JACKSON: RIFLE WAS IN WESTERNMOST WINDOW
Gil Jesus
southeast corner of the sixth floor, witness Robert Hill Jackson
testified that he saw the rifle protruding from a window at the
OPPOSITE end of the building:
Mr. SPECTER. Was the window you have just marked as being the spot
from which the rifle protruded, open when you looked up?
Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What is your best recollection as to how far open it was
at that time?
Mr. JACKSON. I would say that it was open like that window there,
halfway.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a window on the sixth floor of the westernmost
portion of the building open halfway as you have described it.
( 2 H 159 )
Walt
window , Arnold Rowland said that the WIDE OPEN (actually only the
bottom half was fully open which could cause some folks to describe
the window as "half open")
window on the WEST end of the sixth floor was where he had seen the
light clothing clad gunman, who had a hunting rifle in his hands. AND
Howard Brennan DESCRIBED the place where he saw the light clothing
clad gunman firing the rifle. Brennan's DESCRIPTION describes the
gunman as STANDING and bracing the rifle against the side of a window
that had to have been WIDE OPEN. The only window that was wide open
on the sixth floor was at the WEST end of the building.
Sam McClung
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:80ad59b8-8081-42bf...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
<quote from double cross p. 334-335>
"Mooney said that both Cain and Nicoletti were actual gunmen for the
hit, being placed at opposite ends of the Dallas Book Depository. In
fact, he asserted it was Cain, not Oswald, who'd actually fired from
the infamous sixth-story window...Mooney's backup, Milwaukee Phil,
stood armed and ready to handle any last-minute interference with the
shooters."
Phil presumably using one of the two .38 automatic pistols provided by
cummings via sheeran via ferrie...
Perhaps the sound of gunfire was to be the precipitating event to get
Oswald to bite on the cyanide capsule that had been inserted between
his teeth...
Bud
> Contrary to the WC's lie that the rifle was fired from a window in the
> southeast corner of the sixth floor, witness Robert Hill Jackson
> testified that he saw the rifle protruding from a window at the
> OPPOSITE end of the building:
>
> Mr. SPECTER. Was the window you have just marked as being the spot
> from which the rifle protruded, open when you looked up?
>
> Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir.
>
> Mr. SPECTER. What is your best recollection as to how far open it was
> at that time?
>
> Mr. JACKSON. I would say that it was open like that window there,
> halfway.
<snicker> What a dope. He was saying the window the rifle was in was
open like that west window (halfway), not that the rifle was sticking
out that window. Idiot.
Gil Jesus
The windows on the westernmost part of the front of the building in CE
348 are not open.
The shades are up, but the windows are not open.
I'm looking at a blowup of the picture right now.
If they were, you could have made out the bottom of the lower window
frame.
Looks like the markings on CE 348 make it just another fraud "exhibit"
that was created after the fact.
Nice try, tho.
Bud
> hey dipshit:
>
> The windows on the westernmost part of the front of the building in CE
> 348 are not open.
>
> The shades are up, but the windows are not open.
>
> I'm looking at a blowup of the picture right now.
Was Jackson looking at a blowup, idiot? They might have looked open
to him in a photo that wasn`t enlarged, right?
> If they were, you could have made out the bottom of the lower window
> frame.
>
> Looks like the markings on CE 348 make it just another fraud "exhibit"
> that was created after the fact.
>
> Nice try, tho.
No, it`s just that you are an idiot. A purposeful one at that. The
witness draws an arrow pointing to the window he saw the rifle in, and
you kooks are still stumped.
And I notice that you cut the testimony right where Specter explains
that this was ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING HOW OPEN THE WINDOW WAS,
AND NOT TO INDICATE WHAT WINDOW JACKSON SAW THE RIFLE IN. Why is it
that you claim LN are the liars, when it is you kooks who get caught
time and time again trying to misrepresent the evidence?
David Von Pein
>>> "What a dope. He was saying the window the rifle was in was open like that west window (halfway), not that the rifle was sticking out that window. Idiot." <<<
Exactly what I was going to berate Gil The Kook for, Bud.
How is it even POSSIBLE to misinterpret what Bob Jackson said there?
Incredible.
Is it any wonder the CT-Kooks keep running around in constant circles,
chasing their tails? They can't even interpret a clear-as-day passage
in the WC volumes.
Prediction......
Gil The Idiot, even after being solidly trounced on this issue (which
a stale crust of bread could have done, of course, because it's so
obvious what Robert Jackson was talking about in the WC passages
Gilbert cited), will still try to resurrect his credibility on this
matter....and Gil will, in true-blue "I'm An Idiot And I Want The
Whole World To Know It" fashion, continue to advocate the notion that
Robert H. Jackson saw a gun sticking out of a window on the west side
of the Depository (instead of the window where we KNOW beyond all
doubt he saw the rifle--Oswald's SN window on the east side of the
building).
