rowland's 'elderly Negro' was in fact Mr. Oswald, and the man with the gun over on the west end an hallucination brought on by migraine?

Come with me and you'll be in a world of pure imagination...............

 :D
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 09, 2023, 03:13:22 PM
Something else that I noticed on a photo of the sniper's nest is what appears to be small gaps between the flooring and the wall with a few cracks all the way to the floor below. This could be the reason that, I believe it was BRW, had some dust and debris fall on his head. Dust and dirt, etc. would tend to collect in the gap and the concussion of the shots could have shaken it loose to fall through the cracks.


(https://i.vgy.me/evdg8C.jpg)

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Gerry Down on February 10, 2023, 02:18:42 PM
Something else that I noticed on a photo of the sniper's nest is what appears to be small gaps between the flooring and the wall with a few cracks all the way to the floor below. This could be the reason that, I believe it was BRW, had some dust and debris fall on his head. Dust and dirt, etc. would tend to collect in the gap and the concussion of the shots could have shaken it loose to fall through the cracks.


(https://i.vgy.me/evdg8C.jpg)

Good point. And that crack is right above where BRW would have had his head, as per the Dillard photo, as he looked out the window.

So we can now pin point exactly where the dust came from.

Small point but interesting all the same.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 11, 2023, 02:55:17 AM
Since Carolyn Arnold did not likely see Oswald as early as 12:12,( other women still present in the 2nd floor lunchroom) nor likely see Oswald exactly at 12:15 if he is the shooter being seen by Rowland at the SW window at 12:15, then the time would have to be 12:17 or later to give the time necessary for Oswald to have retreated from 6th floor after leaving the SW window.

But this scenario kind of interferes with the idea  that Oswald moved over and around past BRW to the SE window and just waited there on that east aisle for BRW to leave the floor by about 12:24 and then Oswald placed the boxes by 12:25 just in time to be captured by Bronson film.

If Oswald leaves the 6th floor, he’s probably going to hide the rifle in between some boxes on the 6th floor before he starts down the stairs to go to the 2nd floor lunchroom and be there by 12:17.

It’s seems odd though , to go all the way back down that many floors and into a room where he has no way of knowing if BRW will ever leave the 6th floor , nor much chance to know when and where the JFK limo will be.

For the LN Oswald shooter theorist, what is the explanation?

Did Oswald temporarily lose his nerve upon being spooked by BRW to the point that Oswald was going to abandon his mission entirely? So he went back down 4 flights of stairs to “think about it” in the lunchroom?

What prompted Oswald to “give it another try” at about 12:22, which is about the time he would have to leave the 2nd floor lunchroom to make it back to the 6th floor and able to place a box by 12:25 in the SE window.

The only coincidental thing I’m aware of at 12:22 is the radio transmission that Norman and Jarman heard. But Oswald is in the isolated lunchroom far way from that radio. Was there another radio he could have heard in the lunchroom?

There’s that 12:19 approx siren of the ambulance for the epileptic man. Maybe that siren was heard and Oswald mistook it to as a sign the motorcade might be entering Dealey Plaza? So it’s “now or never” he thinks?

Would Oswald even consider “trying again” at this point since he doesn’t have time to get back to the SE window if he thought the siren was heralding arrival of the motorcade.

In either case, Oswald would still be uncertain about BRW ( presuming BRW was the cause of Oswald’s retreat from the SW window at 12:15), while he is in the 2nd floor lunchroom from 12:17 forward.

Maybe being seen by Carolyn “calms” Oswald down? And then he thought: Maybe this sighting was an opportunity for him to use the lunchroom as his escape plan and alibi. So he decides to go back up to 6th floor just after Carolyn left about 12:18?

Problem is , why didn’t Oswald say something to Will Fritz about his 12:17 meeting with Carolyn Arnold if Oswald had conceived of such meeting as a possible alibi?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 11, 2023, 10:32:13 AM
Since Carolyn Arnold did not likely see Oswald as early as 12:12,( other women still present in the 2nd floor lunchroom) nor likely see Oswald exactly at 12:15 if he is the shooter being seen by Rowland at the SW window at 12:15, then the time would have to be 12:17 or later to give the time necessary for Oswald to have retreated from 6th floor after leaving the SW window.

But this scenario kind of interferes with the idea  that Oswald moved over and around past BRW to the SE window and just waited there on that east aisle for BRW to leave the floor by about 12:24 and then Oswald placed the boxes by 12:25 just in time to be captured by Bronson film.

If Oswald leaves the 6th floor, he’s probably going to hide the rifle in between some boxes on the 6th floor before he starts down the stairs to go to the 2nd floor lunchroom and be there by 12:17.

It’s seems odd though , to go all the way back down that many floors and into a room where he has no way of knowing if BRW will ever leave the 6th floor , nor much chance to know when and where the JFK limo will be.

For the LN Oswald shooter theorist, what is the explanation?

Did Oswald temporarily lose his nerve upon being spooked by BRW to the point that Oswald was going to abandon his mission entirely? So he went back down 4 flights of stairs to “think about it” in the lunchroom?

What prompted Oswald to “give it another try” at about 12:22, which is about the time he would have to leave the 2nd floor lunchroom to make it back to the 6th floor and able to place a box by 12:25 in the SE window.

The only coincidental thing I’m aware of at 12:22 is the radio transmission that Norman and Jarman heard. But Oswald is in the isolated lunchroom far way from that radio. Was there another radio he could have heard in the lunchroom?

There’s that 12:19 approx siren of the ambulance for the epileptic man. Maybe that siren was heard and Oswald mistook it to as a sign the motorcade might be entering Dealey Plaza? So it’s “now or never” he thinks?

Would Oswald even consider “trying again” at this point since he doesn’t have time to get back to the SE window if he thought the siren was heralding arrival of the motorcade.

In either case, Oswald would still be uncertain about BRW ( presuming BRW was the cause of Oswald’s retreat from the SW window at 12:15), while he is in the 2nd floor lunchroom from 12:17 forward.

Maybe being seen by Carolyn “calms” Oswald down? And then he thought: Maybe this sighting was an opportunity for him to use the lunchroom as his escape plan and alibi. So he decides to go back up to 6th floor just after Carolyn left about 12:18?

Problem is , why didn’t Oswald say something to Will Fritz about his 12:17 meeting with Carolyn Arnold if Oswald had conceived of such meeting as a possible alibi?

Mr. Rowland said the bald plaid-shirt-wearing 'elderly Negro' he saw at the SN window over several minutes was not as dark-complected as some black men.

In all likelihood, this man spent a lot of time at this window for one reason: to be noticed up there while looking Cuban
 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 11, 2023, 04:59:57 PM
Conclusion for me at this point is that Oswald was not on the 6th floor after 12:00 and that the rifle displaying person Arnold Rowland saw for only a few seconds at the SW 6th floor window , had originally intended  that window. This shooter had not yet set up the SE window ledge box and did not do so until very close to 12:25 after he changed his plans and decided the SE window was the better vantage point.

There reason to change to the other window does necessarily have to be a BRW or any other person on the floor. It could just be the shooter thought the trees at the SW were too much of a potential LOS obstruction.

I don’t see the need for a 2nd shooter unless one of them was trying to shoot using the MC rifle to further set the frame up of Oswald. In that case, a 30.06 precision rifle shooter May have shot the kill head shot at  Z-313 from the SW window. The shot would have been fired about 1 sec after the MC rifle shooter missed his 2nd shot, (z285) such shot possibly hitting  the curb near Tague( at the Triple underpass)

Walt Cakebread preplanted MC rifle theory is the easier way to do the frame up if it’s just one shooter, so I’m partial to that idea more so than the post planted rifle scenario or the 2 shooter theory.

One shooter with a semi auto rifle is enough. However , would a semi auto rifle make the kind of “clack clack” noise that Harold Norman described ?

Maybe a faster firing bolt action version of the MC rifle like the Cavalry carbine MC , could be fired 3 shots in about 4 secs?

The cavalry carbine version had a shorter wooden stock and about 12” of barrel exposed. Disassembled would fit in a 22” length package because of the shorter stock and barrel length.

The idea of an elderly negro leaning out a fully open SE window at 12:15 seems an odd and unnecessary action by a conspirator. Why risk photographs or filmed, jeopardizing the mission?

On the other hand, BRW was definitely not “bald” nor were Norman or Jarman.

BRW shirt was a solid reddish shirt not a plaid green and red shirt.

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 11, 2023, 05:19:06 PM
The idea of an elderly negro leaning out a fully open SE window at 12:15 seems an odd and unnecessary action by a conspirator. Why risk photographs or filmed, jeopardizing the mission?

Why would that jeopardize the mission?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 11, 2023, 05:46:30 PM
Conclusion for me at this point is that Oswald was not on the 6th floor after 12:00 and that the rifle displaying person Arnold Rowland saw for only a few seconds at the SW 6th floor window , had originally intended  that window. This shooter had not yet set up the SE window ledge box and did not do so until very close to 12:25 after he changed his plans and decided the SE window was the better vantage point.

There reason to change to the other window does necessarily have to be a BRW or any other person on the floor. It could just be the shooter thought the trees at the SW were too much of a potential LOS obstruction.

I don’t see the need for a 2nd shooter unless one of them was trying to shoot using the MC rifle to further set the frame up of Oswald. In that case, a 30.06 precision rifle shooter May have shot the kill head shot at  Z-313 from the SW window. The shot would have been fired about 1 sec after the MC rifle shooter missed his 2nd shot, (z285) such shot possibly hitting  the curb near Tague( at the Triple underpass)

Walt Cakebread preplanted MC rifle theory is the easier way to do the frame up if it’s just one shooter, so I’m partial to that idea more so than the post planted rifle scenario or the 2 shooter theory.

One shooter with a semi auto rifle is enough. However , would a semi auto rifle make the kind of “clack clack” noise that Harold Norman described ?

Maybe a faster firing bolt action version of the MC rifle like the Cavalry carbine MC , could be fired 3 shots in about 4 secs?

The cavalry carbine version had a shorter wooden stock and about 12” of barrel exposed. Disassembled would fit in a 22” length package because of the shorter stock and barrel length.

The idea of an elderly negro leaning out a fully open SE window at 12:15 seems an odd and unnecessary action by a conspirator. Why risk photographs or filmed, jeopardizing the mission?

On the other hand, BRW was definitely not “bald” nor were Norman or Jarman.

BRW shirt was a solid reddish shirt not a plaid green and red shirt.


On the other hand, BRW was definitely not “bald” nor were Norman or Jarman.

BRW had a “high forehead” which could be, or appear to be, a receding hairline. This appears in the Powell and Dillard photos. This tends to make him appear older than he was.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 11, 2023, 06:51:45 PM

On the other hand, BRW was definitely not “bald” nor were Norman or Jarman.

BRW had a “high forehead” which could be, or appear to be, a receding hairline. This appears in the Powell and Dillard photos. This tends to make him appear older than he was.

The first thing you need to understand is that Rowland made it all up. As was the problem with a lot of his testimony. The negro in the SN did not appear in his statement until the WC testimony and caught them completely by surprise. His wife never backed up his statement.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 11, 2023, 07:11:57 PM
The first thing you need to understand is that Rowland made it all up. As was the problem with a lot of his testimony. The negro in the SN did not appear in his statement until the WC testimony and caught them completely by surprise. His wife never backed up his statement.


Yes, if you saw an earlier post I made, my opinion is that if Arnold Rowland really believed that he saw an elderly black man, he probably misremembered seeing BRW on the fifth floor a little later (instead of the sixth floor a little earlier). My comment to neon Zeon was measly meant to make him aware of BRW’s appearance.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 11, 2023, 07:17:49 PM

Yes, if you saw an earlier post I made, my opinion is that if Arnold Rowland really believed that he saw an elderly black man, he probably misremembered seeing BRW on the fifth floor a little later (instead of the sixth floor a little earlier). My comment to neon Zeon was measly meant to make him aware of BRW’s appearance.

It is way worse than that. They actually showed he just made things up. An event of this magnitude and he lets his imagination run away from him.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 11, 2023, 07:35:05 PM
It is way worse than that. They actually showed he just made things up. An event of this magnitude and he lets his imagination run away from him.


That wouldn’t surprise me. I suppose I am allowing for another possibility.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 11, 2023, 07:41:49 PM
The above exchange, folks, is a snapshot into the Warren Gullible 'scientific' methodology:
Something threatening to the official story? Why, we need but wave it away and it's gone!
Something conformable to the official story? Only a lunatic would doubt it!

Note how absolutely none of the suspicion our resident Warren Gullibles bring to bear on Mr. Rowland is brought to bear on Mr. Givens' late-developing story about seeing Mr. Oswald on the sixth floor after the men had broken for lunch. Yes, folks, the same Mr. Givens who told Secret Service this on 8 Jan 1964:

(https://i.postimg.cc/C1WJNcc3/Givens-SS-8-Jan.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Mr. Givens: an honest witness
Mr. Rowland: deserving of our paranoid distrust


Such a chasm of reality-denial & delusional cherry-picking...................... Entertaining to watch though!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 11, 2023, 08:02:48 PM

That wouldn’t surprise me. I suppose I am allowing for another possibility.

This thread about the construction of the rifle rest has given a new understanding to what LHO was doing between the departure of the floor laying crew and the arrival of BRW. A big question is what LHO would have done if BRW had actually gone over to where LHO was sitting. Would he have decided to not shoot at JFK or just killed BRW.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 11, 2023, 08:11:20 PM
This thread about the construction of the rifle rest has given a new understanding to what LHO was doing between the departure of the floor laying crew and the arrival of BRW. A big question is what LHO would have done if BRW had actually gone over to where LHO was sitting. Would he have decided to not shoot at JFK or just killed BRW.

'This thread has given a new understanding of how Santa Claus came down that chimney. A big question is when exactly Mrs. Claus darned the socks he wore that night.'
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 11, 2023, 08:42:26 PM
This thread about the construction of the rifle rest has given a new understanding to what LHO was doing between the departure of the floor laying crew and the arrival of BRW. A big question is what LHO would have done if BRW had actually gone over to where LHO was sitting. Would he have decided to not shoot at JFK or just killed BRW.


Of course any answer would just be conjecture. But my theory on it is this. There is credible evidence, in my opinion, from Arnold Rowland of seeing someone who resembled LHO with a rifle at the west end of the sixth floor for no more than 30-seconds sometime around 12:15 but no later than about 12:25. So my much earlier opinion that LHO was sitting in the sniper’s nest the whole time BRW was eating his lunch seems questionable.

It appears to me that LHO probably went to the west end of the sixth floor, shortly after Givens left, to retrieve his rifle that he hid there that morning. Before he could take the rifle back to the already prepared sniper’s nest, BRW came up to the sixth floor and ate his lunch. LHO stayed quiet and out of sight near the stairwell on the sixth floor. If BRW had come over that way LHO could have left via the stairs. When the sounds of the ambulance arrival happened LHO probably felt the need to find out if that was the motorcade arriving. If it had been the motorcade, LHO could have fired shots from the west window before anyone could stop him. However, once BRW left, LHO was able to go to the sniper’s nest in the SE corner as he originally planned.

If the above is wrong, and LHO actually was in the sniper’s nest the whole time, and BRW had come over there and had seen him, he could have simply said he was waiting to see the motorcade. This is provided his rifle was not in the line of sight of BRW. Perhaps the rifle was on the floor against the tall stack of boxes, this would be out of sight of anyone not inside the tiny sniper’s nest but close enough for LHO to grab it when needed. I don’t see any scenario where LHO would kill BRW before the motorcade arrived. That would create too much noise and draw unwanted attention which would cause an abortiion of the assassination anyway.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 11, 2023, 09:00:50 PM
When the sounds of the ambulance arrival happened LHO probably felt the need to find out if that was the motorcade arriving. If it had been the motorcade, LHO could have fired shots from the west window before anyone could stop him. However, once BRW left, LHO was able to go to the sniper’s nest in the SE corner as he originally planned.

Huh? What happened to this in your earlier post?:

"As you can see, the call for an ambulance happened about 12:19 pm. And the ambulance reported "out" (which, if I remember correctly, means arrived at the scene) at about 12:24 pm."

So you're now putting Mr. Arnold's sighting of the man with the rifle at ~12:24 rather than ~12:15?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 11, 2023, 09:19:32 PM
Huh? What happened to this in your earlier post?:

"As you can see, the call for an ambulance happened about 12:19 pm. And the ambulance reported "out" (which, if I remember correctly, means arrived at the scene) at about 12:24 pm."

So you're now putting Mr. Arnold's sighting of the man with the rifle at ~12:24 rather than ~12:15?


No
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 11, 2023, 09:41:00 PM

No

So when do you think the sounds of the ambulance arrival happened?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Richard Smith on February 11, 2023, 09:49:22 PM
This thread about the construction of the rifle rest has given a new understanding to what LHO was doing between the departure of the floor laying crew and the arrival of BRW. A big question is what LHO would have done if BRW had actually gone over to where LHO was sitting. Would he have decided to not shoot at JFK or just killed BRW.

Oswald likely scouted and/or knew from his experience in working in the building the various locations that offered the best combintations of seclusion and shooting angle.  If it had turned out that a group of folks were on the 6th floor, he probably would have just gone up to the 7th floor where there would have been no one.  I think the ledge under the 7th floor window might have been the reason he didn't do that in the first place.  Just speculation, though, as it turned out to be unnecessary.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 11, 2023, 09:49:46 PM
So when do you think the sounds of the ambulance arrival happened?


You can freaking read.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 11, 2023, 09:51:16 PM

You can freaking read.

Why can't you answer, Mr. Collins?

At what time do you believe the sounds of the ambulance arrival happened?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 11, 2023, 10:26:59 PM
Why can't you answer, Mr. Collins?

At what time do you believe the sounds of the ambulance arrival happened?

Maybe you can’t read.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 11, 2023, 10:33:25 PM
Maybe you can’t read.

~Grin~

Maybe I can, and maybe that's why you don't wish to answer the question: What time do you believe the sounds of the ambulance arrival happened?

Another way of asking this question would be: What time do you believe Mr. Oswald heard the sounds of the ambulance arrival?

Another way of asking this question would be: What time do you believe Mr. Oswald was spotted by Mr. Rowland near the SW window of the sixth floor?

Take your pick, Mr. Collins!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 11, 2023, 11:23:06 PM
~Grin~

Maybe I can, and maybe that's why you don't wish to answer the question: What time do you believe the sounds of the ambulance arrival happened?

Another way of asking this question would be: What time do you believe Mr. Oswald heard the sounds of the ambulance arrival?

Another way of asking this question would be: What time do you believe Mr. Oswald was spotted by Mr. Rowland near the SW window of the sixth floor?

