I can't even begin to follow the hairbrained reasoning in this post or who you have arrived at the conclusions contained in it. I might get an aneurism if he tried.

   Your JFK Assassination foundation is currently limited. Try becoming familiar with the JFK Assassination Films. Then, read revered material such as "Pictures Of The Pain".
   Wiegman said he felt the "compression" of a bullet on his face. His seeing SA Lem Johns UP the knoll is also something you are not familiar with. It's Facts such as this which you claim to be "hairbrained". To the contrary, they challenge the currently accepted Wiegman Timeline. And this is in the face of there not being 1 single Fact substantiating that Wiegman was "sprawled" across the steps on the Bell Film. Gaining JFK Assassination knowledge will lead to your gaining confidence/courage. Give it a try.

It took 30 years to go from the crime to her attempted execution (which they botched by allowing a woke request to have an all female team).  What do you think the holdup was?  Do you think conservative republicans were advocating for delay?  You don't think that left wingers are the ones who oppose the death penalty?

"The divide between supporters of the two major political parties shows an erosion of support for the death penalty among Independents and Democrats, but support remains constant among Republicans. According to Gallup’s October 2025 polling, 82% of Republicans favor the death penalty, compared to 47% of Independents, and just 32% of Democrats. These numbers show a 50-point difference in support between the two major political parties."

good for you - and what happened in TN in recent weeks has nothing to do with DEMS or leftists
that's your own ignorant prejudice

It's currently neither since there is not much going on but not sure what leftist TDS point you are trying to make.  A war is something that Congress declares.  Do you know something the rest of us do not?

Dear Herr Comrade Smith,

Everyone should have a case of Trump Disinformation Sanitizer (TDS).

-- Tom

I didn't take a position on this question because I have no way of knowing what Rowland saw and there is nothing the confirms or refutes what he claimed to see.

 
There is nothing that confirms or refutes what he claimed to see??
Are you high?
Rowland claimed to see a slender white guy with a high-powered, scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building in the minutes before the assassination...and you don't think there is anything to confirm or refute this claim!!
There was actually, IN REALITY, a slender white guy with a high-powered, scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building...don't you think this confirms Rowland's claim? 

The things Nutters are forced to say, thanks to the deviousness of the Warren Commission, defy belief.

Again, you are reading far more into my reply than was there. I would find Rowland a bit more credible if he had bothered to alert the nearest cop to what he claimed to have seen.
It would be quite easy for Rowland to make up this story AFTER the shooting. That's why I said he would be more believable had he told his story before the shots were fired, and also much more consequential. This is a perfect illustration of what I just told MGT in another thread on how I judge witnesses. If they are corroborated by other evidence, I believe them. If they are refuted by other evidence, I don't believe them. If they are neither corroborated nor refuted, which is the case with Rowland, I can only say their account MIGHT be true.
That question assumes Oswald would have been walking around that floor at the time BRW was there.
It hasn't been established Oswald was walking around and if he was, it hasn't been established what kind of shirt he was wearing.
Not established.
You seem to have misworded your question so it is hard to know what you meant. BRW is the only one who would have known why he chose the window he did.
There is absolutely nothing Rowland said that refutes the findings of the WC.

Because you are so unfamiliar with the evidence you are unaware that Rowland did tell his story before the shots were fired. Your whole, childish argument disappears.
Rowland's observations are just a piece of the pattern of lies, manipulation, fabrication and omission the Warren Commission used to construct it's report.
Rowland's description of the man with the rifle contains key information confirmed by other eye-witnesses...information that also refutes the WC's Oswald-Did-It narrative.
But there's no point in telling you any of this.
Your undying love for the Warren Commission is creepy.

    This traces back to the timeline of the Darnell Film. It shows Officer Baker running across The Island. The timestamp for those images of Officer Baker is currently accepted as being :20 seconds after the kill shot. Prior to that, the Darnell Film's opening frame shows the driver of Camera Car #2 standing flatfooted outside of his camera car #2. This clearly indicates that all 3 camera cars had been standing still for an extended period of time. Certainly longer than the :20 second timeline attached to Officer Baker running across the Island. Wiegman jumped out of Camera Car #1, and ran down Elm St. He filmed the JFK Limo going under the Triple Underpass. With all 3 camera cars being at a dead stop, a dead stop that was so long that that the driver of Camera Car #2 vacated the vehicle, means the filming of the JFK Limo being on Elm St was far longer than the Zapruder Film leads us to believe. This means the JFK Limo did an extended "rolling stop" or a flat-out "Stop" on Elm St. Extending Officer Baker's currently accepted :20 second timestamp on the Darnell Film also places his confronting Oswald inside the 2nd Floor Lunch Room to a later point in time. There are other dominoes also falling as other timelines are properly put into place. This ALL started with the Hi Definition Opening Frames of the Darnell Film being released by the Sixth Floor Museum. I believe that the Darnell Film Hi Definition revelations also reveals why NBC has Never released their Original Darnell Film or their Original Wiegman Film.   

I can't even begin to follow the hairbrained reasoning in this post or who you have arrived at the conclusions contained in it. I might get an aneurism if he tried.