Let's watch Gil's idiotic brain go into motion now....
Five...
Four...
Three...
David Von Pein
>>> "The windows on the westernmost part of the front of the building in CE348 are not open." <<<
Gil continues to display his amazing talent for being dead-wrong
nearly 100% of the time.
In CE348 (linked below), which is the exact picture that Robert
Jackson was looking at when he testified in front of the Warren
Commission, the five westernmost windows on the sixth floor are
definitely open (in varying degrees of "openness"):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0485a.htm
Jackson probably was referring to the third window from the left in
the above WC exhibit when he said:
"I would say that it [the window from which the rifle was
protruding] was open like that window there, halfway."
BTW, Gil conveniently left out this continuation of the Specter/
Jackson exchange, which further clarifies things about the windows
that Jackson was referring to in his testimony:
ARLEN SPECTER -- "My last comment, as to the description of your last
window, is only for the purpose of what you have said in identifying a
window to show how far open the window was."
ROBERT JACKSON -- "Yes."
SPECTER -- "Which you heretofore marked with an arrow, correct?"
JACKSON -- "Yes, sir."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0084a.htm
dcwi...@netscape.net
> >>> "The windows on the westernmost part of the front of the building in CE348 are not open." <<<
>
> Gil continues to display his amazing talent for being dead-wrong
> nearly 100% of the time.
>
> In CE348 (linked below), which is the exact picture that Robert
> Jackson was looking at when he testified in front of the Warren
> Commission, the five westernmost windows on the sixth floor are
> definitely open (in varying degrees of "openness"):
>
>
> Jackson probably was referring to the third window from the left in
> the above WC exhibit when he said:
>
> "I would say that it [the window from which the rifle was
> protruding] was open like that window there, halfway."
>
> BTW, Gil conveniently left out this continuation of the Specter/
> Jackson exchange, which further clarifies things about the windows
> that Jackson was referring to in his testimony:
>
> ARLEN SPECTER -- "My last comment, as to the description of your last
> window, is only for the purpose of what you have said in identifying a
> window to show how far open the window was."
>
> ROBERT JACKSON -- "Yes."
>
> SPECTER -- "Which you heretofore marked with an arrow, correct?"
>
> JACKSON -- "Yes, sir."
>
Unfortunately, Jackson was in the minority of people who described the
state of the rifle window. Most of the others described the window as
wide open. This includes witnesses Howard Brennan, Ronald Fischer, &
Robert Edwards, & newsperson Mal Couch.
dw
David Von Pein
>>> "This includes witnesses Howard Brennan, Ronald Fischer, & Robert Edwards, & newsperson Mal Couch." <<<
And what side of the building did each and every one of those people
say they saw the gunman and/or the gun in?
Gil Jesus
Arnold Rowland corroborated Jackson's description of the rifle in the
right side window of the WESTERNMOST (left side in the picture CE
356 ) with his testimony and his marking of exhibit CE 356:
Mr. SPECTER. Now, by referring to the photograph on this Commission
Exhibit No. 356, will you point to the window where you observed this
man?
Mr. ROWLAND. This was very odd. There were this picture was not taken
immediately after that, I don't think, because there were several
windows, there are pairs of windows, and there were several pairs
where both windows were open fully and in each pair there was one or
more persons hanging out the window. Yet this was on the west corner
of the building, the sixth floor, the first floor--second floor down
from the top, the first was the arched, the larger windows, not the
arch, but the larger windows, and this was the only pair of windows
where both windows were completely open and no one was hanging out the
windows, or next to the window. It was this pair of windows here at
that time.
Mr. SPECTER. All right. Will you mark that pair of windows with a
circle?
(Witness marking.)
( 2 H 169 )
Rowland's circle and arrow are on the LEFT side windows in CE 356:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0488b.htm
Then Rowland describes how windows look when they're open:
Mr. SPECTER. What is your best recollection as to how far each of
those windows were open?
Mr. ROWLAND. To the fullest extent that they could be opened.
Mr. SPECTER. What extent would that be?
Mr. ROWLAND. Being as I looked half frame windows, that would be
halfway of the entire length of the window.
Then Specter turned his attention to the "sniper's nest" windows,
which in CE 356 are opened:
Mr. SPECTER. Is that the approximate status of those windows depicted
here in Exhibit 356?
Mr. ROWLAND. Yes.
Specter's questioning then returns to the WESTERNMOST windows:
Mr. SPECTER. In which of those double windows did you see the man and
rifle?
Mr. ROWLAND. It was through the window to my right.
Mr. SPECTER. Draw an arrow right into that window with the same black
pencil please.
(Witness marking.)