Take your pick, Mr. Collins!  Thumb1:



This is so typical of the nonsense spouted by the CT and nay sayer crowd. One perceived minor discrepancy and they act like they have completely obliterated the whole thing.    ::)

The timing of the sound of the siren isn’t critical to the theory (and remember this is only conjecture). There was some commotion associated with the epileptic event before the ambulance arrived. It was enough to get Mrs. Rowland’s attention (she reportedly saw it about the same time that Arnold Rowland was seeing the man with the rifle). Between the onset of the epileptic seizure and the time of the arrival of the ambulance there was likely commotion that could be heard on the sixth floor of the TSBD. Perhaps someone calling for help, or a traffic cop stopping traffic by using his whistle, etc. The point is that the commotion associated with the event could have caused him to look to see if the motorcade was approaching. (And unlike you and your silly theories, I present this as conjecture.)
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 12, 2023, 01:10:52 AM
Oswald likely scouted and/or knew from his experience in working in the building the various locations that offered the best combintations of seclusion and shooting angle.  If it had turned out that a group of folks were on the 6th floor, he probably would have just gone up to the 7th floor where there would have been no one.  I think the ledge under the 7th floor window might have been the reason he didn't do that in the first place.  Just speculation, though, as it turned out to be unnecessary.

There are a lot of "ifs" that determined the outcome. If Marina would have agreed to look at apartments that day for one.

I don’t think the 7th floor windows can be opened and I don’t know about the roof. Like you said, LHO probably had searched for an alternative. He obviously saw they were working on that floor.

LHO ended up choosing the best location with the way the road slopes away from the building. He would not have had to adjust his aim much to correct for the movement of the car. No other window in the building would have worked as well except maybe the floor below.

 
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 12, 2023, 01:21:02 AM

Of course any answer would just be conjecture. But my theory on it is this. There is credible evidence, in my opinion, from Arnold Rowland of seeing someone who resembled LHO with a rifle at the west end of the sixth floor for no more than 30-seconds sometime around 12:15 but no later than about 12:25. So my much earlier opinion that LHO was sitting in the sniper’s nest the whole time BRW was eating his lunch seems questionable.

It appears to me that LHO probably went to the west end of the sixth floor, shortly after Givens left, to retrieve his rifle that he hid there that morning. Before he could take the rifle back to the already prepared sniper’s nest, BRW came up to the sixth floor and ate his lunch. LHO stayed quiet and out of sight near the stairwell on the sixth floor. If BRW had come over that way LHO could have left via the stairs. When the sounds of the ambulance arrival happened LHO probably felt the need to find out if that was the motorcade arriving. If it had been the motorcade, LHO could have fired shots from the west window before anyone could stop him. However, once BRW left, LHO was able to go to the sniper’s nest in the SE corner as he originally planned.

If the above is wrong, and LHO actually was in the sniper’s nest the whole time, and BRW had come over there and had seen him, he could have simply said he was waiting to see the motorcade. This is provided his rifle was not in the line of sight of BRW. Perhaps the rifle was on the floor against the tall stack of boxes, this would be out of sight of anyone not inside the tiny sniper’s nest but close enough for LHO to grab it when needed. I don’t see any scenario where LHO would kill BRW before the motorcade arrived. That would create too much noise and draw unwanted attention which would cause an abortiion of the assassination anyway.

I would not give Rowland’s sighting any credibility at all, but in reality, it changes nothing. The rest of the conjecture is entirely possible. LHO was obviously hiding there somewhere.

 
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 12, 2023, 01:33:20 AM
I would not give Rowland’s sighting any credibility at all, but in reality, it changes nothing. The rest of the conjecture is entirely possible. LHO was obviously hiding there somewhere.


Until I saw with my 3D model how many of the details of what Rowland described that he could see from his position actually appeared reasonably accurate for LHO being there, I didn’t give his sighting much credibility either. Now, I think that it could make sense.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 12, 2023, 02:39:58 AM

Until I saw with my 3D model how many of the details of what Rowland described that he could see from his position actually appeared reasonably accurate for LHO being there, I didn’t give his sighting much credibility either. Now, I think that it could make sense.

I was unaware of the 3D model. 

Specter understands what is wrong with Rowland's description of the man and basically fillets him over his description of a man standing in a window with the window sill being located 14 inches off of the floor and an opening of 2 ½ feet above that. Rowland’s description never matches those dimensions and the whole port of arms thing becomes confused. He does not seem to know any of this, and I think that is why they were asking him if he had ever been in the building.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 12, 2023, 04:42:38 AM


This is so typical of the nonsense spouted by the CT and nay sayer crowd. One perceived minor discrepancy and they act like they have completely obliterated the whole thing.    ::)

The timing of the sound of the siren isn’t critical to the theory (and remember this is only conjecture).

~Grin~

Ah, so it turns out  I was able to read after all, and you did have good reason not to want to answer my question---------------you hadn't thought through the timing implications of your ambulance siren idea. And now you have to drop it

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 12, 2023, 04:45:42 AM

Until I saw with my 3D model how many of the details of what Rowland described that he could see from his position actually appeared reasonably accurate for LHO being there, I didn’t give his sighting much credibility either. Now, I think that it could make sense.

Another interesting insight into the Warren Gullible methodology: I will reject as 'not making sense' any piece of evidence that I cannot make conformable to the Lone-Nut-LHO scenario. If, however, I can find a way to make it conformable to the Lone-Nut-LHO scenario, I will declare that it 'makes sense' after all

 :D
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 12, 2023, 05:02:28 AM
I don’t think the 7th floor windows can be opened

Yet another clueless statement from Mr. Nessan

(https://i.postimg.cc/q7tXrFmV/tsbd-seventh-floor.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 12, 2023, 05:03:29 AM
I would not give Rowland’s sighting any credibility at all, but in reality, it changes nothing. The rest of the conjecture is entirely possible. LHO was obviously hiding there somewhere.

"obviously", lol
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 12, 2023, 01:02:21 PM
I was unaware of the 3D model. 

Specter understands what is wrong with Rowland's description of the man and basically fillets him over his description of a man standing in a window with the window sill being located 14 inches off of the floor and an opening of 2 ½ feet above that. Rowland’s description never matches those dimensions and the whole port of arms thing becomes confused. He does not seem to know any of this, and I think that is why they were asking him if he had ever been in the building.


Spector did ask a lot of questions, and, after testing some of the answers with my 3D model, I felt Rowland got things right. That and the fact that Rowland said something to his wife at the time (before any shots were fired) and his 11/22/63 affidavit seems legit. I cannot say the same about his later embellishments regarding the elderly black man though.

Here's a view of the west windows in the 3D model from Rowland's viewpoint:

(https://i.vgy.me/yuWsQA.png)

The figure is about 5' back (north) from the inside of the south wall. Please ignore the missing window in the western most opening, my model is constantly being altered and I just have it invisible at the moment. The rifle is there, at port arms, but a little hard to discern due to the dark suit of the figure. Remember that Rowland said he had on a light colored shirt, possibly a tshirt.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 12, 2023, 01:14:17 PM
~Grin~

Ah, so it turns out  I was able to read after all, and you did have good reason not to want to answer my question---------------you hadn't thought through the timing implications of your ambulance siren idea. And now you have to drop it

 Thumb1:



The reason I responded without answering is because you were asking for something I had already stated. I wasn’t going to repeat myself for you. Next time just state what your issue is. It might go smoother if you do.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 12, 2023, 01:28:52 PM
Another interesting insight into the Warren Gullible methodology: I will reject as 'not making sense' any piece of evidence that I cannot make conformable to the Lone-Nut-LHO scenario. If, however, I can find a way to make it conformable to the Lone-Nut-LHO scenario, I will declare that it 'makes sense' after all

 :D


You don’t have a clue as to what my thinking was. Stop acting like you do. Arnold Rowland said he saw something that no one else did. Being skeptical would be considered normal for most folks. However, instead of dismissing his account without giving it a fair trial, I tested his description in my 3D model. I was impressed that he got so many details right. So, I think we should be open to the possibility that Arnold Rowland saw a man with a rifle.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 12, 2023, 02:38:53 PM


The reason I responded without answering is because you were asking for something I had already stated. I wasn’t going to repeat myself for you. Next time just state what your issue is. It might go smoother if you do.

~Grin~

You put forward the idea that Mr. Oswald came close to the SW window after hearing the ambulance siren. I asked you what time you believed this would have been, and you refused to answer. Then you walked back your goof by-----------dropping the siren idea!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 12, 2023, 02:50:51 PM

You don’t have a clue as to what my thinking was. Stop acting like you do. Arnold Rowland said he saw something that no one else did. Being skeptical would be considered normal for most folks. However, instead of dismissing his account without giving it a fair trial, I tested his description in my 3D model. I was impressed that he got so many details right. So, I think we should be open to the possibility that Arnold Rowland saw a man with a rifle.

Only because you feel you can make that conformable to the LHO-Lone-Nut theory, LOL. If you couldn't, you wouldn't dream of giving it a fair trial--------you'd just treat it like you do Mr. Rowland's disastrous (for you) 'elderly Negro' sighting, i.e. dismiss it as an "embellishment".

Speaking of which...............

Mr. ROWLAND - [T]he next day on Saturday there were a pair of FBI officers, agents out at my home, and they took another handwritten statement from me which I signed again, and this was basically the same. At that time I told them I did see the Negro man there and they told me it didn't have any bearing or such on the case right then. In fact, they just the same as told me to forget it now.

But no, he's a young man with impressive powers of recollection one minute, and an egregious liar (or hallucinating halfwit) the next. Standard Warren Gullible 'objectivity': Given that LHO acted alone, and any other possibility is crazy, let us proceed now to explore this item of evidence rigorously and impartially  :D
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 12, 2023, 03:54:15 PM

Spector did ask a lot of questions, and, after testing some of the answers with my 3D model, I felt Rowland got things right. That and the fact that Rowland said something to his wife at the time (before any shots were fired) and his 11/22/63 affidavit seems legit. I cannot say the same about his later embellishments regarding the elderly black man though.

Here's a view of the west windows in the 3D model from Rowland's viewpoint:

(https://i.vgy.me/yuWsQA.png)

The figure is about 5' back (north) from the inside of the south wall. Please ignore the missing window in the western most opening, my model is constantly being altered and I just have it invisible at the moment. The rifle is there, at port arms, but a little hard to discern due to the dark suit of the figure. Remember that Rowland said he had on a light colored shirt, possibly a tshirt.

Interesting. I have a completely different take on Rowland and his sightings. He gives multiple answers that do not correlate to each other and gave answers and details, for no discernable reason, that were just completely wrong. Basically, Rowland and Alan Ford appear to have graduated from the same clown college.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 12, 2023, 06:23:49 PM
Only because you feel you can make that conformable to the LHO-Lone-Nut theory, LOL. If you couldn't, you wouldn't dream of giving it a fair trial--------you'd just treat it like you do Mr. Rowland's disastrous (for you) 'elderly Negro' sighting, i.e. dismiss it as an "embellishment".

Speaking of which...............

Mr. ROWLAND - [T]he next day on Saturday there were a pair of FBI officers, agents out at my home, and they took another handwritten statement from me which I signed again, and this was basically the same. At that time I told them I did see the Negro man there and they told me it didn't have any bearing or such on the case right then. In fact, they just the same as told me to forget it now.

But no, he's a young man with impressive powers of recollection one minute, and an egregious liar (or hallucinating halfwit) the next. Standard Warren Gullible 'objectivity': Given that LHO acted alone, and any other possibility is crazy, let us proceed now to explore this item of evidence rigorously and impartially  :D



Only because you feel you can make that conformable to the LHO-Lone-Nut theory, LOL. If you couldn't, you wouldn't dream of giving it a fair trial--------you'd just treat it like you do Mr. Rowland's disastrous (for you) 'elderly Negro' sighting, i.e. dismiss it as an "embellishment”.


If you can read, you have no comprehension abilities. I said earlier that you don’t have a clue about what I am thinking and to please stop this nonsense of acting like you do.

I have previously given reasons. And, again, will not repeat them for you.


Mr. ROWLAND - [T]he next day on Saturday there were a pair of FBI officers, agents out at my home, and they took another handwritten statement from me which I signed again, and this was basically the same. At that time I told them I did see the Negro man there and they told me it didn't have any bearing or such on the case right then. In fact, they just the same as told me to forget it now.

But no, he's a young man with impressive powers of recollection one minute, and an egregious liar (or hallucinating halfwit) the next. Standard Warren Gullible 'objectivity': Given that LHO acted alone, and any other possibility is crazy, let us proceed now to explore this item of evidence rigorously and impartially



Your claim (that it is because it doesn’t fit the official narrative) is just like all the other stuff you come up with, a figment of your imagination. There are plenty of reasons to doubt Arnold Rowland’s testimony regarding another person on the sixth floor. Here are just a few.


Mr. ROWLAND - At that time, no. However, the next day on Saturday there were a pair of FBI officers, agents out at my home, and they took another handwritten statement from me which I signed again, and this was basically the same. At that time I told them I did see the Negro man there and they told me it didn't have any bearing or such on the case right then. In fact, they just the same as told me to forget it now.
Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Reporter, will you please repeat that last answer for us?

(Answer read.)

Mr. SPECTER - I am now handing you a document which I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 358, which purports to be a reproduction of a statement which was purportedly given by you to the FBI, two agents of that Bureau.

Will you take a look at that and tell us if that is the statement which you gave to the FBI to which you just referred?
Mr. ROWLAND - Again, I have a variance of time and a variance of distance that he was from the window.
Mr. SPECTER - Before you direct your attention to those factors, Mr. Rowland, are you able to tell us whether or not this is the statement which you gave to the FBI?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes. My wife was with me when I gave the statement.
Mr. SPECTER - And without looking at the statement which, may the record show, you are not now doing, do you recollect the names of the FBI, don't look there, just tell me if you can recollect without seeing their names on the statement?
Mr. ROWLAND - No, sir; I talked to seven different pairs of FBI agents and I don't remember their names.
Mr. SPECTER - Seven different pairs?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes, sir; I had--this is only one of the statements. They came to my home or where I worked and took three more besides this one. There were four handwritten statements that I signed.
Mr. SPECTER - Before getting the details on those, tell me in what respect, if any, the statement which we have identified as Commission Exhibit No. 358 differs from what you told the FBI agents at that time?
Mr. ROWLAND - I do not think it differs.
Mr. SPECTER - Then that statement accurately reflects what you said at that time?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; I am sure it does.




 https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_358.pdf (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_358.pdf)



Mrs. ROWLAND. I don't think we were contacted the next day.
Mr. BELIN. That would have been Saturday?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Saturday, I know we weren't. I am not positive.

.
.
.
Mr. BELIN. Were you present, for instance, on the Sunday morning, November 24th?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what your husband said at that time?
Mrs. ROWLAND. He repeated the statement he had made in the well, the police officers brought a written statement and asked him if that was in general what he had to say, and he said, "Yes," and they asked him specific questions about it and he answered them.
Mr. BELIN. Was there anything else that was said?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I don't believe so.
Mr. BELIN. Was there anything that your husband said that was not on that written statement?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I am not positive.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember him saying anything---do you remember him telling the police officer that the statement was correct, or do you remember him telling them anything?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes; he signed. There might have been a change or two in the statement and then he signed it and said that he verified that it was correct, to the best of his knowledge.
Mr. BELIN. Did he tell the police officer anything that was not on that statement that should be?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I don't believe so.
Mr. BELIN. Was he asked whether or not he saw any other people in any other windows?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I don't believe he was specifically asked that question.
Mr. BELIN. Did he tell any of the police officers that he saw any people in any other windows?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I am not certain.
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.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 12, 2023, 06:26:28 PM
Interesting. I have a completely different take on Rowland and his sightings. He gives multiple answers that do not correlate to each other and gave answers and details, for no discernable reason, that were just completely wrong. Basically, Rowland and Alan Ford appear to have graduated from the same clown college.

While I agree that there are a lot of other things Arnold Rowland said that are not true, his description of the man with the rifle seems to me to have too many details correct for it to be imagined.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 12, 2023, 08:42:23 PM
Your claim (that it is because it doesn’t fit the official narrative) is just like all the other stuff you come up with, a figment of your imagination. There are plenty of reasons to doubt Arnold Rowland’s testimony regarding another person on the sixth floor. Here are just a few.

Neither of your two gotcha quotes amounts to a hill of beans, Mr. Collins:

1. He was told the 'elderly Negro' was not important. His understanding of the point of the official statement was to get down the important facts, not to include every detail.
2. Mr. Rowland did not himself understand the significance of the 'elderly Negro'---------all the significance (he thought) attached to the man with the rifle. This fact is reflected in Mrs. Rowland's memory of their conversations.
And you forgot to underline this:
Mr. BELIN. Were you present when he was with the police officers?
Mrs. ROWLAND. At times.


Of course we all know that if the 'elderly Negro' were convenient to the official story, you'd be falling over yourself in praise of Mr. Rowland's superlative powers of recall. As things stand, you brand him a liar/fantasist on the flimsiest pretext. You're nothing more than a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose defender of the official story who is pretending to do objective research.

KUTGW! Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 12, 2023, 08:44:42 PM
While I agree that there are a lot of other things Arnold Rowland said that are not true, his description of the man with the rifle seems to me to have too many details correct for it to be imagined.

'The one bit I can make conformable to the official story I will accept; the rest I will dismiss as the product of Mr. Rowland's tendency to fantasy'
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 12, 2023, 09:40:34 PM
Neither of your two gotcha quotes amounts to a hill of beans, Mr. Collins:

1. He was told the 'elderly Negro' was not important. His understanding of the point of the official statement was to get down the important facts, not to include every detail.
2. Mr. Rowland did not himself understand the significance of the 'elderly Negro'---------all the significance (he thought) attached to the man with the rifle. This fact is reflected in Mrs. Rowland's memory of their conversations.
And you forgot to underline this:
Mr. BELIN. Were you present when he was with the police officers?
Mrs. ROWLAND. At times.


Of course we all know that if the 'elderly Negro' were convenient to the official story, you'd be falling over yourself in praise of Mr. Rowland's superlative powers of recall. As things stand, you brand him a liar/fantasist on the flimsiest pretext. You're nothing more than a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose defender of the official story who is pretending to do objective research.

KUTGW! Thumb1:


Specter demonstrated, with CE 358 that the FBI interview took place on Sunday the 24th, not Saturday the 23. Arnold Rowland confirmed that CE 358 was the accurate record of that interview. And nowhere in that document is there even a hint of any “sighting” of an elderly negro on the sixth floor. Arnold Rowland confirms that his wife was with him during this interview. Mrs. Arnold confirms the following:

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.

Why do you appear to just ignore what you don’t want to contemplate? The parts I underlined (for emphasis) are only a portion of what I posted. The remainder is relevant, whether you “like it” or not.





Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 12, 2023, 09:50:40 PM

Specter demonstrated, with CE 358 that the FBI interview took place on Sunday the 24th, not Saturday the 23. Arnold Rowland confirmed that CE 358 was the accurate record of that interview. And nowhere in that document is there even a hint of any “sighting” of an elderly negro on the sixth floor.

Mr. Rowland will have said plenty of things in that interview that didn't make the final 'cut'. This is the case with all such documents. Are all such documents, because they are selective as to which items make the final interview report, inaccurate records of the interviews?

Mr. Rowland is simply saying that no words were put in his mouth. No contradiction between his saying this and his saying the 'elderly Negro' detail was not included.

Quote
Arnold Rowland confirms that his wife was with him during this interview. Mrs. Arnold confirms the following:

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.

She's just said this, lol:

Mr. BELIN. Were you present when he was with the police officers?
Mrs. ROWLAND. At times.


Of course, you chose not to underline those inconvenient words.

And round and round you go, on your entirely circular process of heads-I-win-tails-LHO-loses 'evidence-appraisal'

Yawn!
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 12, 2023, 11:17:12 PM
Mr. Rowland will have said plenty of things in that interview that didn't make the final 'cut'. This is the case with all such documents. Are all such documents, because they are selective as to which items make the final interview report, inaccurate records of the interviews?

Mr. Rowland is simply saying that no words were put in his mouth. No contradiction between his saying this and his saying the 'elderly Negro' detail was not included.

She's just said this, lol:

Mr. BELIN. Were you present when he was with the police officers?
Mrs. ROWLAND. At times.


Of course, you chose not to underline those inconvenient words.

And round and round you go, on your entirely circular process of heads-I-win-tails-LHO-loses 'evidence-appraisal'

Yawn!


Mr. Rowland will have said plenty of things in that interview that didn't make the final 'cut'. This is the case with all such documents. Are all such documents, because they are selective as to which items make the final interview report, inaccurate records of the interviews?


Mr. Rowland had the opportunity to make any corrections when he signed the document on 11/24/63. He signed it as being accurate, his wife confirms that he didn't say anything about an elderly black man on the sixth floor at that meeting. Mr. Rowland had another opportunity to say the document was inaccurate when he testified to the WC, but instead he confirms again that it is accurate. Yet you choose to believe otherwise. Could it possibly be due to your bias? Hmm, sure seems that way to me.



She's just said this, lol:

Mr. BELIN. Were you present when he was with the police officers?
Mrs. ROWLAND. At times.



That was a general question about several interviews. When it came specifically to the 11/24/63 interview Mrs. Rowland said:

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.

That's a very specific set of questions and answers that spell it out in no uncertain terms. Yet, you choose to believe otherwise. Could it possibly be due to your bias? Hmm, sure seems that way to me.

There is absolutely no evidence to support Arnold's claim of seeing an elderly black man on the sixth floor. And there is credible evidence that suggests that he didn't. You were the one accusing me of not believing the elderly black man sighting simply because it didn't fit the official narrative. It sure appears to me that you are the one that has no reason whatsoever to believe the sighting of the elderly black man on the sixth floor other than it doesn't fit the official narrative and it supposedly fits your fantasy scenario.  8)
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 12, 2023, 11:32:52 PM

Mr. Rowland will have said plenty of things in that interview that didn't make the final 'cut'. This is the case with all such documents. Are all such documents, because they are selective as to which items make the final interview report, inaccurate records of the interviews?


Mr. Rowland had the opportunity to make any corrections when he signed the document on 11/24/63. He signed it as being accurate,

Insofar as it contained no positive misrepresentations of what he'd said, it was accurate. There were no corrections to be made

Quote
his wife confirms that he didn't say anything about an elderly black man on the sixth floor at that meeting.

At the meeting where FBI agents were dressed as police officers and "brought a written statement and asked him if that was in general what he had to say"? That one?

Quote
Mr. Rowland had another opportunity to say the document was inaccurate when he testified to the WC, but instead he confirms again that it is accurate. Yet you choose to believe otherwise. Could it possibly be due to your bias? Hmm, sure seems that way to me.



She's just said this, lol:

Mr. BELIN. Were you present when he was with the police officers?
Mrs. ROWLAND. At times.



That was a general question about several interviews. When it came specifically to the 11/24/63 interview Mrs. Rowland said:

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.

She is confusing visits. Mr. Rowland did not give a statement to FBI agents pretending to be police officers

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 12, 2023, 11:42:47 PM
Insofar as it contained no positive misrepresentations of what he'd said, it was accurate. There were no corrections to be made

At the meeting where FBI agents were dressed as police officers and "brought a written statement and asked him if that was in general what he had to say"? That one?

She is confusing visits. Mr. Rowland did not give a statement to FBI agents pretending to be police officers

 Thumb1:


Now, you are just being silly.

 Like I said regarding the sound of the siren of the ambulance. You find some insignificant detail, misrepresent it, and act like you have obliterated the whole argument. Why the heck would anyone believe anything you have to say?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 12, 2023, 11:53:17 PM

Now, you are just being silly.

 Like I said regarding the sound of the siren of the ambulance. You find some insignificant detail, misrepresent it, and act like you have obliterated the whole argument. Why the heck would anyone believe anything you have to say?

~Grin~

If you were gunning for Mrs. Rowland the way you've been gunning for Mr. Rowland, you would be using this "insignificant detail" (police officers = FBI agents!) to blow up her credibility. Because that's how you work in your indefatigable defense of the official story.

I, for my part, have no interest in blowing up Mrs. Rowland's credibility (she just got confused between visits), but I am rather enjoying the spectacle of you blowing up yours

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 13, 2023, 12:11:29 AM
~Grin~

If you were gunning for Mrs. Rowland the way you've been gunning for Mr. Rowland, you would be using this "insignificant detail" (police officers = FBI agents!) to blow up her credibility. Because that's how you work in your indefatigable defense of the official story.

I, for my part, have no interest in blowing up Mrs. Rowland's credibility (she just got confused between visits), but I am rather enjoying the spectacle of you blowing up yours

 Thumb1:


So, now you are claiming that police officers made a separate interview, but there is no record or evidence of this “visit”?  ???
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2023, 12:27:19 AM

So, now you are claiming that police officers made a separate interview, but there is no record or evidence of this “visit”?  ???

Mrs. Rowland talks about police officers coming with a pre-written statement and going over it with her husband. Key witnesses were visited multiple times by law enforcement; not every visit was formally written up.

With a little help from Mr. Belin, she's mixing this visit up with an F.B.I. visit.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 13, 2023, 12:37:06 AM
Mrs. Rowland talks about police officers coming with a pre-written statement and going over it with her husband. Key witnesses were visited multiple times by law enforcement; not every visit was formally written up.

With a little help from Mr. Belin, she's mixing this visit up with an F.B.I. visit.

 Thumb1:


I think you are just making stuff up again. They are specifically discussing the 11/24/63 FBI interview documented by CE 358. Not some other “mysterious visit” that is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2023, 12:48:34 AM

I think you are just making stuff up again. They are specifically discussing the 11/24/63 FBI interview documented by CE 358. Not some other “mysterious visit” that is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

Nope! You're just confused. And the reason you're confused is you haven't done your homework.

Mr. Rowland: ... [T]he next day on Saturday there were a pair of FBI officers, agents out at my home, and they took another handwritten statement from me which I signed again, and this was basically the same. At that time I told them I did see the Negro man there and they told me it didn't have any bearing or such on the case right then. In fact, they just the same as told me to forget it now.

He is talking about a Saturday visit by two FBI men who did not come merely to go over an already written statement. (He may be talking here of Agents Rice & Almon.) The visit by police officers which Mrs. Rowland recalls was a different visit. As was the Sunday FBI visit.

Mr. Rowland was visited multiple times by law enforcement. Mrs. Rowland was not present for all of these interviews.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 13, 2023, 05:14:45 AM
BRW had a “high forehead” which could be, or appear to be, a receding hairline. This appears in the Powell and Dillard photos. This tends to make him appear older than he was.

Why then are you so reluctant to consider that Rowland saw Williams when he was still on the sixth floor?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 13, 2023, 11:46:02 AM
Why then are you so reluctant to consider that Rowland saw Williams when he was still on the sixth floor?

I have considered that. Is that what you believe he saw?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2023, 12:50:40 PM
Nope! You're just confused. And the reason you're confused is you haven't done your homework.

Mr. Rowland: ... [T]he next day on Saturday there were a pair of FBI officers, agents out at my home, and they took another handwritten statement from me which I signed again, and this was basically the same. At that time I told them I did see the Negro man there and they told me it didn't have any bearing or such on the case right then. In fact, they just the same as told me to forget it now.

He is talking about a Saturday visit by two FBI men who did not come merely to go over an already written statement. (He may be talking here of Agents Rice & Almon.) The visit by police officers which Mrs. Rowland recalls was a different visit. As was the Sunday FBI visit.

Mr. Rowland was visited multiple times by law enforcement. Mrs. Rowland was not present for all of these interviews.

 Thumb1:

Paging Mr. Collins, paging Mr. Collins............

From the HSCA report:

(https://i.postimg.cc/QMVPgb6f/Rowland-FBI-interviews.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Is it still your view that a Saturday FBI interview is a figment of the imagination (mine and/or Mr. Rowland's)?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 13, 2023, 03:49:40 PM
Paging Mr. Collins, paging Mr. Collins............

From the HSCA report:

(https://i.postimg.cc/QMVPgb6f/Rowland-FBI-interviews.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Is it still your view that a Saturday FBI interview is a figment of the imagination (mine and/or Mr. Rowland's)?

 Thumb1:


If we were to go by the dates listed in your image, we might assume that Arnold Rowland was interviewed twice by the FBI on Saturday 11/23/63. But a look at the documents shows two dates on the Heitman report (11/22/63 and 11/23/63). Arnold Rowland testifies to the WC that FBI agents were present for his 11/22/63 statement to the Dallas County Sheriff's Office. So, I think that it is reasonable to believe that Heitman's report dated 11/23/63 is just another account of what Arnold Rowland said in the Sheriff's Office on 11/22/63 which wasn't dictated for typing until 11/23/63. Another reason to believe this is the other Heitman FBI report, with the same dates, that is an interview of Barbara Rowland (see CE 2782 linked below).



Arnold Rowland testified that he was interviewed by the FBI on seven different dates. However, we only have records of three of these. There was apparently a lot of confusion regarding which interview took place on which date. Later on in his WC testimony, Arnold Rowland again states in no uncertain terms that:

Mr. SPECTER - Well, are you able to identify that statement which we have marked Exhibit 358, as the statement taken on Saturday, the 23d, as distinguished from the statement taken on Sunday, the 24th of November?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - How can you be certain of that, Mr. Rowland?
Mr. ROWLAND - The one on Sunday, this particular one, I do remember the agent used a legal pad. He did have three pages of it handwritten. made corrections on this in different parts of it The one on Sunday was not a legal pad. It was a steno pad and it, in fact, covered a page and a half, I think, and it was concerned with mainly could I identify the man that I saw, his description.



Now, Arnold Rowland explains that he told about the elderly black man after the interview was over "as an afterthought". And he says the also told the Agents that interviewed him on Sunday 11/24/63.


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.





That Arnold Rowland could have told two sets of FBI agents (four total agents) about a supposed elderly black man on the sixth floor, and that none of the four agents saw fit to include one word of it in their reports is just not believable, in my opinion.

Here is a link to CE 2782 which is a copy of the FBI reports in question:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2782.pdf (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2782.pdf)


In my opinion, there was a Saturday 11/22/63 interview by FBI agents Rice and Almon, and there was a Sunday 11/24/63 interview by FBI agents Wulf and Swinford. The other four "interviews" that Arnold Rowland testified took place apparently have no recorded reports. I would question whether or not Arnold Rowland mistook police investigators or news reporters for FBI agents because I believe there would be a record of it if they were FBI agents.

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2023, 04:53:53 PM
That Arnold Rowland could have told two sets of FBI agents (four total agents) about a supposed elderly black man on the sixth floor, and that none of the four agents saw fit to include one word of it in their reports is just not believable, in my opinion.

LOL. Of course that's your opinion, Mr. Collins, because your opinion is always going to be favorable to the official story. But I'm afraid that your own extreme gullibility about the nature of the official 'investigation' does absolutely nothing to undermine the integrity and memory of Mr. Rowland.

You thought you had something with the Mrs. Rowland thing, but you didn't. So you don't get to trash the man's reputation by claiming she claimed to have been present at the Saturday FBI interview. That idea was about as grounded in reality as your fantasy 12:15pm ambulance sirens.

It is no doubt utopian of me, but maybe one day the cognitive dissonance will intensify to a point of such discomfort that you will say to yourself, 'Jeez, maybe there's more to researching this case than playing robotic defense for the official story......................'

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 13, 2023, 05:07:29 PM
I did find something interesting regarding Barbara Rowland's testimony. Here is an image of CE 2783 and a link to it at history-matters.com:


(https://i.vgy.me/0r1YAq.png)


https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2783.pdf (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2783.pdf)


Arnold Rowland testified to the WC in Washington DC on 3/10/63. During this testimony he spoke of (for the first time in the record) of seeing an elderly black man on the sixth floor.

Barbara Rowland testified to the WC via Belin in Dallas, TX on 4/7/63. She was asked extensively about the sighting of the elderly black man on the sixth floor. This was apparently news to her because, as she testified, Arnold never said a word to her about it. Babs indicated that she wanted to return to read and sign her testimony after it was typed up. The amendments shown on CE 2783 would have been her amendments that she made when she returned to sign the testimony. I don't know how long it took for them to type the testimony and call Babs back to sign it. But lets say that it was enough time for Babs to confront Arnie with a big: "WTF is this about an elderly black man on the sixth floor?" After Arnie clued Babs in, and Babs (and perhaps Arnie was with her) returned to read the testimony, she/they decided to add her amendment. Now, folks, do you really think that the court reporter really and truly missed that long sentence that Babs added to her testimony? There is not a chance in hell that it happened that way. I think that the more likely scenario is that the two Arnolds decided that the amendment needed to be added to give Arnie's testimony regarding the elderly black man on the sixth floor any chance of appearing to be being legit. If one wants to believe that the WC omitted this for some sort of sinister purpose, then why in the heck would they even include WC exhibit 2783 in the volumes?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 13, 2023, 05:24:18 PM
LOL. Of course that's your opinion, Mr. Collins, because your opinion is always going to be favorable to the official story. But I'm afraid that your own extreme gullibility about the nature of the official 'investigation' does absolutely nothing to undermine the integrity and memory of Mr. Rowland.

You thought you had something with the Mrs. Rowland thing, but you didn't. So you don't get to trash the man's reputation by claiming she claimed to have been present at the Saturday FBI interview. That idea was about as grounded in reality as your fantasy 12:15pm ambulance sirens.

It is no doubt utopian of me, but maybe one day the cognitive dissonance will intensify to a point of such discomfort that you will say to yourself, 'Jeez, maybe there's more to researching this case than playing robotic defense for the official story......................'

 Thumb1:


 :D

Arnie doesn’t need anyone “to trash his reputation”. He did that all by himself.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2023, 07:20:13 PM
I did find something interesting regarding Barbara Rowland's testimony. Here is an image of CE 2783 and a link to it at history-matters.com:

(https://i.vgy.me/0r1YAq.png)

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2783.pdf (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2783.pdf)

Thank you for posting Mrs. Rowland's words, Mr. Collins: "I did not hear everything that was said". You have just taken your silly claim off life support, and can now quietly go and give it a decent private burial
 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2023, 07:21:16 PM

 :D

Arnie doesn’t need anyone “to trash his reputation”. He did that all by himself.

Talk about projection, LOL!  :D
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 13, 2023, 08:10:51 PM
Thank you for posting Mrs. Rowland's words, Mr. Collins: "I did not hear everything that was said". You have just taken your silly claim off life support, and can now quietly go and give it a decent private burial
 Thumb1:


What claim are you talking about?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2023, 08:20:38 PM

What claim are you talking about?

The claim that Mrs. Rowland undermines Mr. Rowland's account of what he said to the authorities about the 'elderly Negro'.

Take the L and move on, Mr. Collins. Better luck next time!

 Thumb1:

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 13, 2023, 08:35:01 PM
The claim that Mrs. Rowland undermines Mr. Rowland's account of what he said to the authorities about the 'elderly Negro'.

Take the L and move on, Mr. Collins. Better luck next time!

 Thumb1:


I don’t believe that I even suggested that. Here are some definitions of your word, which one are you accusing me of claiming?

undermine:

to injure or destroy by insidious activity or imperceptible stages, sometimes tending toward a sudden dramatic effect.

to attack by indirect, secret, or underhand means; attempt to subvert by stealth.

to make an excavation under; dig or tunnel beneath, as a military stronghold.

to weaken or cause to collapse by removing underlying support, as by digging away or eroding the foundation.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 14, 2023, 12:02:03 AM
LOL. Of course that's your opinion, Mr. Collins, because your opinion is always going to be favorable to the official story. But I'm afraid that your own extreme gullibility about the nature of the official 'investigation' does absolutely nothing to undermine the integrity and memory of Mr. Rowland.

You thought you had something with the Mrs. Rowland thing, but you didn't. So you don't get to trash the man's reputation by claiming she claimed to have been present at the Saturday FBI interview. That idea was about as grounded in reality as your fantasy 12:15pm ambulance sirens.

It is no doubt utopian of me, but maybe one day the cognitive dissonance will intensify to a point of such discomfort that you will say to yourself, 'Jeez, maybe there's more to researching this case than playing robotic defense for the official story......................'

 Thumb1:
The other change she made on the same page was put into the official record. It is more like she completely reaffirms Arnold did not say anything about another person in the SN. She had to have known the impact on her marriage and did the right thing anyway. Everything about Arnold was BS and the person in the SN was just another instance of it. Barbara knew that and never completed the change.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 14, 2023, 12:37:43 AM
I did find something interesting regarding Barbara Rowland's testimony. Here is an image of CE 2783 and a link to it at history-matters.com:


(https://i.vgy.me/0r1YAq.png)


https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2783.pdf (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2783.pdf)


Arnold Rowland testified to the WC in Washington DC on 3/10/63. During this testimony he spoke of (for the first time in the record) of seeing an elderly black man on the sixth floor.

Barbara Rowland testified to the WC via Belin in Dallas, TX on 4/7/63. She was asked extensively about the sighting of the elderly black man on the sixth floor. This was apparently news to her because, as she testified, Arnold never said a word to her about it. Babs indicated that she wanted to return to read and sign her testimony after it was typed up. The amendments shown on CE 2783 would have been her amendments that she made when she returned to sign the testimony. I don't know how long it took for them to type the testimony and call Babs back to sign it. But lets say that it was enough time for Babs to confront Arnie with a big: "WTF is this about an elderly black man on the sixth floor?" After Arnie clued Babs in, and Babs (and perhaps Arnie was with her) returned to read the testimony, she/they decided to add her amendment. Now, folks, do you really think that the court reporter really and truly missed that long sentence that Babs added to her testimony? There is not a chance in hell that it happened that way. I think that the more likely scenario is that the two Arnolds decided that the amendment needed to be added to give Arnie's testimony regarding the elderly black man on the sixth floor any chance of appearing to be being legit. If one wants to believe that the WC omitted this for some sort of sinister purpose, then why in the heck would they even include WC exhibit 2783 in the volumes?

