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

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



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

Mr. SPECTER - And how much, if any, of his body was obscured by the window frame from that point down to the floor?
Mr. ROWLAND - From where I was standing I could see from his head to about 6 inches below his waist, below his belt.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you see as far as his knees?
Mr. ROWLAND - No.
Mr. SPECTER - And what is your best recollection as to how close to the window he was standing?
Mr. ROWLAND - He wasn't next to the window, but he wasn't very far back. I would say 3 to 5 feet back from the window.
Mr. SPECTER - How much of the rifle was separated from your line of vision by the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - The entire rifle was in my view.

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

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




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



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





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







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

IT IS A PERFECT MATCH FOR WHAT ARNOLD ROWLAND DESCRIBED.

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

First No to the match

Second,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Dan O’Meara

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their first day statements suggested leaving right away...Lovelady & Shelley knew they left the front steps 20 seconds after the shots...The films show it and therefore explain themselves...

You are making excuses...

J Walton Moore was a putative CIA affiliate connected to the Assassination...

You have evidence of that, of course. I'm sure you wouldn't just pull something like that out of your a$$.

Says the guy who is looking at Lovelady & Shelley fast-walking up the Elm St extension and saying it isn't them...

Lovelady told Jarman he was out front and saw Oswald exit the Depository through the front doors...That would have to be no later than 5 minutes after the shots...This shows that Lovelady broke off from Shelley after Shelley led Harvey out the rear Loading Dock...

Couch/Darnell is what is know as "reality"...Therefore it disproves the delusional suggestion that Lovelady & Shelley left the front steps 3 minutes after the shots...The plotters got CIA Shelley to lie and say he left 3 minutes after the shots because they were trying to screw up the dangerous witnessing of Victoria Adams...Couch/Darnell shows the reality of Lovelady & Shelley leaving 20 seconds after the shots...

    You need to source your claims. Somebody telling somebody "something" is clap trap. "The plotters" is Not a source. There's a difference between a film itself being "reality" and the timeline assigned to it. Class is dismissed.

lol John, Albert hasn’t been around as long as your old pal Griff, but he’s been around long enough for the crew at Deep Politics forum to think he was…….. Jim Fetzer !!  How can one person write so much ?  I was sure he was one of the early rogue AI bots lol

I was thinking about the various JFKA discussion groups I have participated in over the years. Prodigy was the first ISP had subscribed to back in 1991 and we had a lively discussion group where I first encountered people such as MTG, Tony Marsh, Bob Artwohl, and Jean Davison to name a few. That group broke up when Prodigy put a tight limit on the number of free posts a person could make each month. From Prodigy I moved to AOL which also had a JFKA group. I don't remember much about it except for the time David Lifton reported me for abuse. I wrote, "David Lifton is either a liar or a loon, there is no third possibility". I don't know why he took exception to that. After that I quit the JFKA forums cold turkey for most of the 2000s. A trip to Dallas in 2008 and a visit to Dealey Plaza and Oak Cliff, rekindled my interest in the subject. Soon after I discovered McAdams Google Group alt.assassination.jfk as well as the unmoderated alt.conspiracy.jfk which we referred to as "the nuthouse". I posted mostly on McAdams' group until his sudden and untimely death I believe in 2021. Since he was the only remaining moderator who could approve posts, that pretty much killed that group. It was shortly there after that Google killed all discussion groups although the last I checked you could still read their archives. Again, I quit cold turkey until last February when I was bored and started searching for JFKA discussion groups and came across this one and soon I was hooked again. I'm reminded of Michael Corleone's statement in the Godfather 3. "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in."