Rowland's circle is drawn on the LEFT side windows ( WESTERNMOST ) and
his arrow is drawn INTO the window on the right side of that pair in
CE 356:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0488b.htm
Next, Rowland marks the window where he saw Bonnie Ray Williams ( the
"sniper's window" ) and marks the windows with a circle and the letter
"A":
Mr. SPECTER. All right.You have described seeing someone in another
window hanging out. Would you draw a circle and put an "A" beside the
window where you say you saw someone hanging out. That is on Exhibit
No. 356.
(Witness marking.)
( 2 H 175-176 )
There is no arrow marking the "sniper's" window in CE 356. The window
IS marked, however, with a circle and the letter "A".
As the testimony shows, "A" is the window he saw someone hanging out
of, not the window in which he saw the gunman.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0488b.htm
Gil Jesus
>
> Then Rowland describes how windows look when they're open:
>
> Mr. SPECTER. What is your best recollection as to how far each of
> those windows were open?
>
> Mr. ROWLAND. To the fullest extent that they could be opened.
>
> Mr. SPECTER. What extent would that be?
>
> Mr. ROWLAND. Being as I looked half frame windows, that would be
> halfway of the entire length of the window.
>
> Then Specter turned his attention to the "sniper's nest" windows,
> which in CE 356 are opened:
>
> Mr. SPECTER. Is that the approximate status of those windows depicted
> here in Exhibit 356?
>
> Mr. ROWLAND. Yes.
>
> Specter's questioning then returns to the WESTERNMOST windows:
>
> Mr. SPECTER. In which of those double windows did you see the man and
> rifle?
>
> Mr. ROWLAND. It was through the window to my right.
>
> Mr. SPECTER. Draw an arrow right into that window with the same black
> pencil please.
>
> (Witness marking.)
>
> Rowland's circle is drawn on the LEFT side windows ( WESTERNMOST ) and
> his arrow is drawn INTO the window on the right side of that pair in
> CE 356:
>
>
> Next, Rowland marks the window where he saw Bonnie Ray Williams ( the
> "sniper's window" ) and marks the windows with a circle and the letter
> "A":
>
> Mr. SPECTER. All right.You have described seeing someone in another
> window hanging out. Would you draw a circle and put an "A" beside the
> window where you say you saw someone hanging out. That is on Exhibit
> No. 356.
>
> (Witness marking.)
>
> ( 2 H 175-176 )
>
> There is no arrow marking the "sniper's" window in CE 356. The window
> IS marked, however, with a circle and the letter "A".
>
> As the testimony shows, "A" is the window he saw someone hanging out
> of, not the window in which he saw the gunman.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The point I'm trying to make here is that WC counsel used the open
"sniper" windows in CE 348 and CE 356 for the description and
comparison of open windows and not the westernmost windows as those
are closed in both exhibits.
The "Flat Earth Society", in their argument that the westernmost
windows were only used for comparison, have again attempted to reverse
reality.
And again, the evidence doesn't support them.
David Von Pein
>>> "The point I'm trying to make here is that WC counsel used the open "sniper" windows in CE 348 and CE 356 for the description and comparison of open windows and not the westernmost windows as those are closed in both exhibits." <<<
You're nuts. The five west-most windows on the 6th Floor sure look
open to me in CE348 (and obviously Bob Jackson thought so too):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0485a.htm
Gil Jesus
Which windows did Rowland mark as the window he saw the man with the
rifle in, the circle with the arrow, or the circle with the "A" ?
David Von Pein
Gil apparently thinks that JFK was shot at approx. 12:15, which is the
approx. time Rowland saw the gunman (which was quite obviously Oswald)
in the west-end window.
I guess since the gunman was seen on the west side of the building, it
means his feet were in cement and he couldn't move to the east end in
the approx. 15-minute interim before 12:30.
BTW, folks, just a reminder --- Gil is an evidence-skewing idiot.
Gil Jesus
> BTW, folks, just a reminder --- Gil is an evidence-skewing idiot.
Why, that's the nicest thing you ever said about me.
Gil Jesus
Which window did Rowland mark as the window he saw the man with the
Walt
Howard Brennan--- Saw man in Light colored clothes in SE windo before
motorcade arrived (no gun)
Ronald Fisher ---- Saw man in light colored clothes in SE window
BEFORE motorcade arrived. (no gun)
Robert Edwards---- Saw man in light colored clothes in SE window
BEFORE motorcade arrived. (no gun)
Arnold Rowland --Saw man in light colored clothes in wide open window
at WEST end of sixth floor (Hunting rifle).
Howard Brennan --Saw man in light colored clothes in wide open window
on west end of sixth floor DURING the shooting, the man was STANDING
and aiming the HUNTING rifle out of the wide open window.
Lone
> knees to his head, in any of the sixth floor windows. The only floor,
> where this is possible, is the seventh floor.