The other change she made on the same page was put into the official record. It is more like she completely reaffirms Arnold did not say anything about another person in the SN. She had to have known the impact on her marriage and did the right thing anyway. Everything about Arnold was BS and the person in the SN was just another instance of it. Barbara knew that and never completed the change.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 14, 2023, 09:52:52 AM
I did find something interesting regarding Barbara Rowland's testimony. Here is an image of CE 2783 and a link to it at history-matters.com:


(https://i.vgy.me/0r1YAq.png)


https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2783.pdf (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2783.pdf)


Arnold Rowland testified to the WC in Washington DC on 3/10/63. During this testimony he spoke of (for the first time in the record) of seeing an elderly black man on the sixth floor.

Barbara Rowland testified to the WC via Belin in Dallas, TX on 4/7/63. She was asked extensively about the sighting of the elderly black man on the sixth floor. This was apparently news to her because, as she testified, Arnold never said a word to her about it. Babs indicated that she wanted to return to read and sign her testimony after it was typed up. The amendments shown on CE 2783 would have been her amendments that she made when she returned to sign the testimony. I don't know how long it took for them to type the testimony and call Babs back to sign it. But lets say that it was enough time for Babs to confront Arnie with a big: "WTF is this about an elderly black man on the sixth floor?" After Arnie clued Babs in, and Babs (and perhaps Arnie was with her) returned to read the testimony, she/they decided to add her amendment. Now, folks, do you really think that the court reporter really and truly missed that long sentence that Babs added to her testimony? There is not a chance in hell that it happened that way. I think that the more likely scenario is that the two Arnolds decided that the amendment needed to be added to give Arnie's testimony regarding the elderly black man on the sixth floor any chance of appearing to be being legit. If one wants to believe that the WC omitted this for some sort of sinister purpose, then why in the heck would they even include WC exhibit 2783 in the volumes?

Why was Belin so interested in questioning Mrs Rowland about her husband's testimony in the first place?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 14, 2023, 10:50:08 AM
Mr. BELIN. Again, I apologize for any---for in any way trying to embarrass you or anything, but your husband did see a man on the sixth floor and it is important for us to try and find out everything we can to test his accuracy as to what he saw, and so this is why I have been asking these questions.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 14, 2023, 11:02:48 AM
I think that CE 2783 is very interesting. I don’t remember seeing anything similar in the record. Has anyone seen another example of an amended testimony where they included the actual document that the witness marked up? I think he staff of the WC must have been trying to tell us something when they decided to include this document.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 15, 2023, 01:09:06 PM
The other change she made on the same page was put into the official record.

'The correction made in a handwriting different to Mrs. Rowland's obviously comes from Mrs. Rowland'

Quote
It is more like she completely reaffirms Arnold did not say anything about another person in the SN. She had to have known the impact on her marriage and did the right thing anyway. Everything about Arnold was BS and the person in the SN was just another instance of it. Barbara knew that and never completed the change.

'Mrs. Rowland's making the correction means Mrs. Rowland didn't want the correction made'
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 15, 2023, 01:10:28 PM
I think that CE 2783 is very interesting.

'The fact that Mrs. Rowland states she did not hear everything that was said tells us that Mrs. Rowland stated she heard everything that was said'
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 15, 2023, 03:54:40 PM


Of course any answer would just be conjecture. But my theory on it is this. There is credible evidence, in my opinion, from Arnold Rowland of seeing someone who resembled LHO with a rifle at the west end of the sixth floor for no more than 30-seconds sometime around 12:15 but no later than about 12:25. So my much earlier opinion that LHO was sitting in the sniper’s nest the whole time BRW was eating his lunch seems questionable.

It appears to me that LHO probably went to the west end of the sixth floor, shortly after Givens left, to retrieve his rifle that he hid there that morning. Before he could take the rifle back to the already prepared sniper’s nest, BRW came up to the sixth floor and ate his lunch. LHO stayed quiet and out of sight near the stairwell on the sixth floor. If BRW had come over that way LHO could have left via the stairs. When the sounds of the ambulance arrival happened LHO probably felt the need to find out if that was the motorcade arriving. If it had been the motorcade, LHO could have fired shots from the west window before anyone could stop him. However, once BRW left, LHO was able to go to the sniper’s nest in the SE corner as he originally planned.

If the above is wrong, and LHO actually was in the sniper’s nest the whole time, and BRW had come over there and had seen him, he could have simply said he was waiting to see the motorcade. This is provided his rifle was not in the line of sight of BRW. Perhaps the rifle was on the floor against the tall stack of boxes, this would be out of sight of anyone not inside the tiny sniper’s nest but close enough for LHO to grab it when needed. I don’t see any scenario where LHO would kill BRW before the motorcade arrived. That would create too much noise and draw unwanted attention which would cause an abortiion of the assassination anyway.


I would not give Rowland’s sighting any credibility at all, but in reality, it changes nothing. The rest of the conjecture is entirely possible. LHO was obviously hiding there somewhere.


This thread about the construction of the rifle rest has given a new understanding to what LHO was doing between the departure of the floor laying crew and the arrival of BRW. A big question is what LHO would have done if BRW had actually gone over to where LHO was sitting. Would he have decided to not shoot at JFK or just killed BRW.




On the other hand, BRW was definitely not “bald” nor were Norman or Jarman.

BRW had a “high forehead” which could be, or appear to be, a receding hairline. This appears in the Powell and Dillard photos. This tends to make him appear older than he was.

Why then are you so reluctant to consider that Rowland saw Williams when he was still on the sixth floor?


I have considered that. Is that what you believe he saw?


Let’s consider the possibility that BRW was who Arnold Rowland saw in the sniper’s nest. To believe this we would have to believe that BRW failed to tell anyone that he was there. Could he have been too scared to let anyone know this? Perhaps so…

Let us take a look at the timing



Mr. SPECTER - Over how long a time span did you observe the Negro man to be in the window marked "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - He was there before I noticed the man with the rifle and approximately 12:30 or when the motorcade was at Main and Ervay he was gone when I looked back and I had looked up there about 30 seconds before or a minute before.
Mr. SPECTER - How long after you heard the motorcade was at Main and Ervay did the motorcade pass by where you were?
Mr. ROWLAND - Another 5 minutes.
Mr. SPECTER - So that you observed this colored man on the window you have marked "A" within 5 minutes prior to the time the motorcade passed in front of you?
Mr. ROWLAND - Approximately 5 minutes prior to the time the motorcade came, he wasn't there. About 30 seconds or a minute prior to that time he was there.



So, if we look at the DPD radio transcript we can see that the motorcade was at Main and Ervay at about 12:22 (not 12:30). And Arnold Rowland said the last time he saw the elderly black man in the SE corner sixth floor window was about “30 seconds or a minute prior to that time.” Also, at this point in time, the ambulance was already en route to Dealey Plaza. Also, Norman and Jarman were likely headed for the fifth floor.


 http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/Dallas%20Police%20Department/Dallas%20Police%20Department%20Records/Volume%2004/Item%2001.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/Dallas%20Police%20Department/Dallas%20Police%20Department%20Records/Volume%2004/Item%2001.pdf)



So, let us entertain some additional conjecture about what might have been happening on the sixth floor. If we continue with the idea, stated in the earlier conjecture, that LHO was “trapped” on the west end of the sixth floor due to the arrival of BRW (to eat his lunch). And we add the idea that BRW, after finishing his lunch, actually went to the sniper’s nest and leaned out the window. It is conceivable that he might have seen Norman and Jarman below that window as they walked past the window and went around the corner of the TSBD. Then shortly thereafter BRW might have heard Norman and Jarman arrive on the fifth floor below and decided to join them.

LHO, if he was on the west end of the sixth floor and keeping quiet and out of sight, would likely have been keeping track of BRW and hoping he would leave soon. If so, LHO might have realized that BRW had moved to the sniper’s nest and that BRW couldn’t have seen the west end of the sixth floor from a sitting position in the sniper’s nest. LHO might then have decided that it was time to look for another spot to fire at JFK and moved to within 5-feet of the west window (where he was seen by Arnold Rowland). If the above is correct, the motivating factor behind the approach to the west window might not have been the commotion of the epileptic event, but BRW’s presence in the sniper’s nest instead. When BRW left, LHO would have been able to move to the sniper’s nest. And by then Howard Brenan had arrived and noticed LHO in the window. Here’s the timing:

~12:15 Arnold Rowland first sees BRW in the SE window

~12:15 Arnold Rowland sees the man with the rifle back a little bit from the SW window (for only 15 or 20 secs)

~12:22 or, shortly before, Arnold Rowland notices BRW is no longer in the SE window. BRW is headed for the fifth floor, and LHO is headed to the sniper’s nest.

~12:24 the ambulance arrives in Dealey Plaza and Brenan notices LHO in the window

~12:24-12:25 the Bronson film was taken and shows the boxes are already in the SE window


I am not asking anyone to believe the above conjecture has to be correct. Personally, I believe that Arnold Rowland just misremembered which floor and when he saw the elderly black man (aka BRW). However, if we entertain the idea that BRW was too scared to tell anyone that he was in the sniper’s nest before the assassination, then the above conjecture seems possible to me.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 15, 2023, 04:20:00 PM
Mr. BELIN. Again, I apologize for any---for in any way trying to embarrass you or anything, but your husband did see a man on the sixth floor and it is important for us to try and find out everything we can to test his accuracy as to what he saw, and so this is why I have been asking these questions.

And why exactly would Belin feel the need to check with Mrs Rowland if what her husband said was accurate?

Why was it so important to "try and find out everything we can to test his [Mr. Rowland] accuracy?

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 15, 2023, 05:34:12 PM
Mr. BELIN. Again, I apologize for any---for in any way trying to embarrass you or anything, but your husband did see a man on the sixth floor and it is important for us to try and find out everything we can to test his accuracy as to what he saw, and so this is why I have been asking these questions.

Funny how they didn't do anything like that to "test the accuracy" of Brennan's testimony.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 15, 2023, 05:39:02 PM
However, if we entertain the idea that BRW was too scared to tell anyone that he was in the sniper’s nest before the assassination, then the above conjecture seems possible to me.

That, coupled with his chicken bones being reportedly seen on boxes behind the SE window, make this possibility even more probable.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 15, 2023, 05:45:04 PM
Funny how they didn't do anything like that to "test the accuracy" of Brennan's testimony.


Brenan’s wife wasn’t with him.


However, consider Kellerman’s testimony that he heard JFK say that he had been hit. All the other occupants of the limo were questioned to test the accuracy of Kellerman’s testimony.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 15, 2023, 05:49:30 PM
They didn't "test the accuracy" of the people in Dealey Plaza who claimed to see a rifle sticking through the window by asking the people who did not see a rifle sticking through the window.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 15, 2023, 06:55:32 PM
There is no reason for the shooter to approach the SW window with a rifle at the ready position unless he was intending in take up a position at that window to prepare to shoot from that window.

Just because Rowland doesn’t see a gunman at the SW window again after about 30 secs does not mean necessarily the gunman left the window and never returned. He might have just moved out of LOS by hiding in the corner just right of the SW window which placed him in total shade.

If this is the scenario, then the  bald elderly negro at the SE window was probably not BRW , but more likely a 2nd gunman, and was in process of preparing that window by placing a box and then lowering the window to the 15.5 inch height. He was 1st glimpsed at 12:15 and then at 12:20 by Rowland. At 12:25  when Rowland looked again, there’s no black man anymore.

Could this indicate that at 12:25  the box has been placed , the window lowered , and the black man is hiding or sitting on the floor and out of LOS?

If he is a 2nd gunman, however , ( to shoot the MC rifle to frame Oswald?) then surely Brennan and Euins would have IDd the shooter as a “dark completed” male with a noticeable bald head?

Only Euins comes close by describing a bald spot, and there’s some controversy as to whether or not Euins ever made an initial statement  that the man as a black man.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 15, 2023, 06:57:22 PM
They didn't "test the accuracy" of the people in Dealey Plaza who claimed to see a rifle sticking through the window by asking the people who did not see a rifle sticking through the window.


Five people said they saw the rifle. Only Arnold Rowland said he saw a man with the rifle in the SW corner window. And only Kellerman said he heard JFK speak after being shot through the neck.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 15, 2023, 08:32:32 PM
I am not asking anyone to believe the above conjecture has to be correct. Personally, I believe that Arnold Rowland just misremembered which floor and when he saw the elderly black man (aka BRW). However, if we entertain the idea that BRW was too scared to tell anyone that he was in the sniper’s nest before the assassination, then the above conjecture seems possible to me.

'If I can make Rowland's sighting somehow conformable to my beloved LHO-Acted-Alone theory, I just might be willing to stop attacking the integrity of him and his wife. All the "issues" I've been presenting as defeaters of his claim will suddenly evaporate into thin air'
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 15, 2023, 08:36:06 PM
Just because Rowland doesn’t see a gunman at the SW window again after about 30 secs does not mean necessarily the gunman left the window and never returned. He might have just moved out of LOS by hiding in the corner just right of the SW window which placed him in total shade.

If this is the scenario, then the  bald elderly negro at the SE window was probably not BRW , but more likely a 2nd gunman, and was in process of preparing that window by placing a box and then lowering the window to the 15.5 inch height. He was 1st glimpsed at 12:15 and then at 12:20 by Rowland. At 12:25  when Rowland looked again, there’s no black man anymore.

Could this indicate that at 12:25  the box has been placed , the window lowered , and the black man is hiding or sitting on the floor and out of LOS?

Something like this, yes.

Plus NB!: that particular man was chosen to hang out at the SN window for a long period because of his ethnicity: he would be likely to attract notice. Cuban.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 15, 2023, 08:42:16 PM

Five people said they saw the rifle. Only Arnold Rowland said he saw a man with the rifle in the SW corner window. And only Kellerman said he heard JFK speak after being shot through the neck.

Only Mr. Charles Givens said he saw Mr. Oswald on the sixth floor after the men broke for lunch. And yet you show no interest in his criminal record; nor in ascertaining whether he mentioned to a single co-worker about this post-elevator-race sighting at any time prior to his WC testimony; nor in the fact that he had earlier gone on the record putting his sighting of Mr. Oswald prior to the elevator race. No-------------such niceties are of no interest to you. You trust Mr. Givens' account implicitly. And why? One reason: the Warren Report tells you to.

Meanwhile, it's open season on "Arnie" and "Babs". Why? One reason: you are mindlessly endorsing the Warren Commission's policy towards them
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 15, 2023, 08:45:00 PM

Brenan’s wife wasn’t with him.


However, consider Kellerman’s testimony that he heard JFK say that he had been hit. All the other occupants of the limo were questioned to test the accuracy of Kellerman’s testimony.

Did Mr. Rowland mention to his wife at the time or afterwards all the other non-rifle-carrying people he noticed in the area prior to the motorcade? As far as he knew, the 'elderly Negro' was no more germane to the case than any of them.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 15, 2023, 08:48:32 PM

Five people said they saw the rifle. Only Arnold Rowland said he saw a man with the rifle in the SW corner window. And only Kellerman said he heard JFK speak after being shot through the neck.

Great point. And the same reasoning led to Ms. Sandra Styles being called as a witness by the WC
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 15, 2023, 09:00:05 PM
Had Mr. Rowland been on the sixth floor of the Depository prior to 11/22/63?

If not, then he cannot have known from the outside that it was one single open floor.

It's the converse of someone not familiar with the fourth floor seeing a person at the southwest window and another person at the southeast window. The observer wouldn't know that the person at the southwest window cannot see the person at the southeast window.

Mr. Rowland cannot have understood at the time the potential significance of the simultaneity of the two men's presence at opposite ends of the sixth floor

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 15, 2023, 09:17:10 PM
FBI were VERY worried by Mr. Rowland's description of the bald(ing) bright-plaid-shirt-wearing 'elderly Negro'. They called in Messrs. Eddie Piper and Troy West, even taking photographs of both men.

Their conclusion after establishing----------to their own satisfaction at least------------that neither man could have been the man seen by Mr. Rowland? As no Depository employee fits the description, Mr. Rowland must not have seen what he says he saw.

This is hilarious! As though an alternative conclusion didn't exist: the man seen by Mr. Rowland was not a Depository employee, duh!

This nonsense is of course replicated by our Warren Gullibles here: 'As no conspiracy-favoring explanation can possibly be entertained, the most logical explanation of X is Y'

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 16, 2023, 03:22:05 AM
There is no reason for the shooter to approach the SW window with a rifle at the ready position unless he was intending in take up a position at that window to prepare to shoot from that window.

Just because Rowland doesn’t see a gunman at the SW window again after about 30 secs does not mean necessarily the gunman left the window and never returned. He might have just moved out of LOS by hiding in the corner just right of the SW window which placed him in total shade.

If this is the scenario, then the  bald elderly negro at the SE window was probably not BRW , but more likely a 2nd gunman, and was in process of preparing that window by placing a box and then lowering the window to the 15.5 inch height. He was 1st glimpsed at 12:15 and then at 12:20 by Rowland. At 12:25  when Rowland looked again, there’s no black man anymore.

Could this indicate that at 12:25  the box has been placed , the window lowered , and the black man is hiding or sitting on the floor and out of LOS?

If he is a 2nd gunman, however , ( to shoot the MC rifle to frame Oswald?) then surely Brennan and Euins would have IDd the shooter as a “dark completed” male with a noticeable bald head?

Only Euins comes close by describing a bald spot, and there’s some controversy as to whether or not Euins ever made an initial statement  that the man as a black man.

Or Rowland just made it all up for whatever reason, which his fabrication is easily distinguishable in his testimony. Unless you think the man with the rifle, described by Rowland, was about 3 to 4 feet tall. Charles Collin could not accurately place the man and his rifle, as described by Arnold, into his 3D model.

The fabrications in Arnold’s testimony did not end with the man and his rifle. The fabrications pervaded his testimony throughout.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 16, 2023, 11:47:38 AM
Or Rowland just made it all up for whatever reason, which his fabrication is easily distinguishable in his testimony. Unless you think the man with the rifle, described by Rowland, was about 3 to 4 feet tall. Charles Collin could not accurately place the man and his rifle, as described by Arnold, into his 3D model.

The fabrications in Arnold’s testimony did not end with the man and his rifle. The fabrications pervaded his testimony throughout.