> Everybody can proof that fact, today!!
>
> Forget the sixth floor.
> The sixth floor museum should be called seventh floor museum.
Walt
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The point I'm trying to make here is that WC counsel used the open
> "sniper" windows in CE 348 and CE 356 for the description and
> comparison of open windows and not the westernmost windows as those
> are closed in both exhibits
The two windows at the west end of the sixth floor at NOT closed in
ANY photo taken of the TSBD that day.
Look at ANY photo (Colored in Grodens books) and you can see that you
are mistaken. The bottom half of both windows of the double window
at the WEST end of the sixth floor are open completely. The bottom
half is raised as high as it can go.
.
>
> The "Flat Earth Society", in their argument that the westernmost
> windows were only used for comparison, have again attempted to reverse
> reality.
>
> And again, the evidence doesn't support them.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
You lyig bastard.... It's you who are the evidence skewing asshole.
Rowland said he arrived on Houston street with his wife at about
12:15. He saw the man in the light colored clothing, with a hunting
rifle, who he thought was a security guard in the WEST end window JUST
BEFORE the motorcade arrived. The sounds of the approaching motorcade
distracted his attention from the gunman.
Lone
> Arnold Rowland --Saw man in light colored clothes in wide open window
> at WEST end of sixth floor (Hunting rifle).
> Howard Brennan --Saw man in light colored clothes in wide open window
> on west end of sixth floor DURING the shooting, the man was STANDING
> and aiming the HUNTING rifle out of the wide open window.
Both man saw a standing man with a hunting rifle. Rowland at 12.15,
Brennan saw him aiming and shooting when the motorcade passed by...the
both saw the same man...
And they saw him on the seventh floor...again: nobody can stand up and
be seen from his knees to his head(Rowland testified there were two or
three inches space between the head and the upper portion of the
window!) in any sixth floor window.
It is only possible in a seventh floor window.
They WC not only made a window charade, they made a floor- charade
too.
It would be very easy to proof, if a standing man with a gun could fit
the description of the standing gunman Brennan and Rowland gave!!
And that their description of a standing man, if we put him into a
window at the sixth floor, is an impossible thing.
Gil Jesus
> The two windows at the west end of the sixth floor at NOT closed in
> ANY photo taken of the TSBD that day.
> Look at ANY photo (Colored in Grodens books) and you can see that you
> are mistaken. �The bottom half of both windows of the �double window
> at the WEST end of the sixth floor are open completely. The bottom
> half is raised as high as it can go.
I stand corrected. I checked Groden's book and the windows opened all
the way up.
TKOAP pg. 206 shows the two westernmost windows fully opened.
Walt
> > Arnold Rowland --Saw man in light colored clothes in wide open window
> > at WEST end of sixth floor (Hunting rifle).
> > Howard Brennan --Saw man in light colored clothes in wide open window
> > on west end of sixth floor DURING the shooting, the man was STANDING
> > and aiming the HUNTING rifle out of the wide open window.
>
> Both man saw a standing man with a hunting rifle. Rowland at 12.15,
> Brennan saw him aiming and shooting when the motorcade passed by...the
> both saw the same man...
> And they saw him on the seventh floor...again: nobody can stand up and
> be seen from his knees to his head(Rowland testified there were two or
> three inches space between the head and the upper portion of the
> window!) in any sixth floor window.
Get yer head outta yer ass..... THINK ....
Arnold Rowland was looking up at about a 40 degree
angle .....Therefore he could see more space above the mans head than
if he'd been a bird flying 66 feet above the ground. If he had been
on a platform 66 feet up from the ground he probably couldn't have
seen the mans head or shoulders.
Walt
Applause!!.... Way ta go Gil.... You've set a fine example for others
to follow. When you make an mistake ( as we all do) simply
acknowledge that mistake and set the record straight as quickly as
possible. Bravo ..you da man
Sam McClung
news:8d64f057-a7fd-4ece...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Arnold Rowland corroborated Jackson's description of the rifle in
> the
> 356 ) with his testimony and his marking of the exhibit:
Rowland's story is corroborated by Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig, who
apparently was not part of the
Neo-Nazi attack on the President of the USA 11-22-63.
Excerpts from:
WHEN THEY KILL A PRESIDENT
By
Roger Craig
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/9ad334a1fb2a7b6a/093384aa09a044e3?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#093384aa09a044e3
<snippage>
My next reliable witness came forward in the form of Mr. Arnold
Rowland. Mr. Rowland and his wife were standing at the top of
the
grassy knoll on the north side of Elm Street. Arnold Rowland
began
telling me his account of what he saw before the assassination.