Unless you think the man with the rifle, described by Rowland, was about 3 to 4 feet tall. Charles Collin could not accurately place the man and his rifle, as described by Arnold, into his 3D model.



(https://i.vgy.me/yuWsQA.png)



Mr. SPECTER - How much, if any, or all of that rifle could you see?
Mr. ROWLAND - All of it.
Mr. SPECTER - You could see from the base of the stock down to the tip of the end of the rifle?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
.
.
.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you give us an estimate on his height?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; I couldn't. That is why I said I can't state what height he would be. He was just slender in build in proportion with his width.
.
.
.
Mr. ROWLAND - Seemed, well, I can't state definitely from my position because it was more or less not fully light or bright in the room. He appeared to be fair complexioned, not fair, but light complexioned, but dark hair.
.
.
.
Mr. ROWLAND - He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. . . . He had on dark slacks or blue jeans, I couldn't tell from that I didn't see but a small portion.
.
.
.
Mr. SPECTER - Which half of the window was open, the bottom half or the top half?
Mr. ROWLAND - It was the bottom half.
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 - How much of the rifle was separated from your line of vision by the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - The entire rifle was in my view.
Mr. SPECTER - In the open part of the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
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.


I underlined the part that I think Jack is referring to as incorrect and would require the man with the rifle to be a midget. However, Arnold Rowland does seem to be unsure about it. And if we include what can be seen through the upper half of the window, it appears to be correct. The rest of it appears to me to be remarkably good. The figure in my 3D model is 5’-9” tall and about 5’ back from the window.

Yes, Arnold Rowland does start “remembering” a lot of things that are obviously wrong. Especially about who was in which window, etc. This is a major reason that I think he probably misremembered when and where he saw the elderly black man.

I think that Arnold Rowland’s associations of the radioed positions of the motorcade with the timing of his sightings appear, for the most part, pretty accurate. And our memories do work mostly by association rather than “instant replay” with all details accurately recorded.

Could Arnold Rowland have made up the man with the rifle? Maybe, but I find it hard to believe that, if he did make it up, that he got so many details right. Plus he gave the basic description of the man with the rifle to his wife before the shots were fired. And he gave a reasonable basic description in his 11/22/63 affidavit and other interviews in the few days after the assassination.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2023, 02:49:52 PM
Five people said they saw the rifle. Only Arnold Rowland said he saw a man with the rifle in the SW corner window. And only Kellerman said he heard JFK speak after being shot through the neck.

Five people said they saw two men on the sixth floor.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 16, 2023, 03:37:40 PM

Unless you think the man with the rifle, described by Rowland, was about 3 to 4 feet tall. Charles Collin could not accurately place the man and his rifle, as described by Arnold, into his 3D model.



(https://i.vgy.me/yuWsQA.png)

There is way more wrong with Rowland’s statements than just that. You are just trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. If you want and need to have Rowland’s statements in your conversation for whatever reason just do it, but there is no justifying it by picking and choosing the parts of his statements you want and claiming you have proven something somehow. What his fabrications, in his statement, prove is he made up the additional person in the SN just like everything else.

 



Mr. SPECTER - How much, if any, or all of that rifle could you see?
Mr. ROWLAND - All of it.
Mr. SPECTER - You could see from the base of the stock down to the tip of the end of the rifle?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
.
.
.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you give us an estimate on his height?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; I couldn't. That is why I said I can't state what height he would be. He was just slender in build in proportion with his width.
.
.
.
Mr. ROWLAND - Seemed, well, I can't state definitely from my position because it was more or less not fully light or bright in the room. He appeared to be fair complexioned, not fair, but light complexioned, but dark hair.
.
.
.
Mr. ROWLAND - He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. . . . He had on dark slacks or blue jeans, I couldn't tell from that I didn't see but a small portion.
.
.
.
Mr. SPECTER - Which half of the window was open, the bottom half or the top half?
Mr. ROWLAND - It was the bottom half.
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 - How much of the rifle was separated from your line of vision by the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - The entire rifle was in my view.
Mr. SPECTER - In the open part of the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
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.


I underlined the part that I think Jack is referring to as incorrect and would require the man with the rifle to be a midget. However, Arnold Rowland does seem to be unsure about it. And if we include what can be seen through the upper half of the window, it appears to be correct. The rest of it appears to me to be remarkably good. The figure in my 3D model is 5’-9” tall and about 5’ back from the window.

Yes, Arnold Rowland does start “remembering” a lot of things that are obviously wrong. Especially about who was in which window, etc. This is a major reason that I think he probably misremembered when and where he saw the elderly black man.

I think that Arnold Rowland’s associations of the radioed positions of the motorcade with the timing of his sightings appear, for the most part, pretty accurate. And our memories do work mostly by association rather than “instant replay” with all details accurately recorded.

Could Arnold Rowland have made up the man with the rifle? Maybe, but I find it hard to believe that, if he did make it up, that he got so many details right. Plus he gave the basic description of the man with the rifle to his wife before the shots were fired. And he gave a reasonable basic description in his 11/22/63 affidavit and other interviews in the few days after the assassination.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 16, 2023, 04:15:50 PM
I think that Arnold Rowland’s associations of the radioed positions of the motorcade with the timing of his sightings appear, for the most part, pretty accurate.

"Pretty accurate"? LOL. They were extraordinarily accurate. Even Mr. Bugliosi (or whoever wrote that portion of his book) acknowledged this.

So your theory is that the guy who showcases brilliant memory about even the tiniest verifiable details bizarrely turns into a fantasist/hallucinator/liar when it comes to the 'elderly Negro'.

And why do you put forward this ridiculous theory, Mr. Collins? One reason and one reason alone: because the Warren Report tells you to. And we all know why you're here: to defend the Warren Report version of events at all costs, even if it means debasing your own intellectual and ethical dignity (as you have been doing here on the Rowland issue).

Was Mrs. Rowland asked whether Mr. Rowland ever talked to her about all the other non-rifle-holding people he remembered in the area that day? And if her answer had been no, what significance should be given to that circumstance? Answer: none. Mr. Rowland's big preoccupation-------------not unreasonably-------------was with the man with the rifle whom he had seen.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 16, 2023, 04:20:06 PM
Five people said they saw two men on the sixth floor.


Who were they? And how many of them said so on 11/22/63.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 16, 2023, 04:27:35 PM
"Pretty accurate"? LOL. They were extraordinarily accurate. Even Mr. Bugliosi (or whoever wrote that portion of his book) acknowledged this.

So your theory is that the guy who showcases brilliant memory about even the tiniest verifiable details bizarrely turns into a fantasist/hallucinator/liar when it comes to the 'elderly Negro'.

And why do you put forward this ridiculous theory, Mr. Collins? One reason and one reason alone: because the Warren Report tells you to. And we all know why you're here: to defend the Warren Report version of events at all costs, even if it means debasing your own intellectual and ethical dignity (as you have been doing here on the Rowland issue).

Was Mrs. Rowland asked whether Mr. Rowland ever talked to her about all the other non-rifle-holding people he remembered in the area that day? And if her answer had been no, what significance should be given to that circumstance? Answer: none. Mr. Rowland's big preoccupation-------------not unreasonably-------------was with the man with the rifle whom he had seen.

 Thumb1:


They were extraordinarily accurate.


No, not all of them. If you want to insist that Rowland had the time of the motorcade at Main & Ervay “extremely accurate”, then I submit that he was about eight minutes off…
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 16, 2023, 04:40:08 PM

They were extraordinarily accurate.


No, not all of them. If you want to insist that Rowland had the time of the motorcade at Main & Ervay “extremely accurate”, then I submit that he was about eight minutes off…

The extraordinary accuracy pertains to the fact that he not just had the presence of mind to take note of the broadcast at the time, he also recalls it perfectly. This allows the event under description to be reliably timestamped:

Mr. SPECTER - How do you fix the time that he was there until the procession reached the intersection of Commerce and Ervay?
Mr. ROWLAND - The police motorcycle was almost in front of me with the speaker on very loud, giving the relative position about every 15 or 20 seconds of the motorcade, and this is how I was able to note that.


I can't think of any civilian witness in the case with this level of attentiveness and recall. Indeed, I suspect Mr. Rowland may have been on the autism spectrum: he gives the impression of that highly developed 'left brain' aptitude that one encounters in some talented scientists, mathematicians, engineers, tech people.

If his testimony were favorable to the official story, rather than a disaster for it, you would be singing his praises. You would be feting him as the greatest witness ever!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 16, 2023, 04:51:49 PM
The extraordinary accuracy pertains to the fact that he not just had the presence of mind to take note of the broadcast at the time, he also recalls it perfectly. This allows the event under description to be reliably timestamped:

Mr. SPECTER - How do you fix the time that he was there until the procession reached the intersection of Commerce and Ervay?
Mr. ROWLAND - The police motorcycle was almost in front of me with the speaker on very loud, giving the relative position about every 15 or 20 seconds of the motorcade, and this is how I was able to note that.


I can't think of any civilian witness in the case with this level of attentiveness and recall. Indeed, I suspect Mr. Rowland may have been on the autism spectrum: he gives the impression of that highly developed 'left brain' aptitude that one encounters in some talented scientists, mathematicians, engineers, tech people.

If his testimony were favorable to the official story, rather than a disaster for it, you would be singing his praises. You would be feting him as the greatest witness ever!

 Thumb1:

Whatever became of Arnold Rowland? Must be in some advanced science field or an eccentric inventor who wishes to be anonymous.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 16, 2023, 04:52:50 PM
Whatever became of Arnold Rowland? Must be in some advanced science field or an eccentric inventor who wishes to be anonymous.

Neither, but you're actually not far off!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 16, 2023, 04:59:22 PM
The extraordinary accuracy pertains to the fact that he not just had the presence of mind to take note of the broadcast at the time, he also recalls it perfectly. This allows the event under description to be reliably timestamped:

Mr. SPECTER - How do you fix the time that he was there until the procession reached the intersection of Commerce and Ervay?
Mr. ROWLAND - The police motorcycle was almost in front of me with the speaker on very loud, giving the relative position about every 15 or 20 seconds of the motorcade, and this is how I was able to note that.


I can't think of any civilian witness in the case with this level of attentiveness and recall. Indeed, I suspect Mr. Rowland may have been on the autism spectrum: he gives the impression of that highly developed 'left brain' aptitude that one encounters in some talented scientists, mathematicians, engineers, tech people.

If his testimony were favorable to the official story, rather than a disaster for it, you would be singing his praises. You would be feting him as the greatest witness ever!

 Thumb1:


This allows the event under description to be reliably timestamped


Do you believe that “Arnie’s time stamp” of the motorcade being at Main & Ervay at 12:30 was accurate?

Heck, Arnie didn’t even know that the assassination took place on a Friday, he thought it was Thursday and had to be corrected.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 16, 2023, 05:10:52 PM

This allows the event under description to be reliably timestamped


Do you believe that “Arnie’s time stamp” of the motorcade being at Main & Ervay at 12:30 was accurate?

As already explained, Mr. Collins, his clear recollection of hearing that the motorcade was at Main & Ervay is what made possible a reliable timestamp.

As for time by the clock, Mr. Rowland expressly disclaimed infallibility here:

"Let me see, the exact time I do not remember, but the man, the colored man, was in that window until the procession reached Commerce I mean Main, and Ervay."

Pure Walter Mitty stuff, eh?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 16, 2023, 05:35:02 PM
There is way more wrong with Rowland’s statements than just that. You are just trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. If you want and need to have Rowland’s statements in your conversation for whatever reason just do it, but there is no justifying it by picking and choosing parts of his statements you want and claiming you have proven something somehow. What his fabrications in his statement prove is he made up the additional person in the SN just like everything else.


There is way more wrong with Rowland’s statements than just that.


Yes, I agree.


You are just trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.


No, I am trying to make a point (that, as far as the description of the man with the rifle, he got a lot of details right).



If you want and need to have Rowland’s statements in your conversation for whatever reason just do it, but there is no justifying it by picking and choosing parts of his statements you want and claiming you have proven something somehow.


I don’t believe that I claimed to have proven anything. I am simply pointing out why I have a problem concluding that “he made everything up” when it appears to me that he got quite a bit of it right. And when it appears that he told others about it right away.


What his fabrications in his statement prove is he made up the additional person in the SN just like everything else.


I disagree. I think his wife said that he sometimes exaggerates some things in order to make himself look smarter than he is. And I think that tendency of his affected his testimony. Some of the details that he claimed to remember were way more that anybody that I have ever known could have possibly remembered. And I have know some highly intelligent people, some of whom did have what would be called a “photographic memory.” And it is typical for those of us who are human (all of us) to misremember some things quite often.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 16, 2023, 05:42:31 PM
As already explained, Mr. Collins, his clear recollection of hearing that the motorcade was at Main & Ervay is what made possible a reliable timestamp.

As for time by the clock, Mr. Rowland expressly disclaimed infallibility here:

"Let me see, the exact time I do not remember, but the man, the colored man, was in that window until the procession reached Commerce I mean Main, and Ervay."

Pure Walter Mitty stuff, eh?

 Thumb1:


When you consider that after that he said this:


Mr. SPECTER - Over how long a time span did you observe the Negro man to be in the window marked "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - He was there before I noticed the man with the rifle and approximately 12:30 or when the motorcade was at Main and Ervay he was gone when I looked back and I had looked up there about 30 seconds before or a minute before.
Mr. SPECTER - How long after you heard the motorcade was at Main and Ervay did the motorcade pass by where you were?
Mr. ROWLAND - Another 5 minutes.



His accuracy is eight freaking minutes off…
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 16, 2023, 06:22:50 PM

When you consider that after that he said this:


Mr. SPECTER - Over how long a time span did you observe the Negro man to be in the window marked "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - He was there before I noticed the man with the rifle and approximately 12:30 or when the motorcade was at Main and Ervay he was gone when I looked back and I had looked up there about 30 seconds before or a minute before.
Mr. SPECTER - How long after you heard the motorcade was at Main and Ervay did the motorcade pass by where you were?
Mr. ROWLAND - Another 5 minutes.



His accuracy is eight freaking minutes off…

Was Mr. Rowland given a chance to read the transcript and make any corrections?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 17, 2023, 10:48:26 PM

There is way more wrong with Rowland’s statements than just that.


Yes, I agree.


You are just trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.


No, I am trying to make a point (that, as far as the description of the man with the rifle, he got a lot of details right).



If you want and need to have Rowland’s statements in your conversation for whatever reason just do it, but there is no justifying it by picking and choosing parts of his statements you want and claiming you have proven something somehow.


I don’t believe that I claimed to have proven anything. I am simply pointing out why I have a problem concluding that “he made everything up” when it appears to me that he got quite a bit of it right. And when it appears that he told others about it right away.


What his fabrications in his statement prove is he made up the additional person in the SN just like everything else.


I disagree. I think his wife said that he sometimes exaggerates some things in order to make himself look smarter than he is. And I think that tendency of his affected his testimony. Some of the details that he claimed to remember were way more that anybody that I have ever known could have possibly remembered. And I have know some highly intelligent people, some of whom did have what would be called a “photographic memory.” And it is typical for those of us who are human (all of us) to misremember some things quite often.

" I am trying to make a point (that, as far as the description of the man with the rifle, he got a lot of details right).”
 
“I don’t believe that I claimed to have proven anything. I am simply pointing out why I have a problem concluding that “he made everything up” when it appears to me that he got quite a bit of it right. And when it appears that he told others about it right away.”
 
“I disagree. I think his wife said that he sometimes exaggerates some things in order to make himself look smarter than he is. And I think that tendency of his affected his testimony. Some of the details that he claimed to remember were way more that anybody that I have ever known could have possibly remembered. And I have know some highly intelligent people, some of whom did have what would be called a “photographic memory.” And it is typical for those of us who are human (all of us) to misremember some things quite often.”

 

You mean like this from the original A Rowland 11/22 Sheriff’s Affidavit:

“It must have been 5 or 10 minutes later when we were just looking at the surroudding [sic] buildings when I looked up at the Texas Book [cross-out -- Suppository?] building and noticed that the second floor from the top had two adjoining windows which were open, and upon looking I saw what I thought was a man standing back about 15 feet from the windows and was holding in his arms what appeared to be a hi [sic] powered rifle because it looked like it had a scope on it. He appeared to be holding this at a parade rest sort of position. “

 

Arnold states the person with the rifle is 15 feet back, (not 4 feet,) from the window and holding the rifle both in his arms and then changes it to “at a Parade Rest position” in the next sentence. 

The 3D Model is nothing more than an artist’s depiction of a man in the window, without regard for the description of the man and the rifle in the window, or the subsequent dimensions of the window.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 18, 2023, 01:14:56 AM
" I am trying to make a point (that, as far as the description of the man with the rifle, he got a lot of details right).”
 
“I don’t believe that I claimed to have proven anything. I am simply pointing out why I have a problem concluding that “he made everything up” when it appears to me that he got quite a bit of it right. And when it appears that he told others about it right away.”
 
“I disagree. I think his wife said that he sometimes exaggerates some things in order to make himself look smarter than he is. And I think that tendency of his affected his testimony. Some of the details that he claimed to remember were way more that anybody that I have ever known could have possibly remembered. And I have know some highly intelligent people, some of whom did have what would be called a “photographic memory.” And it is typical for those of us who are human (all of us) to misremember some things quite often.”

 

You mean like this from the original A Rowland 11/22 Sheriff’s Affidavit:

“It must have been 5 or 10 minutes later when we were just looking at the surroudding [sic] buildings when I looked up at the Texas Book [cross-out -- Suppository?] building and noticed that the second floor from the top had two adjoining windows which were open, and upon looking I saw what I thought was a man standing back about 15 feet from the windows and was holding in his arms what appeared to be a hi [sic] powered rifle because it looked like it had a scope on it. He appeared to be holding this at a parade rest sort of position. “

 

Arnold states the person with the rifle is 15 feet back, (not 4 feet,) from the window and holding the rifle both in his arms and then changes it to “at a Parade Rest position” in the next sentence. 

The 3D Model is nothing more than an artist’s depiction of a man in the window, without regard for the description of the man and the rifle in the window, or the subsequent dimensions of the window.



Arnold states the person with the rifle is 15 feet back, (not 4 feet,) from the window and holding the rifle both in his arms and then changes it to “at a Parade Rest position” in the next sentence. 


Arnold's view from his position on the east side of Houston Street would make it difficult to accurately say exactly how far back from the window he was. Arnold did revise his original estimate in his WC testimony to 3'-5'. And I had to look up the names and related images of the military rifle positions. I imagine most folks who were not actively involved in the military and it's lingo would have to look the positions up also. I think that this is a good example of Arnold Rowland trying to make himself look smarter (thought he knew something, but didn't) than he really was.