He
said approximately fifteen minutes before President Kennedy
arrived
he was looking around and something caught his eye. It was a
white
man standing by the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book
Depository Building in the southeast corner, holding a rifle
equipped with a telescopic sight and in the southwest corner of
the
sixth floor was a colored male pacing back and forth. Needless
to
say, I was astounded by his statement. I asked Mr. Rowland why
he
had not reported this incident before and he told me that he
thought they were secret service agents--an obvious conclusion
for
a layman. Rowland continued. He told me that he looked back at
the sixth floor a few minutes later and the man with the rifle
was
gone so he dismissed it from his mind.
I was writing all this down in my notebook and when I
finished I
advised Mr. and Mrs. Rowland that I would have to detain them
for a
statement. I had started toward the Sheriff's Office with them
when lo and behold I was approached by Officer C. L. (Lummy)
Lewis,
who asked me "What ya got"--a favorite expression of most
investigators with Bill Decker. I explained the situation to
him
and told him of Rowland's account. Being the Good Samaritan he
was, Officer Lewis offered to take the Rowlands off my hands and
get their statements. This worked out a little better than my
first arrest.
[the woman Craig arrested trying to drive out of the
parking lot behind the north knoll fence. Craig turned her over
to
Lummy Lewis who let her go unexpectedly].
The Warren Commission decided not to accept Arnold
Rowland's story but at least they did not lose them. Hang in
there, Lummy!
<end quote>
Gil Jesus
Sam McClung
news:f0f51063-c5af-4648...@y71g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> There cant be no such thing than a standing gunman, seen from his
> knees to his head, in any of the sixth floor windows.
your logic seems to fail
wouldn't it depend on how far back from the window the person was
standing?
a. yes?
b. no?
c. i don't know?
would depend on how far back from the window the person was
Lone
> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8d64f057-a7fd-4ece...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Arnold Rowland corroborated Jackson's description of the rifle in
> > the
> > right side window if the WESTERNMOST (left side in the picture CE
> > 356 ) with his testimony and his marking of the exhibit:
>
> Rowland's story is corroborated by Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig, who
> apparently was not part of the
>
> Neo-Nazi attack on the President of the USA 11-22-63.
>
> Excerpts from:
>
> WHEN THEY KILL A PRESIDENT
> By
Yes, but Craig got a little confused, about what Rowland told him.
Rowland saw the gunman- as he testified before the WC- in the
westernmost window...
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol2/page169.php
"one from the top"... Rowland said first...(Which would be the
westernmost window seventh floor)...
The negro Rowland saw, was in the easternmost window...according to
his testimony...
Walt
> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8d64f057-a7fd-4ece...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Arnold Rowland corroborated Jackson's description of the rifle in
> > the
> > right side window if the WESTERNMOST (left side in the picture CE
> > 356 ) with his testimony and his marking of the exhibit:
>
> Rowland's story is corroborated by Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig, who
> apparently was not part of the
>
> Neo-Nazi attack on the President of the USA 11-22-63.
>
> Excerpts from:
>
> WHEN THEY KILL A PRESIDENT
> By
>
> <snippage>
>
My next reliable witness came forward in the form of Mr.
Arnold Rowland. Mr. Rowland and his wife were standing at the top of
the grassy knoll on the north side of Elm Street.
If anybody thinks that Roger craig knew what he was talking about I
invite you to check out Craig's statement above.
Arnold Rowland and his wife were NOT standing " at the top of the
grassy knoll on the north side of Elm street"
They were standing on the east side of Houston street about halfway
between Main and Elm streets.
Roger Craig just made up stuff as he went along.....
robcap...@netscape.com
> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Contrary to the WC's lie that the rifle was fired from a window in
> > the
> > southeast corner of the sixth floor, witness Robert Hill Jackson
> > testified that he saw the rifle protruding from a window at the
> > OPPOSITE end of the building:
>
> > Mr. SPECTER. Was the window you have just marked as being the spot
> > from which the rifle protruded, open when you looked up?
>
> > Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir.
>
> > Mr. SPECTER. What is your best recollection as to how far open it
> > was
> > at that time?
>
> > Mr. JACKSON. I would say that it was open like that window there,
> > halfway.
>
> > Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a window on the sixth floor of the
> > westernmost
> > portion of the building open halfway as you have described it.
>
> > ( 2 H 159 )
>
>
> "Mooney said that both Cain and Nicoletti were actual gunmen for the
> hit, being placed at opposite ends of the Dallas Book Depository. In
> fact, he asserted it was Cain, not Oswald, who'd actually fired from
> the infamous sixth-story window...Mooney's backup, Milwaukee Phil,
> stood armed and ready to handle any last-minute interference with the
> shooters."