The 3D Model is nothing more than an artist’s depiction of a man in the window, without regard for the description of the man and the rifle in the window, or the subsequent dimensions of the window.

I don't think that you fully understand the utility or value of the 3D models.  Here are some images from my model without the lighting effects of the position of the sun at 12:15 on 11/22/63.


First is a screen shot of the application-in-use that shows the sixth floor with the sniper's nest on the left corner and the man with the rifle standing about six feet back from the SW corner window. It is simple to move objects around and simple to move the "camera" around to see what things look like from various locations.


(https://i.vgy.me/8AluoZ.png)



Next is an areal view from above that shows the seventh floor of the TSBD (no roof) and a portion of the Dealey Plaza area without all the structures, etc. I have drawn a red arrow to a figure that is at a position ~210' "south" and ~62' "east" of the SE corner of the TSBD. This is the approximate position of Arnold Rowland according to my measurements on the Don Roberdeau map. This figure is at the street level, about 61' below the window sill on the sixth floor of the TSBD. The windows on the TSBD are mostly generic but resized to the approximate size of the TSBD windows.

(https://i.vgy.me/1O6qja.png)



Here is what the camera view, of the (5'-9") man with the rifle at ~6' back from the window, looks like from the position of the Arnold Rowland character as I described above. The rifle is not a Carcano but is the same length as the Carcano model in evidence.

(https://i.vgy.me/0eRvL9.png)



And a camera view, of the (5'-9") man with the rifle standing ~10' back from the window, from Arnold Rowland's viewpoint.

(https://i.vgy.me/lBoaDu.png)



I hope that you can begin to see what a valuable tool the 3D models are. Mine is rather crude compared to James' and Jerry's. But it has served many purposes for me. The first purpose was for me to get an idea of what Howard Brenan could see. There have been many more. You might have noticed a compass in the first image that allows proper orientation of the building so that the various views can be seen at a particular time of day (ie: 11/22/63 @ 12:30 pm). The positions of the shadows cast, due to the correct position of the sun at any particular time, have helped determine the time of day of some photos taken that day. The models are valuable tools, take considerable time and effort to create, but worth it in my opinion.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 19, 2023, 01:08:10 AM
Propositions:

1. BRW was on the 6th floor TSBD from 12:05 -12:24
2. BRW was sitting on the low rolling cart and he was right up close to a middle window so that he could see Elm st and the sidewalk right in front of TSBD.
3. If BRW was looking forwards ,  his peripheral vision would not extend to include a point 5ft back from the SW window.
4. The gunmans initial plan was to shoot from
 The SW window taking Ada stage of the shaded corner. Upon getting to 5ft from SW window the gunman had LOS to BRW.
5. The gunman approached the SW window by slowly walking and thus silently arrived to a point 5ft away from the SW window
6. The gunman had not yet decided to use the SE window nor had he prepared it earlier by placing a box on the window ledge. Otherwise he would have gone around behind BRW to go initially to the SE window rather than going to the SW window.
7. Upon seeing BRW, the gunman retreated back several steps to be out of LOS and then he froze for a few seconds to consider what to do.
8. Rowland saw the gunman in this interval of probably  not more than 10 secs.
9. The gunman decided to go to the SE window and bypass behind BRW. He planned to wait on that east side aisle at a point within about 70 of the SE window , a point where he could have a peek at the rear elevators and the rear staircase.
10. The gunmans plan was to wait there and hope that BRW would leave the floor.
11. If BRW did not leave the floor, the gunman was going to hide his rifle in some boxes and then walk to the staircase and leave the 6th floor via staircase.
12. The gunman may have been a member of the floor crew, thus if he were seen after no shooting has happened then there was no reason for anyone to be suspicious of him.
13. Since BRW did leave the floor approx 12:24, the gunman then being within 70 ft of the SE window had 1 minute to place the box on the window ledge (to shade the sun ) and therefore the box was placed in time to be in the Bronson film approx 12:25.
14. The gunman was not seen in Hughes or Bronson film because he was sitting on box left of the pipes and thus behind a portion of wall.
15. The angle from Brennan position allows a LOS to a person sitting on the box left of the pipes.
 16: the gunman escaped via use of the East elevator and was going down when Baker and Truly were going up via staircase. The WC designation of Jack Dougherty as the operator of that elevator was not corroborated. Piper does not confirm speaking with Dougherty.
17. It is improbable  that Oswald was the gunman if Oswald was seen by Carolyn Arnold at 12:15 (or later) seated in the 2nd floor lunchroom.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 19, 2023, 05:46:40 AM
How did BRW not see this “out of his LOS” gunman when he was leaving the sixth floor?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 20, 2023, 02:28:16 AM
BRW left the 6th floor via elevator to 5th floor approx 12:24 and went to join Norman and Jarman who had arrived at 12:24 to their respective windows.

So the gunman on 6th saw BRW leave the floor and he placed the box within 1 minute on the SW window ledge. This is plausible if the gunman is within 70 ft of the SW window.

The shooter after firing 3 shots with a rifle that can fire 3 shots  in about 4 secs as Harold Norman heard them spaced per his film recorded demonstration of such spacing in his “Boom Clack Clack” sequence.

The shooter therefore was  NOT using the MC rifle that was found on the 6th floor  at 1:22 by Weizmann and Boone.

The shooter had to have used the east elevator to by  pass Mrs Dorothy Garner on the 4th floor

This scenario however, cannot be possible if Baker/Truly upon reaching the 5th floor saw the WEST elevator was gone and could see the East elevator was still on 5 th floor , to which they claim to have then taken the east elevator to the rooftop, and bypassed 6th floor without Baker even checking the floor.

This seems suspiciously like CYA and therefore imo the EAST elevator was the one that was gone and then Jack Dougherty was selected by WC to be using the west elevator which is questionable since Eddie Piper does not confirm having spoken or seen Jack Dougherty.

The 6th floor shooter has to get off the floor and down and out of the TSBD building which makes the staircase not probable due to the presence of Dorothy Garner near the staircase on 4th floor as early as 40 secs post shots.

Other alternatives:

1. The shooter was dressed like a plain clothes officer , possibly WAS  a legitimate officer who hid himself somehow on 7th floor and then came down later when there was much confused traffic going up and down the stairs.

2. The shooter used a vent shaft on the 6th floor to get himself down to the top of the passenger elevator on 4th floor thru the elevator shaft. Then into the elevator and took it to the ground floor. ( Armstrong theory)

3. The shooter has an accomplice holding the the East elevator locked on 6th floor after 12:25 just after BRW had left the 6th floor to join up with Norman/Jarman on 5th floor. The shooter ran with his rifle to the East elevator in 25 secs after last shot fired and he waa delivered to 2nd floor landing  by 50 secs post shots. The accomplice then returned east elevator to the 5th floor by 70 secs post shots. Jack Dougherty becomes a possible candidate to be the accomplice in this hypothetical scenario.

I hope I’ve answered Mr. Devils advocate question :)
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 20, 2023, 06:46:32 AM
No, you have not. Where was the gunman when he “saw BRW leave the sixth floor” and why didn’t BRW see him?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 20, 2023, 07:46:10 AM
Where was the gunman when BRW leaves the floor?

The gunman after retreating from the SW window , went around behind BRW all the way over to the east aisle leading to the SE window.

The gunman did not go all the way down the east aisle to the SE window. He stopped at some point along that aisle where he could have LOS to the elevators and rear staircase.

That exact point must be near the corner of row of boxes along that east aisle that would allow the gunman to be able to peek around without exposing his whole body or even much of his head. This theoretical point was less than 100 ft from the SE window, and probably within 70 ft.

So when BRW did leave from the middle aisle, the    Rows of boxes that run north south provide the gunman with  cover.

As BRW exits the middle aisle he is looking in the direction of the elevator and this is when it’s possible for the gunman peeking just around edge of some boxes on the east aisle to see BRW, while BRW missed seeing the gunman.

It’s basically the same  theory as at the SW window, that the angle of the gunmans position peeking at BRW was just outside of the peripheral vision of BRW when BRW approached the rear elevators.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 21, 2023, 03:31:35 PM


Arnold states the person with the rifle is 15 feet back, (not 4 feet,) from the window and holding the rifle both in his arms and then changes it to “at a Parade Rest position” in the next sentence. 


Arnold's view from his position on the east side of Houston Street would make it difficult to accurately say exactly how far back from the window he was. Arnold did revise his original estimate in his WC testimony to 3'-5'. And I had to look up the names and related images of the military rifle positions. I imagine most folks who were not actively involved in the military and it's lingo would have to look the positions up also. I think that this is a good example of Arnold Rowland trying to make himself look smarter (thought he knew something, but didn't) than he really was.


The 3D Model is nothing more than an artist’s depiction of a man in the window, without regard for the description of the man and the rifle in the window, or the subsequent dimensions of the window.

I don't think that you fully understand the utility or value of the 3D models.  Here are some images from my model without the lighting effects of the position of the sun at 12:15 on 11/22/63.


First is a screen shot of the application-in-use that shows the sixth floor with the sniper's nest on the left corner and the man with the rifle standing about six feet back from the SW corner window. It is simple to move objects around and simple to move the "camera" around to see what things look like from various locations.


(https://i.vgy.me/8AluoZ.png)



Next is an areal view from above that shows the seventh floor of the TSBD (no roof) and a portion of the Dealey Plaza area without all the structures, etc. I have drawn a red arrow to a figure that is at a position ~210' "south" and ~62' "east" of the SE corner of the TSBD. This is the approximate position of Arnold Rowland according to my measurements on the Don Roberdeau map. This figure is at the street level, about 61' below the window sill on the sixth floor of the TSBD. The windows on the TSBD are mostly generic but resized to the approximate size of the TSBD windows.

(https://i.vgy.me/1O6qja.png)



Here is what the camera view, of the (5'-9") man with the rifle at ~6' back from the window, looks like from the position of the Arnold Rowland character as I described above. The rifle is not a Carcano but is the same length as the Carcano model in evidence.

(https://i.vgy.me/0eRvL9.png)



And a camera view, of the (5'-9") man with the rifle standing ~10' back from the window, from Arnold Rowland's viewpoint.

(https://i.vgy.me/lBoaDu.png)



I hope that you can begin to see what a valuable tool the 3D models are. Mine is rather crude compared to James' and Jerry's. But it has served many purposes for me. The first purpose was for me to get an idea of what Howard Brenan could see. There have been many more. You might have noticed a compass in the first image that allows proper orientation of the building so that the various views can be seen at a particular time of day (ie: 11/22/63 @ 12:30 pm). The positions of the shadows cast, due to the correct position of the sun at any particular time, have helped determine the time of day of some photos taken that day. The models are valuable tools, take considerable time and effort to create, but worth it in my opinion.

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

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

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 21, 2023, 08:33:04 PM
The model is no better than the info placed into it. The window opening is a maximum 30 inches when opened. The window starts 14 inches from the floor and the total opening referenced by LHO is 44 inches off of the floor. LHO was a full 25 inches taller than the window opening. Maybe a trip to Dealey Plaza and actually view someone in the widow would help you.

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



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

Agreed.



The window opening is a maximum 30 inches when opened.

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



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

Yes, approximately. So does mine.



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

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


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

(https://i.vgy.me/etNtoj.png)



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

(https://i.vgy.me/E0AjSh.png)



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

(https://i.vgy.me/gGP5x6.png)



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


Maybe a little experimenting with an actual 3D model would help you.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 22, 2023, 02:49:58 PM


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

Agreed.



The window opening is a maximum 30 inches when opened.

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



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

Yes, approximately. So does mine.



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

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


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

(https://i.vgy.me/etNtoj.png)



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

(https://i.vgy.me/E0AjSh.png)



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

(https://i.vgy.me/gGP5x6.png)



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


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

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

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

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

You really need to read Rowland's varuious descriptions of the imaginary person. These views in no way represent his testimony.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 22, 2023, 04:50:18 PM
Maybe a little experimenting with an actual 3D model would help you.

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


You can believe that Arnold Rowland made everything up if you want to. There are many people who do. I am not claiming that Arnold Rowland definitely did see the man with the rifle. But I do believe that it is possible.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on February 23, 2023, 04:08:12 PM

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

Everything that came out of Arnold’s mouth was made up. The actual rifle, description of the man with a rifle, his grades, eyesight, person in SN, on and on. It seems unfathomable to want to pay homage to him with a pseudo 3D model by pretending there are snippets of his testimony that if combined just right makes him look credible.  We have all met someone like Arnold. Unfortunately, Arnold took center stage in the JFK Assassination.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on February 23, 2023, 05:20:44 PM
Everything that came out of Arnold’s mouth was made up. The actual rifle, description of the man with a rifle, his grades, eyesight, person in SN, on and on. It seems unfathomable to want to pay homage to him with a pseudo 3D model by pretending there are snippets of his testimony that if combined just right makes him look credible.  We have all met someone like Arnold. Unfortunately, Arnold took center stage in the JFK Assassination.


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

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

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


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

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



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

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


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

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


So, if you think that Arnold Rowland “made everything up,” then you have to believe that he arbitrarily got all these things right. I think the odds of that being the case are astronomical. Reason enough for me to believe that he might have seen a man with a rifle.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on February 23, 2023, 05:32:40 PM

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

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

 ::)



Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Zeon Mason on March 19, 2023, 01:31:45 AM
Viewing some of Mr.Collins’s computer images inadvertently gave me some insight into a possible answer to one a question: How could Arnold Rowland see a scope like the MC rifle that’s in the Back Yard photo (BYP) appearing to be held by Oswald, from 140 ft away when the scope is barely discernible in the Back Yard photo at distance of only approx 10 ft away?

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

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

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

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

However, I’m not certain if the contrast of a light Khaki shirt would be as much contrast as a white T-shirt, and since the eye witness Brennan and Euins do not state seeing a white shirt, then there may be some doubt about my newest revelation :)
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 19, 2023, 05:08:28 AM
Viewing some of Mr.Collins’s computer images inadvertently gave me some insight into a possible answer to one a question: How could Arnold Rowland see a scope like the MC rifle that’s in the Back Yard photo (BYP) appearing to be held by Oswald, from 140 ft away when the scope is barely discernible in the Back Yard photo at distance of only approx 10 ft away?

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

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

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

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

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

Rowland stood about 280' away from the man in the Depository.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/4f/5a/pCB4hPDh_o.jpg)

He estimated the distance at nearly half that.

     Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the distance
          between where you were standing and the man holding
          the rifle whom you have just described?
     Mr. ROWLAND - 150 feet approximately, very possibly more.
          I don't know for sure.
     Mr. SPECTER - Are you very good at judging distances of
          that sort?
     Mr. ROWLAND - Fairly good.
     Mr. SPECTER - Have you had any experience or practice at
          judging such distances?
     Mr. ROWLAND - Yes. Even in using the method in physics or,
          you know, elementary physics of looking at a position in
          two different views, you can tell its distance. I did that 
          quite frequently. And the best I can recollect it was within
          150 to 175 feet.

Rather than leaving it at a good-faith estimate, Rowland had to pepper the details to inflate his intelligence. A recent example is Donald Trump.


Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on March 19, 2023, 10:25:53 AM
Viewing some of Mr.Collins’s computer images inadvertently gave me some insight into a possible answer to one a question: How could Arnold Rowland see a scope like the MC rifle that’s in the Back Yard photo (BYP) appearing to be held by Oswald, from 140 ft away when the scope is barely discernible in the Back Yard photo at distance of only approx 10 ft away?

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

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

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

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

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




Yes, a contrast between the background and the subject makes a big difference. Here is an example:

(https://i.vgy.me/ZwY5YK.png)

Notice the light background contrasts with the dark uniforms of the officers. But the white t-shirt on LHO blends in with the light background. Jerry's image from his 3-D computer model made me realize that I had the windows on the western face of the TSBD spaced inaccurately (my model showed a window behind the man with the rifle). So, when the proper dark background is behind the man with the rifle, the white shirt contrasts well with the dark background. This would make the man with the rifle stand out. And, as you correctly deduced, the dark rifle and scope would contrast well with a white shirt. This would make the rifle and scope stand out. By the way, I believe that LHO was wearing his t-shirt at this time.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Zeon Mason on March 21, 2023, 04:23:43 AM
Rowlands description of the gunmans clothing does not fit Oswald because Rowland describes the outer shirt  with a collar,  as being white or a very light blue.

Now that does not necessarily rule out Oswald having taken off his reddish brown shirt and wearing some other light blue or white shirt (with collar) unbuttoned, and exposing his white T shirt, while theoretically holding a rifle at 12:15 near the SW window 6th floor TSBD.

It just introduces yet another complication to the actions and movements of Oswald in this theoretical scenario of going up to 6th floor at 12:12, seen at SW window 12:15 holding a rifle then back down to 2nd floor lunchroom to be seen by Carolyn Arnold at least by 12:17, then back up to the 6th floor before 12:23, and also Oswald able to have identified Norman and Jarman which is more probable if Oswald was in the Domino room at 12:23- 12:25.

Somewhere in there, Oswald changed reddish/pinkish/ brown shirt to wear light blue shirt then back again to r/p/b shirt which he then was wearing as (allegedly) seen by Baker not later than 90 sec post shots in the 2nd floor lunchroom.

Now since Mr Jerry Organ has corrected the distance being 280 ft, (my error of 140 ft, due to the WRONG scale which is on the 1963 Dealey Plaza Map) , there may still be a question if at that distance of 280 ft that Rowland could see a scope even if the shirt of the gunman was white (or light blue) and provided more contrast.

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 13, 2023, 12:35:24 AM
And LHO's fingerprints were found on the box. On this information alone it is hard to deny who was the assassin.

The fingerprint evidence against Oswald is a joke. But it is more than that, it is evidence of conspiracy. In all 3 cases where Oswald's prints showed up, they were sorely lacking in frequency considering how much he had supposedly handled those items. The FBI, SS and Dallas Police really dropped the ball when they sheep-dipped Oswald. They got him to pose for pics in his backyard with the murder weapons but they didn't sight in his scope or get more of his prints on the rifle, the bag and the boxes.

Tell me how it is possible to leave so few prints on the following items (without wearing gloves)?

Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence

The Bag

Quote
Latona developed a latent palmprint on the bottom of the bag, the part that was closed. The palmprint was of LHO's heel of his right palm near the wrist on the little finger side. And he developed a fingerprint that matched the left index finger of LHO. There was no other identifiable prints found on the bag as per the report.

Summary: LHO allegedly handled the bag and put the disassembled rifle into it, wonky scope included, carried it into the TSBD, then handled the bag while removing the rifle parts from it, and the only prints he got on the bag were a right palm print and his left pinky fingerprint.