I'm curious, how does this jive with what Rowland testified to in
front of the WC? Here it is again:
Rowland also saw a Negro man in the eastern window (the alleged SN)
until 5 minutes before the motorcade arrived. He would testify that
at 12:15 he saw a Negro man "hanging out" the southeast corner
window,
the same window the WC had LHO in.(II, pp. 175-76) Rowland described
him as "very thin, an elderly gentleman, bald or practically bald"
and
about 55 years old. (II, p. 188)
Rowland said he gave statements to the FBI about this man on 11/23
and
11/24, but they were NOT interested and did NOT include any of this
in
their reports or summaries. I wonder why?
Was Can an elderly Negro man, or did he wait until 12:25 to get into
place?
> Phil presumably using one of the two .38 automatic pistols provided by
> cummings via sheeran via ferrie...
>
> Perhaps the sound of gunfire was to be the precipitating event to get
> Oswald to bite on the cyanide capsule that had been inserted between
> his teeth...- Hide quoted text -
Sam McClung
news:540d0468-d917-404c...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
see Cain's head at the graphic here where it was 11-22-63, second
hraphic down, pink spot:
http://web.newsguy.com/mcclung/tsbd.html
now let's examine the Wash Closet produced unsigned typewritten
testimony purporting to capture accurately what Rowland said:
<begin excerpts>
Mr. Rowland. ....We lookaed and at that time I noticed on the sixth
floor of the building that there was a man back from the window, not
hanging out the window.
He was standing and holding a rifle...
Mr. SPECTER. Was he a white man or a Negro or what?
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. SPECTER. What race was he then?
Mr. ROWLAND. I would say either a Light Latin or Caucasian...
Mr. ROWLAND. I think I remarked to my wife that he appeared to be in
his thirties, early thirties.
<end excerpts>
notice within his other testiimony rowland has the person he saw with
the rifle at "port arms"
notice the person callaway saw had the pistol in the position of
"raised arm"
both being military stances, both intentionally being used to draw
attention to the "oswald the freaking out marine" myth
robcap...@netscape.com
> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
Meaning if Rowland is correct there was a Negro man in the SE window
until 12:25 PM, so how can a shooter be there too?
-Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is not the man he saw "hanging out" the window though. Here is
the transcipt of this exchange:
Mr. SPECTER - All right.
You have described seeing someone in another window hanging out. Would
you draw a circle and put an "A" beside the window where you say you
saw someone hanging out. That is on Exhibit No. 356.
(Witness marking.)
Mr. SPECTER - At about what time was it that you observed someone
hanging out of the window that you have marked as window "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Again about 12:15 just before I noticed the other man.
Mr. SPECTER - You have marked the double window there. Would you draw
the arrow in the red pencil indicating specifically which window it
was.
(Witness marking.)
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe with as much particularity as you can
what that man looked like?
Mr. ROWLAND - It seemed to me an elderly Negro, that is about all. I
didn't pay very much attention to him.
Mr. SPECTER - At or about that time did you observe anyone else
hanging out any window or observe any one through any window on the
same floor where you have drawn the two circles on Exhibit 356?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; no one else on that floor.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, did you have any occasion to look back at window
"A" (SN) from the time you saw the man whom you described as a Negro
gentleman in that window until the President's procession passed by?
Mr. ROWLAND - ...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. I was looking back quite often, as I
stated.
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.
Mr. SPECTER - Were you observing the window which you marked "A" at
the time he departed?
Mr. ROWLAND - No, I didn't. I just know, I was looking at the crowd
around. and then I glanced back up again, and neither did I see the
man with the rifle nor did I see him. The colored man went away.
Mr. SPECTER - How long was that after you first noticed the colored
man in the window "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Fifteen minutes.
Mr. SPECTER - Had you looked back at window "A" at any time during
that 15 minute interval?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Had you seen anybody in window "A" during that time?
Mr. ROWLAND - The colored man was that--
Mr. SPECTER - So how many times did you notice him altogether?
Mr. ROWLAND - Several. I think I looked back about two, maybe three
times a minute, an average. I was, you know, trying to find the man
with the rifle to point him out to my wife. I noticed the colored man
in that window. I looked at practically every window in the building
but I didn't look at anything with the detail to see what I was
looking for.
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.
This man is different from the man with the rifle Rowland saw.
Inmates at the County lockup also saw a "dark-compected" man on the
sixth floor too. My question again is, how does this info fit into
Giancana's take as he does not mention a black man.
Gil Jesus
wrote:
>
> This man is different from the man with the rifle Rowland saw.
> Inmates at the County lockup also saw a "dark-compected" man on the
> sixth floor too. �My question again is, how does this info fit into
> Giancana's take as he does not mention a black man.-
The black man ( I suspect a Cuban ) was also seen by Amos Euins.
Sam McClung
>Meaning if Rowland is correct there was a Negro man in the SE window
>until 12:25 PM, so how can a shooter be there too?
>This man is different from the man with the rifle Rowland saw.