The Boxes

Quote
Box A, CE641, is the top smaller box of the stack of two. It had the left Palm Print of LHO.
Box B, CE653, is the box that is leaning on the windowsill. It had 7 fingerprints and 2 palmprints. None of the identifiable prints on Box B were Oswald's. All but one of the prints belonged to either Studebaker or Lucy. The WC noted there was one palmprint on Box B that was not matched.
Box C, CE654, is the bottom larger box of the stack of two. It had 2 fingerprints that were identifiable and 1 palmprint. All of these prints were either Studebaker's or Lucy's.
Box D, CE648, is the large box away from the window. It had the right Palm Print of LHO. Box D had 2 fingerprints, both of which belong to Lucy and the right palmprint of LHO.

Summary: LHO left 1 left palm print on Box A, 1 right palm print on Box D, far fewer prints than Studebaker or Lucy. But Oswald had been working there for 6 weeks.

The Rifle

Quote
Latona found no prints on the MC during his examination. However, Lt. Day testified that before he had turned the rifle over on Nov. 22, 1963 he "had lifted" a palmprint from the underside of the gun barrel "near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the woodstock when I took the woodstock loose" However, Day did not send this to the FBI until November 26, when he received instructions to send "everything that we had" to the FBI. The print arrived in the FBI Laboratory in Washington on November 29, mounted on a card on which Lieutenant Day had written the words "off underside gun barrel near end of grip C2766." C2766 was the identification number given to the MC rifle found on the sixth floor of the depository.

Summary: LHO had no prints on the MC's barrel, bolt, trigger, stock, clip, ammo, scope and strap even though he supposedly disassembled/reassembled and fired the rifle. The only print of LHO on the rifle was put there post-mortem by the FBI. Just ask Paul Groody.


Conclusion: Oswald never fired the rifle.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan J. Ford on August 01, 2023, 05:03:22 PM
I have recently seen a few posts that seem to indicate that LHO had to have assembled the SN in the last few minutes before the motorcade arrived. However in the Bronson film segment, which was filmed during the epileptic event at approximately 12:15 12:24-12:25, we can see that the window ledge already has the boxes on it. Here's a copy of the SFM image in Robin Unger's Gallery:

(https://i.vgy.me/AHCN1g.jpg)

And here's a link to the larger image in Robin's Gallery:

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=12705&fullsize=1 (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=12705&fullsize=1)


This is evidence that the SN was built before ~12:15 12:24-12:25. We have no way of knowing how long before ~12:15 12:24-12:25, but it does appear that it didn't need to be built at the last minute...

Thanks for sharing this, Mr. Collins, it further illustrates how much deeper the hastily contrived script crafted to frame the wrongly-accused is mired in the stench of horse manure.

Moreover, when it comes to the SN, I have always wondered why Roy "nothing truly about him" Truly wasn't pressed for specifics and greater detail by the Warren Omission after sharing the following testimony ---->

Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can’t answer. I don’t remember when I went over there.
It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the
spent shell cases.


Begs the questions, Why was Mr. Truly over in the sniper's nest and exactly What was he doing "Before" either the rifle or the spent shell casings were found?

Amazing what some people will do for thirty-pieces of silver (bunch of lying treasonous cowards Framing an innocent party).

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on August 01, 2023, 08:25:21 PM
Thanks for sharing this, Mr. Collins, it further illustrates how much deeper the hastily contrived script crafted to frame the wrongly-accused is mired in the stench of horse manure.

Moreover, when it comes to the SN, I have always wondered why Roy "nothing truly about him" Truly wasn't pressed for specifics and greater detail by the Warren Omission after sharing the following testimony ---->

Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can’t answer. I don’t remember when I went over there.
It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the
spent shell cases.


Begs the questions, Why was Mr. Truly over in the sniper's nest and exactly What was he doing "Before" either the rifle or the spent shell casings were found?

Amazing what some people will do for thirty-pieces of silver (bunch of lying treasonous cowards Framing an innocent party).



Truly did not say that he was in the southeast corner before either the rifle or spent shells were found.

 He said: “It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell casings.”

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan J. Ford on August 02, 2023, 05:02:00 PM


Truly did not say that he was in the southeast corner before either the rifle or spent shells were found.

 He said: “It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell casings.”

So, essentially, all semantics aside, he is indeed admitting that he was in the sniper's nest. The issue here isn't one of semantics. The issue here is that the superintendent of the TSBD building--by his own admission--had access to the sniper's nest Before evidence was found (whether he knew or didn't know the spent shell casings were found or not.

Why was he there in the first place, and What was he doing there? are reasonable questions to ask.

Did he plant the shell casings before they were found? Did he realize at some point after planting those shell casings that he had erred and placed the wrong shell casings that would align with one rifle as oppose to the later drafting of the rifle to match the shell casings planted?  Until such time someone can put his body in the SN at a specific timeframe Truly by his own admission left his presence there open for questioning...

Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can’t answer. I don’t remember when I went over there.

With good reason Mr. Truly as you rein in your slip of the tongue...

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on August 02, 2023, 06:44:10 PM
So, essentially, all semantics aside, he is indeed admitting that he was in the sniper's nest. The issue here isn't one of semantics. The issue here is that the superintendent of the TSBD building--by his own admission--had access to the sniper's nest Before evidence was found (whether he knew or didn't know the spent shell casings were found or not.

Why was he there in the first place, and What was he doing there? are reasonable questions to ask.

Did he plant the shell casings before they were found? Did he realize at some point after planting those shell casings that he had erred and placed the wrong shell casings that would align with one rifle as oppose to the later drafting of the rifle to match the shell casings planted?  Until such time someone can put his body in the SN at a specific timeframe Truly by his own admission left his presence there open for questioning...

Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can’t answer. I don’t remember when I went over there.

With good reason Mr. Truly as you rein in your slip of the tongue...


No, Truly does not say that he was in the sniper’s nest period. He was asked about the southeast corner, which includes the area around the sniper’s nest. And, again, it is before he learned that they had discovered the rifle and spent shells. When did he learn about the discoveries? Read his testimony!
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan J. Ford on August 04, 2023, 04:23:05 PM

No, Truly does not say that he was in the sniper’s nest period. He was asked about the southeast corner, which includes the area around the sniper’s nest. And, again, it is before he learned that they had discovered the rifle and spent shells. When did he learn about the discoveries? Read his testimony!


With the southeast corner in mind, what part of the following exchange excuses Roy Truly from being in the southeast corner (where the sniper's next was) ---->

Mr. Belin: When you got up on the sixth floor did you happen to go over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor at about that time or not?
Mr. TBULY. No, sir ; I sure didn’t.

So, if he wasn't over in the southeast corner when he initially went up to share that the wrongly-accused was missing that means sometime before making that particular trip upstairs he was there previously.

Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?

This is the location of the sniper's nest...

Mr. TRULY. That I can’t answer. I don’t remember when I went over there.
It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the
spent shell cases. It could have been at the time I went up and told them about
Lee Harvey Oswald being missing. I cannot remember. But I didn’t know it.
I didn’t see them flnd them, and I didn’t know at the time-1 don’t know how
long they had the things.


Now, amid realizing his slip of the tongue gaff, he now wants to quickly rule out the multiple times that he had access to the sniper's nest, so he pivots and now wants us to believe he was over in the sniper's nest, quote, It could have been at the time I went up and told them about Lee Harvey Oswald being missing, unquote.

Make up your mind Roy Truly. He should have been pressed on precisely When and  Why he was over in the sniper's nest, and What exactly was he doing there. On his initial trip Was he making sure Mr. Dougherty (Jack) planted the right shell casings to match the planted rifle?

Or was he planting the shell casings himself?  because he considered his employee inept to follow simple instructions on where to place the shell casings and then the rifle? Either way the shell-casings didn't match the Mauser rifle. Oops! Do over...insert correct rifle to match erroneously placed shell-casings.

By his own admission Roy Truly places himself over in the sniper's nest ---->

I went over there.

What part of that admission doesn't place him there?

He was there alright, with adequate enough time to spare before the "evidence" was found.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Zeon Mason on August 06, 2023, 04:45:14 AM
The problem is the 12:15 time that Arnold Rowland claims seeing the elderly negro at the SE window , at the same time seeing the white or latin gunman at the SW window.

There’s no way that’s mistaking Harold Norman or James Jarman on the 5th floor since they didn’t get up there until about 12:23 at the earliest.

And so that leaves Bonnie Ray Williams.

However BRW never places himself at the SE window, nor was  BRW wearing a green and red “plaid” shirt, nor had any dust fallen in his hair yet, nor was BRW leaning out the window he was at.

Options:
1. Rowland completely fabricated a story
2. Rowland embellished an original statement sighting ONLY ONE man, the SW window gunman , by adding the of sighting a 2nd man, the elderly balding negro , wearing a red and green plaid shirt,  whom was leaning out the window.
3. Bonnie Ray Williams lied about being on the 6th floor from 12:05-12:20 approx.
 4. Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor , yet unaware that 2 men were on either side of him, one at the SE window “leaning out”  and the other one, with a rifle in hand , almost reaching the SW within about 5ft-7ft of it.
3. BRW was aware of 2 men and decided for some reason not to say anything about it.
4. If Rowland embellished , and therefore only a  SW window gunman was on the 6th floor, then it’s possible that BRWs story is completely true, and he did not see a SW  gunman because the gunman stopping  5ft-7ft from the SW window , beyond the right hand peripheral view of BRW whom was likely looking forward out of the window at  Dealey plaza.

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on August 06, 2023, 01:21:10 PM
The problem is the 12:15 time that Arnold Rowland claims seeing the elderly negro at the SE window , at the same time seeing the white or latin gunman at the SW window.

There’s no way that’s mistaking Harold Norman or James Jarman on the 5th floor since they didn’t get up there until about 12:23 at the earliest.

And so that leaves Bonnie Ray Williams.

However BRW never places himself at the SE window, nor was  BRW wearing a green and red “plaid” shirt, nor had any dust fallen in his hair yet, nor was BRW leaning out the window he was at.

Options:
1. Rowland completely fabricated a story
2. Rowland embellished an original statement sighting ONLY ONE man, the SW window gunman , by adding the of sighting a 2nd man, the elderly balding negro , wearing a red and green plaid shirt,  whom was leaning out the window.
3. Bonnie Ray Williams lied about being on the 6th floor from 12:05-12:20 approx.
 4. Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor , yet unaware that 2 men were on either side of him, one at the SE window “leaning out”  and the other one, with a rifle in hand , almost reaching the SW within about 5ft-7ft of it.
3. BRW was aware of 2 men and decided for some reason not to say anything about it.
4. If Rowland embellished , and therefore only a  SW window gunman was on the 6th floor, then it’s possible that BRWs story is completely true, and he did not see a SW  gunman because the gunman stopping  5ft-7ft from the SW window , beyond the right hand peripheral view of BRW whom was likely looking forward out of the window at  Dealey plaza.



Memories of human beings are often fallible. There are several aspects of Arnold Rowland’s testimony in which the evidence shows he misremembered some items. However, personally, I believe that he probably did see a man with a rifle standing back from the SW corner window around 12:15. I think that he got a lot of the details (that Spector asked about), of the rifleman that he said he saw, correct (as indicated by my 3D computer model). And Arnold Rowland did say something about the rifleman to his wife at the time; and his affidavit of 11/22/63 indicates that he saw a rifleman. There are some boxes between the position of the rifleman, as Rowland describes it, and BRW’s stated position that would tend to block BRW’s view of the rifleman’s indicated (by Arnold Rowland) position. So, I personally believe that Arnold Rowland correctly remembered some details, but remembered some other details incorrectly. This would not be unusual for most any human being’s memory capabilities.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Zeon Mason on August 07, 2023, 08:28:43 AM
I think I agree that Rowlands initial earliest statement of seeing the SW window gunman is probably true, while his later statements that add the elderly balding negro are either some confused post shots observation of Norman at the SE window or are some kind of embellishment (per Rowlands wife’s statements)

It seems less probable that BRW was untruthful, or that BRW would have failed to notice TWO nefarious characters on either side of him on the 6th floor, especially a SE window person who is leaning out the window no less, which would require he probably had to to RAISE the window , which most likely would cause noise and also he would not be so hidden behind a stack boxes  if he did this action , plus, being only about 30 ft from BRW as well.
 
So the situation appears to be just one gunman whom  had intent to shoot from the SW 6th floor window originally , but was basically thwarted unexpectedly by the presence of BRW on the floor.

However, it’s not exactly leading to any conclusion (for me ) that the gunman was Oswald.

In fact, BECAUSE the SW gunman seems to have been surprised by the presence of BRW on the floor, suggests someone who was NOT very familiar with where other TSBD employees would be at that time and also someone who had NOT taken time to make SURE the floor was clear.

Speculatively, it’s as though a gunman had just  arrived to the scene within 15 minutes  , without much pre inspection  of the scene, intending to “shoot and scoot”.

The reasons  to choose the SW window are as follows:

1. The SW allows a very close shot to the forehead of JFK overtop of the windshield of the limo as it slows to make that acute left turn onto Elm st.
2. The angle of the rifle is such that the gunman can be completely hidden in shadow, standing In the SW corner and the rifle theoretically would be difficult to see also as not much part of the barrel ( if any ) would have to be sticking out the window.
3. Such a close shot only 100 ft ( 33 yds) away approx at the slowest movement of the target that would occur , would be a high probability of a 1 shot kill.
4. Because of the high angle from the SW window with LOS essentially in front of and over top of the windshield, the location of the SS agents and accompanying motorcycle escort police would offer virtually no possibility of obstruction even if there had been SS agents riding directly on the JFK limo.

Propositions:
A.  The gunman more probably had a rifle with a scope that was larger and center mounted, thus was seen by Rowland  as appearing similar to a 30.06 Hunting rifle ( vs a smaller side mounted scope of a MC rifle that is less probably seen from 280 ft distance).
B. The gunman arrived to the scene within 15 minutes with plan to shoot and scoot. He chose the SW window originally without having done any preliminary surveillance of the 6th floor, thinking erroneously it would be clear.
C. The choice of the SW window was for the angle that allows a high probability of 1shot kill and also a possible plan to drop the rifle out the building from a west window near the NW corner staircase to a car parked below beside the annex portion of the loading dock. The gunman can then either descend staircase or use an elevator.
D. The gunmans plan was thwarted by presence of BRW, which forced the gunman to relocate himself to the SE window and to wait for BRW to leave the floor.
E. The escape plan for the gunman may have remained the same, the rifle dropped out the NW window and the gunman goes down by staircase or uses elevator.
F. The rifle used was probably one which could be disassembled and concealed in a much smaller container than an MC rifle, which may explain not actually using an MC rifle ( if intended to set up Oswald)

If any of the above are plausible then Alan Fords theory  about the gunman being a contracted floor crew member might be a plausible alternative. Such person arriving late to the scene in pretense, possibly even wearing a work uniform of some sort and concealing rifle disassembled in a regular tool box.

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan J. Ford on August 07, 2023, 04:00:04 PM
The problem is the 12:15 time that Arnold Rowland claims seeing the elderly negro at the SE window , at the same time seeing the white or latin gunman at the SW window.

There’s no way that’s mistaking Harold Norman or James Jarman on the 5th floor since they didn’t get up there until about 12:23 at the earliest.

And so that leaves Bonnie Ray Williams.

However BRW never places himself at the SE window, nor was  BRW wearing a green and red “plaid” shirt, nor had any dust fallen in his hair yet, nor was BRW leaning out the window he was at.

Options:
1. Rowland completely fabricated a story
2. Rowland embellished an original statement sighting ONLY ONE man, the SW window gunman , by adding the of sighting a 2nd man, the elderly balding negro , wearing a red and green plaid shirt,  whom was leaning out the window.
3. Bonnie Ray Williams lied about being on the 6th floor from 12:05-12:20 approx.
 4. Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor , yet unaware that 2 men were on either side of him, one at the SE window “leaning out”  and the other one, with a rifle in hand , almost reaching the SW within about 5ft-7ft of it.
3. BRW was aware of 2 men and decided for some reason not to say anything about it.
4. If Rowland embellished , and therefore only a  SW window gunman was on the 6th floor, then it’s possible that BRWs story is completely true, and he did not see a SW  gunman because the gunman stopping  5ft-7ft from the SW window , beyond the right hand peripheral view of BRW whom was likely looking forward out of the window at  Dealey plaza.

Does the research community have any same day photos of the clothing, particularly the shirt Mr. Piper (Eddie) donned that afternoon.

If so it wouldn't surprise if he was, quote, "wearing a red and green plaid shirt", unquote. Mr. Piper certainly fits the "elderly" "balding" man of colour as well. Moreover, there was a young teenage eyewitness that afternoon (cannot recall his name at the moment, he can be seen riding on the back of a policeman's-motorcycle No. 99 in some photos) who also described an individual with balding hair in and/or near the sniper's nest. Sounds consistent with Mr. Rowlands observation as well.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 07, 2023, 04:24:53 PM
Amos Euins
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan J. Ford on August 07, 2023, 04:27:29 PM
Amos Euins

The research community can always count on the exemplary research of Mr. Iacoletti for highlighting/sharing the specific details, Thank you sir!

Addendum...

Mr. SPECTER. What did you see in the building?
Mr. EUINS. I seen a bald spot on this man’s head, trying to look out the
window. He had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Zeon Mason on August 07, 2023, 09:37:57 PM
Euins In the WC testimony was unable to declare that the complexion of the man was dark nor that the man was wearing a green and red plaid shirt

And time of Euins sighting was AS the shots were being fired at 12:30 approx.

Euins has no statements about seeing any person in that SE window at 12:15-12:29 leaning out or whom was a balding negro.

Eddie Piper was always photographed wearing glasses ( even outside also) which suggests he probably had to wear those glasses all the time which suggests he was probably nearsighted.

It’s doubtful therefore that Arnold Rowlands eagle eye would have failed to notice the rather large glasses on the face  of Piper if at the SE window at 12:15, because the purpose of Piper looking out that window wound  probably be to take a look at Dealey plaza activity, which would require him if he was nearsighted to keep his glasses on to have a detailed visual view.

Therefore Eddie Piper is an unlikely candidate.

None of the other black employees of the TSBD  were wearing a green and red plaid shirt so this leaves only the possibility of some nefarious other dark complected person not on the usual TSBD roster of employees.

So either this latter detail by Rowland is embellishment and fictional, or there was an unaccounted for nefarious elderly black man with red and green plaid shirt leaning out the SE TSBD 6th floor at 12:15 , a window which he would have to raise up to do so, and yet BRW somehow was completely unaware of the man from only approx 30 ft distance.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on August 08, 2023, 12:09:17 PM
Does the research community have any same day photos of the clothing, particularly the shirt Mr. Piper (Eddie) donned that afternoon.

If so it wouldn't surprise if he was, quote, "wearing a red and green plaid shirt", unquote. Mr. Piper certainly fits the "elderly" "balding" man of colour as well. Moreover, there was a young teenage eyewitness that afternoon (cannot recall his name at the moment, he can be seen riding on the back of a policeman's-motorcycle No. 99 in some photos) who also described an individual with balding hair in and/or near the sniper's nest. Sounds consistent with Mr. Rowlands observation as well.