>Inmates at the County lockup also saw a "dark-compected" man on the
>sixth floor too. My question again is, how does this info fit into
>Giancana's take as he does not mention a black man.
Let's give rowland the benefit of the doubt by using the assumption
that his memory wasn't faulty and he did see someone hanging out of
the frame window
As to your question, Mooney wasn't that far down into the detail:
<double cross p. 335>
As for any evidence that Chicago's Mob boss was a participant in the
events of November 22, 1963, Mooney said he was well insulated, thanks
to his practice of delegating the details to his trusted lieutenants.
Mooney-like the higher ups in the CIA-cared very little about the
minute details of the plot's inner workings; the results were all that
mattered.
<end quote>
Nor was Mooney fully apprised of what CIA personnel were in Dealey
Plaza nor what their roles were, perhaps the exceptions being
Lawrence, Harrelson, Ruby, Oswald, Tippit, White, and the upper
echelon Adolph's U.S. crew nearby. Mooney probably had no knowledge
of people like Chauncey Holt, nor of his unknowing role.
I have often asked where was Colin Powell on 11-22-63 before showing
up at a nashville tennessee airport that afternoon
He had left Vietnam about a month before that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then again, maybe Rowland recalled it wrong and it was Jarman or
Howard on the 4th floor...
Sam McClung
> As for any evidence that Chicago's Mob boss was a participant in the
> events of November 22, 1963, Mooney said he was well insulated,
> thanks to his practice of delegating the details to his trusted
> lieutenants. Mooney-like the higher ups in the CIA-cared very little
> about the minute details of the plot's inner workings; the results
> were all that mattered.
<next and final sentence in paragraph>
He'd [Mooney had] met one last time in Dallas, right before the hit,
with the top guys in the CIA group, some politicians, and the Texan
assassination backers, and that was that.
<end quote>
but george was 100 miles away...
ya, right...
Bud
He said he saw Oswald shooting from the east windows, idiot. Oswald
was seen by witnesses in his white (which is a light color) t-shirt.
>the man was STANDING
> and aiming the HUNTING rifle out of the wide open window.
Of course Brennan never said it was a hunting rifle, but you can`t
help but misrepresent what witnesses said, being a lying kook.
And to recap, the kooks, after over 4 decades, are still struggling
with where the shots were fired from, despite a half dozen witnesses
and physical evidence making it clear. These kooks, who are perhaps
the stupidest people on the face of the Earth can`t even get this
fundamental, basic aspect of the case right. As Gil demonstrated, they
can`t even figure out what the witnesses were saying.
Sam McClung
On Oct 7, 3:18?pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
wrote:
>
>> This man is different from the man with the rifle Rowland saw.
>> Inmates at the County lockup also saw a "dark-compected" man on the
>> sixth floor too. ?My question again is, how does this info fit into
>> Giancana's take as he does not mention a black man.-
>The black man ( I suspect a Cuban ) was also seen by Amos Euins.
They're getting ready to kill JFK.
The only visible person shooting will be the gunman (vs. sniper or
professional killer) Cain.
If any official forces had shown up in Dealey Plaza, which Tosh
Plumlee and Sergio were and did, that window was a Hot Spot.
Perhaps any man seen by Rowland and the inmates was a decoy to flush
out official forces.
He could have left in the Northbound Rambler Express.
Where were Jarman and Howard when the inmates and Rowland saw a man in
the 6th floor window?
tims...@gmail.com
Now Gil, civility please. Civility.
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Oct 7, 11:11 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> hey dipshit:
>
> The windows on the westernmost part of the front of the building in CE
> 348 are not open.
>
> The shades are up, but the windows are not open.
>
> I'm looking at a blowup of the picture right now.
>
> If they were, you could have made out the bottom of the lower window
> frame.
>
> Looks like the markings on CE 348 make it just another fraud "exhibit"
> that was created after the fact.
>
> Nice try, tho.
Walt
> On Oct 7, 8:56 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7 Oct, 00:43, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> "This includes witnesses Howard Brennan, Ronald Fischer, & Robert Edwards, & newsperson Mal Couch." <<<
>
> > > And what side of the building did each and every one of those people
> > > say they saw the gunman and/or the gun in?
>
> > Howard Brennan--- Saw man in Light colored clothes in SE windo before
> > motorcade arrived (no gun)
> > Ronald Fisher ---- Saw man in light colored clothes in SE window
> > BEFORE motorcade arrived. (no gun)
> > Robert Edwards---- Saw man in light colored clothes in SE window
> > BEFORE motorcade arrived. (no gun)
> > Arnold Rowland --Saw man in light colored clothes in wide open window
> > at WEST end of sixth floor (Hunting rifle).