In this photo, there is a resemblance of the man in the center with a newspaper folded up under his right arm, to another photo (the second one) that is purportedly of Eddie Piper.

(https://i.vgy.me/CJ3WyX.png)



(https://i.vgy.me/Tc90zm.png)
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan J. Ford on August 08, 2023, 03:43:37 PM
Euins In the WC testimony was unable to declare that the complexion of the man was dark nor that the man was wearing a green and red plaid shirt

And time of Euins sighting was AS the shots were being fired at 12:30 approx.

Euins has no statements about seeing any person in that SE window at 12:15-12:29 leaning out or whom was a balding negro.

Eddie Piper was always photographed wearing glasses ( even outside also) which suggests he probably had to wear those glasses all the time which suggests he was probably nearsighted.

It’s doubtful therefore that Arnold Rowlands eagle eye would have failed to notice the rather large glasses on the face  of Piper if at the SE window at 12:15, because the purpose of Piper looking out that window wound  probably be to take a look at Dealey plaza activity, which would require him if he was nearsighted to keep his glasses on to have a detailed visual view.

Therefore Eddie Piper is an unlikely candidate.

None of the other black employees of the TSBD  were wearing a green and red plaid shirt so this leaves only the possibility of some nefarious other dark complected person not on the usual TSBD roster of employees.

So either this latter detail by Rowland is embellishment and fictional, or there was an unaccounted for nefarious elderly black man with red and green plaid shirt leaning out the SE TSBD 6th floor at 12:15 , a window which he would have to raise up to do so, and yet BRW somehow was completely unaware of the man from only approx 30 ft distance.

Appreciate your astute assessment, Mr. Mason, and cheers to Mr. Collins as well for sharing a couple of photos (which both of them just so happen to buttress your keen observation that Mr. Piper indeed wore glasses).

Just a quick question that either of you and/or the exemplary research of someone like Mr. Iacoletti could bear out, but does the research community know for sure if Mr. Lovelady (Billy Nolan) could not have been at the sniper's window @ 12:15PM?

Could it have been possible that Mr. Rowland saw Mr. Lovelady?

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on August 08, 2023, 09:39:19 PM
Could it have been possible that Mr. Rowland saw Mr. Lovelady?

No, the man described by Mr. Rowland can no more be Mr. Lovelady than he can be Mr. Bonnie Ray Williams. Mr. Piper? Possible, but only just.

In all likelihood, the Cuban-looking fellow seen at the SN window by Mr. Rowland was a member of the external floor-laying crew described by Mr. Harold Norman.

In which case, the reason a Cuban-looking fellow was making himself conspicuous there was so that folks would remember having seen a Cuban-looking fellow there. All part of the original (i.e. false-flag) plan: deliberate misses from that window, to be blamed on pro-Castroites

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Zeon Mason on August 08, 2023, 10:31:49 PM
 Arnold Rowlands description of the SW window gunman wearing a  “white or “light blue shirt with a collar”, (= SOLID rather that pattern color)) is not consistent with either just a white T shirt only or if Oswald was wearing the reddish brown shirt with it.

Rowland also leaves the  choice of Latin or White to describe the complexion of the man.

Since I  have ruled out Oswald as the gunman, then my choice of whom the SW window gunman might have been is one of 2 Cuban  ex BOP / former Alpha 66 members ( a group that for some reason has an Oswald looking guy in one photo with some of them) .

A 2nd gunman might have been a mafia guy whom was seen in the Daltex  building , 3rd floor , carrying a briefcase on that floor several minutes before the JFK limo arrived. He had no alibi and had an arrest record which required him to meet  his parole officer at the time, but which meeting was not corroborated by the parole officer.

This option of 2 gunman  because of John Martino’s alleged death bed confession ( per his wife’s account) that he was part of a conspiracy to hire 2  gunman for $50k

An Alpha 66 member +  a Mafia member
Angry BOP survivor meets  Angry Mob contractor in Miami Fl. ( coincidentally where 1st plan to assassinate JFK failed , followed by 2nd attempt in Chicago , foiled by preempting one Thomas Arthur Vallee, another ex USMC combat veteran trained as a rifleman and of similar 5’9” lightweight body type as Oswald !?)

Coincidences much?

The coincidence of Loran Hall and William Seymour ( 2  ex BOP CIA assets) having statement of visiting an apartment and the Sylvia Odio statement of having seen Oswald in her apartment in the company of 2 “Mexicans” , she being a  member of an anti Castro political group that FBI man Guy Banister in New Orleans was keeping an eye on, whilst at the same time Oswald has an adjacent office to Banister, (with connecting door no less)…um..

About the Oswald similar looking guy in the Alpha 66 photo: I hesitate to say the man IS Oswald because he has the same oddly larger nose as that one photo of Oswald in the collage  collection of all Oswald photos together, ie: The SINGULARLY ANOMALOUS fat nosed Oswald.

I’m sorry  I’m unable to post images, but I’m certain many of the forum members here know exactly the photos or can find them and post them to support or refute the above hypothetical connection of persons.

And how this relates to the thread topic of When the SN was built, is that it follows from the question of why there was a gunman seen by Rowland at the SW window at 12:15 and only for a few seconds, and that the gunman was probably NOT an employee of TSBD. Rowlands “Latin” man with a light blue collar shirt coincides with images of Loran Hall, William Seymour wearing light solid color  shirts with collars.

This is NOT , however any declaration that Hall or Seymour did the job, but to illustrate the coincidences here that point to the Alpha 66 group of which both of them allegedly were members.  Hall actually has WC testimony implying that there was some attempt to recruit him for the job but he declined.

The SW window gunman seems to have not been  familiar with where some employees were going at 12:00 and erroneously presumed the 6th floor would be clear. The gunman arrived perhaps dressed like one of the floor laying crew (light blue shirt w/collar?) that had been contracted by Truly, only this particular “contractor” had other mission to accomplish. Which he was planning to do as a quick 1shot kill from SW 6th floor window, then scoot, beginning his entrance into TSBD taking advantage possibly of the ambulance distraction.

Thus being thwarted by presence of BRW, this (hypothetical) professional Alpha 66 gunman ADAPTED and STAYED on the 6th floor waiting for BRW to leave and as BRW left by 12:24, it fits the timeline of Box In the SE Window in the Bronson film at 12:25 but NOT a box in the window any earlier than that, otherwise Arnold Rowland would have likely seen that detail at 12:15.

And Oswald seen by Carolyn Arnold 12:15-12:17 SEATED in the 2nd floor lunchroom is fair support for the idea of Oswald NOT having been the SW gunman because there’s no way he would know when exactly to go back up, not knowing if BRW has left the floor, nor knowing when /if the JFK had arrived.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Alan Ford on August 08, 2023, 10:51:00 PM
The SW window gunman seems to have not been  familiar with where some employees were going at 12:00 and erroneously presumed the 6th floor would be clear. The gunman arrived perhaps dressed like one of the floor laying crew (light blue shirt w/collar?) that had been contracted by Truly, only this particular “contractor” had other mission to accomplish. Which he was planning to do as a quick 1shot kill from SW 6th floor window, then scoot, beginning his entrance into TSBD taking advantage possibly of the ambulance distraction.

Thus being thwarted by presence of BRW, [...]

Apologies for any confusion my last post may have caused, Mr. Mason----------------the Cuban-looking man I was referring to was the dark-complected, v. bald, middle-aged man in plaid shirt seen by Mr. Rowland hanging out at the SN window. Mr. Rowland's description is not (to put it mildly!) compatible with the appearance of Mr. Bonnie Ray Williams.

As for the SN preparation, Mr. Oswald may very well have helped prepare it. His (bogus) FPCC background almost certainly meant that the original (false-flag) plan included (with his consent) his being identified after the event as a member of the pro-Castro team ostensibly behind the (non-fatal) incident---------------though, obviously, he was at no point being set up for having fired any shots himself. He had other business downstairs @ 12:30pm.

'LHO as sixth-floor shooter' was no more than a wild and absurd fiction invented by the cover-up authorities after the assassination

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Zeon Mason on August 09, 2023, 12:04:24 AM
It almost appears as though there was not a pre planned set up of Oswald because the SE window gunman apparently did not wear a mask or something to alter his face and complexion. And if he was the same person whom Rowland saw at 12:15 at the SW window, he’s taking some big risk of being photographed.

And allowing the patsy to be freely roaming and not prevent him from being on the steps seems unlikely imo.

Problem always comes back to that  MC rifle and when and how it was planted and why it was it planted with an obviously misaligned scope and without powder residue in the barrel, chamber and breech. A scope which it seems unlikely to have ever been in alignment because the mount itself seems to have been incorrectly aligned.

This suggests a rifle hastily taken from Oswalds boarding room or from Paines garage. A rifle which had been ordered  WITHOUT a scope mounted , because if the mount had been affixed by a competent gunsmith (alleged)then the mount would not have ever required any shims to align the scope. The scope may have been sent as separate item NOT mounted , in the same package and Oswald screwed the mount into the rifle stock himself using the Paines garage which happened to coincidentally have a drill press. He might have not gotten it quite right and resorted to using shims OR he PURPOSELY meant to use shims which he could also remove as an insurance policy should someone steal the rifle and use it trying to frame him.

Note: An LN argument presents itself here as well that if the above is possible then it’s possible Oswald could have removed the shims himself and left the rifle purposely to make it appear he was  being set up. ( in line with some vision that if he got caught he could argue the set up defense.) But since the MC rifle found  apparently had no signs of having been fired that day ( no odor , no residue in rifle grooves) then Oswald would have  had to bring TWO rifles to the TSBD 6th floor, leaving the unfired MC rifle as the set up rifle while using and escaping with , whatever rifle he actually fired.

Now Mr Buglio Mytton may be able to refute this idea with some information that I’ve forgotten about so I will wait to see if he does so  before continuing on with a post planted rifle theory.

Otherwise it’s a preplanted theory like Walt Cakebreads which seems a problem also why setting up the patsy this way, unless they stole  the rifle so late on the night of Nov 21/63 that they didn’t have time to shoot a few rounds , nor check the scope alignment and zero.

Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Jack Nessan on August 09, 2023, 04:12:13 AM
It almost appears as though there was not a pre planned set up of Oswald because the SE window gunman apparently did not wear a mask or something to alter his face and complexion. And if he was the same person whom Rowland saw at 12:15 at the SW window, he’s taking some big risk of being photographed.

And allowing the patsy to be freely roaming and not prevent him from being on the steps seems unlikely imo.

Problem always comes back to that  MC rifle and when and how it was planted and why it was it planted with an obviously misaligned scope and without powder residue in the barrel, chamber and breech. A scope which it seems unlikely to have ever been in alignment because the mount itself seems to have been incorrectly aligned.

This suggests a rifle hastily taken from Oswalds boarding room or from Paines garage. A rifle which had been ordered  WITHOUT a scope mounted , because if the mount had been affixed by a competent gunsmith (alleged)then the mount would not have ever required any shims to align the scope. The scope may have been sent as separate item NOT mounted , in the same package and Oswald screwed the mount into the rifle stock himself using the Paines garage which happened to coincidentally have a drill press. He might have not gotten it quite right and resorted to using shims OR he PURPOSELY meant to use shims which he could also remove as an insurance policy should someone steal the rifle and use it trying to frame him.

Note: An LN argument presents itself here as well that if the above is possible then it’s possible Oswald could have removed the shims himself and left the rifle purposely to make it appear he was  being set up. ( in line with some vision that if he got caught he could argue the set up defense.) But since the MC rifle found  apparently had no signs of having been fired that day ( no odor , no residue in rifle grooves) then Oswald would have  had to bring TWO rifles to the TSBD 6th floor, leaving the unfired MC rifle as the set up rifle while using and escaping with , whatever rifle he actually fired.

Now Mr Buglio Mytton may be able to refute this idea with some information that I’ve forgotten about so I will wait to see if he does so  before continuing on with a post planted rifle theory.

Otherwise it’s a preplanted theory like Walt Cakebreads which seems a problem also why setting up the patsy this way, unless they stole  the rifle so late on the night of Nov 21/63 that they didn’t have time to shoot a few rounds , nor check the scope alignment and zero.

Oswald screwed the mount into the rifle stock himself

You think the scope mount was screwed to the rifle's stock not the rifle's chamber and by LHO because of an available drill press?


if the mount had been affixed by a competent gunsmith (alleged)then the mount would not have ever required any shims to align the scope.

Huh? Seriously? Really, this is what you think?
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Zeon Mason on August 13, 2023, 05:44:57 AM
That’s a good point  from Jack, and it was a leap of speculation on my part about Oswald possibly using a drill press to screw the mount onto the rifle .

If it was that sloppy a job, then it would have been evident when they examined the rifle that the mount had not been attached by a gunsmith.

The only question left then is how probable it is that the scope of the MC rifle could  be banged into something such that it causes the scope to be only partially out of alignment relative to the fixed mount, yet able to be aligned once  the angle of the mount was changed by using shims.

If that’s a plausible option ( verified perhaps by an actual experiment) then it narrows the reasons for  the misalignment of the scope to either Oswald doing it or the conspirator doing it or the conspirator not knowing the scope was out of alignment.

However it could also have been a scope that was PREVIOUSLY banged/ damaged by Oswald many months prior to Nov 22/63, which would leave 2 options:

1. Oswald intentionally used the rifle and assembled the rifle with scope knowing it was out of alignment.
2. Someone else fired the rifle and did not realize the scope was out of alignment until time of shooting.
3. Someone else  fired the rifle and DID know the scope was out of alignment.
4. Someone else preplanted the rifle not intending to fire it, and either the scope was already misaligned, or it was damaged as the conspirator hid it wedged into the gap of some pallets stacked with boxes.

It’s seems improbable that a conspirator shooter with intent on firing an MC rifle that he stole from Oswald would not have checked out the alignment and  test fired a few shots before he used the rifle to shoot at JFK.

Theoretically the rifle could have been stolen from the Paines garage ( or Oswald’s boarding room) at least 8 hours before the assassination, thus there should have been time to check the condition of the rifle)

Would the conspirator shooter have waited until the very last hour to steal the MC rifle with intent to fire it, thus no time to check it out? It’s highly doubtful imo.

If the intent was just to set up Oswald by leaving the MC rifle , unfired and with a previously misaligned scope, then the purpose of the conspirators is just to cause a diversionary investigation of Oswald, not necessarily to slam dunk getting him to be found guilty by jury.
Title: Re: When the SN was built
Post by: Charles Collins on August 13, 2023, 11:11:34 AM
That’s a good point  from Jack, and it was a leap of speculation on my part about Oswald possibly using a drill press to screw the mount onto the rifle .

If it was that sloppy a job, then it would have been evident when they examined the rifle that the mount had not been attached by a gunsmith.

The only question left then is how probable it is that the scope of the MC rifle could  be banged into something such that it causes the scope to be only partially out of alignment relative to the fixed mount, yet able to be aligned once  the angle of the mount was changed by using shims.

If that’s a plausible option ( verified perhaps by an actual experiment) then it narrows the reasons for  the misalignment of the scope to either Oswald doing it or the conspirator doing it or the conspirator not knowing the scope was out of alignment.

However it could also have been a scope that was PREVIOUSLY banged/ damaged by Oswald many months prior to Nov 22/63, which would leave 2 options:

1. Oswald intentionally used the rifle and assembled the rifle with scope knowing it was out of alignment.
2. Someone else fired the rifle and did not realize the scope was out of alignment until time of shooting.
3. Someone else  fired the rifle and DID know the scope was out of alignment.
4. Someone else preplanted the rifle not intending to fire it, and either the scope was already misaligned, or it was damaged as the conspirator hid it wedged into the gap of some pallets stacked with boxes.

It’s seems improbable that a conspirator shooter with intent on firing an MC rifle that he stole from Oswald would not have checked out the alignment and  test fired a few shots before he used the rifle to shoot at JFK.

Theoretically the rifle could have been stolen from the Paines garage ( or Oswald’s boarding room) at least 8 hours before the assassination, thus there should have been time to check the condition of the rifle)

Would the conspirator shooter have waited until the very last hour to steal the MC rifle with intent to fire it, thus no time to check it out? It’s highly doubtful imo.

If the intent was just to set up Oswald by leaving the MC rifle , unfired and with a previously misaligned scope, then the purpose of the conspirators is just to cause a diversionary investigation of Oswald, not necessarily to slam dunk getting him to be found guilty by jury.

It appears to me that the FBI demonstrated that Kleins mounted the scope by ordering the same model rifle and scope and finding that it was mounted exactly the same way. I would be willing to bet that both rifles had similar issues with being able to zero the scope at 100-yards. The issue was related to how much adjustment was needed versus how much adjustment was available in the cheap scope. The fact that the mount was offset to the left and well above the bore of the rifle caused more adjustment (from center) than would have been needed for a more typical mount (right above and closer in elevation) to the bore. I also think that if a “banging” caused the scope to be out of alignment, that it would be evident.



Mr. EISENBERG - Now, I now hand you a rifle which is marked C-250. Are you familiar with this rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe it briefly?
Mr. FRAZIER - It is an identical rifle physically to the rifle Commission's Exhibit 139, in that it is the same caliber, 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano Italian Military rifle Model 91/38.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you attempt to determine by use of this rifle whether the scope was mounted on Exhibit 139 by the firm which is thought to have sold Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Would you repeat that, please?
Mr. EISENBERG - Yes.
Did you make an attempt to determine, by use of this C-250, whether the firm which had sold Exhibit 139 had mounted the scope on Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe how you made that attempt?
Mr. FRAZIER - We contacted the firm, Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, and asked them concerning this matter to provide us with a similar rifle mounted in the way in which they normally mount scopes of this type on these rifles, and forward the rifle to us for examination.
In this connection, we did inform them that the scope should be in approximately this position on the frame of the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG - Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. When you say "this position," so that the record is clear could you--
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, yes; in the position in which it now is, approximately three-eighths of an inch to the rear of the receiver ring.
Mr. EISENBERG - On the----
Mr. FRAZIER - On the C-250 rifle.
When we received the rifle C-250, we examined the mount and found that two of the holes had been enlarged, and that screws had been placed through them and threaded into the receiver of the C-250 rifle.
The third hole in the mount had not been used.
We also found that an identical scope to the one on the Commission's rifle 139 was present on the C-250 rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG - Were the screws used in mounting the C-250 rifle in mounting the scope on the C-250 rifle type of screws as those used in mounting the scope on Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - And the holes were the same dimensions?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, they are. And the threads in the holes are the same.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like C-250 admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit 542.
The CHAIRMAN - It may be admitted.



 https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_542.pdf (https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_542.pdf)