> > Howard Brennan --Saw man in light colored clothes in wide open window
> > on west end of sixth floor DURING the shooting,
>
> He said he saw Oswald shooting from the east windows, idiot. Oswald
> was seen by witnesses in his white (which is a light color) t-shirt.
>
> >the man was STANDING
> > and aiming the HUNTING rifle out of the wide open window.
>
> Of course Brennan never said it was a hunting rifle, but you can`t
> help but misrepresent what witnesses said, being a lying kook.
Hey Dud....I'm merely using the same tactics the Warren Commission
used.
I'll admit that Brennan never said it was a "hunting" rifle.... He
used the common expression of "Hi Powered" when he was referring to a
hunting rifle....Many many people call a hunting rifle a "high
powered rifle. Even your asshole buddy Pea Brain acknowledges that it
was Brennan who gave the cops the description of the suspect that was
broadcast at about 12:45. That description said that the gunman was
armed with some kind of hi powered rifle, possibly a 30-30
Winchester. Do I need to type slower so that you can understand that
Brennan said that he "could see ALL OF THE BARREL OF THE RIFLE" as the
white clothing clad gunman fired from that WIDE OPEN window. And then
he told the cops that the gun was possibly a 30-30 Winchester. All of
which shows that It was NOT Oswald firing a MILITARY rifle .
>
> And to recap, the kooks, after over 4 decades, are still struggling
> with where the shots were fired from, despite a half dozen witnesses
> and physical evidence making it clear. These kooks, who are perhaps
> the stupidest people on the face of the Earth can`t even get this
> fundamental, basic aspect of the case right. As Gil demonstrated, they
> can`t even figure out what the witnesses were saying.- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
>>> "[Arnold] Rowland said he arrived on Houston street with his wife at about 12:15. He saw the man in the light colored clothing, with a hunting rifle, who he thought was a security guard in the WEST end window JUST BEFORE the motorcade arrived." <<<
This is a lie, of course. Approx. 15 minutes in time passed between
the time Rowland saw the gunman (who was Oswald, of course) in the
west-end window and the time when the motorcade entered Dealey Plaza.
Walt's "JUST BEFORE" wording above is another of Walt The Kook's many
attempts at rewriting the history of this event. He loves doing this.
Most CT-nuts do. And Walt does it constantly...nearly every time the
idiot opens his yap. Pitiful.
>>> "The sounds of the approaching motorcade distracted his attention from the gunman." <<<
This is a lie. Quote Rowland saying this, Mr. Mega-Kook.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> >>> "This includes witnesses Howard Brennan, Ronald Fischer, & Robert Edwards, & newsperson Mal Couch." <<<
>
> And what side of the building did each and every one of those people
> say they saw the gunman and/or the gun in?
Yer right--there are wide-open windows on the *east side* too! Not,
however, on the 6th floor....
dw
billc...@live.com
> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
My god, it was bad enough when the fools tried to blame Colin Powell
for the My Lai tragedy, now he shot JKF! Damn! The poor man had the
misfortune to not be far enough to the right so the rightwing whackos
diss him and he isn’t far enough to the left so the left wing whackos
diss him. He would make a better president than the two presently
running.
Back to the subject. The description given for this “black man” is
the acute opposite of Colin Powell in 1963. He was young, not old, he
had all the afro a officer could have in the Army at the time, not
bald and thin has never been a description of his. Hey, but I
wouldn’t let that stop me.
Bill Clarke
billc...@live.com
> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
My god, it was bad enough when the fools tried to blame Colin Powell
Walt
Sorry, I was mistaken... I thought I'd read somewhere that Rowland
had seen the man just before the motocade arrived, and his attention
was drawn to the approaching motorcade right after he saw the man in
light colored clothing with a hunting rifle. I just read his
testimony and it appears that he saw the man who was NOT Lee Harvey
Oswald at about 12:22. Rowland said that there were two men on the
sixth floor, one of them was a very thin middle age negro who was
leaning out of the so called "Snipers Nest " window at the South East
corner of the sixth floor. The other man was behind the wide open
window at the South WEST corner of the sixth floor. The man behind
that WEST end window was holding a hunting rifle with a scope. ( not a
military rifle) Rowland said the man was in his early thirties (LHO
24), had dark hair, possibly black ( LHO sandy colored hair ) and he
was wearing a light colored shirt with a T shirt beneath the outter
shirt which was open at the collar ( LHO was wearing a DARK reddish
brown shirt over a T shirt .
Von Pea Brain ....you and Stupid Bastard have to learn that there is a
difference between an honest mistake and a lie.
David Von Pein
>>> "Von Pea Brain ....you and Stupid Bastard have to learn that there is a difference between an honest mistake and a lie." <<<
It's just that we have a hard time telling the difference sometimes
(seeing as how we're dealing with nutty CTers who believe stupid shit
about this very simple shooting event in Dealey Plaza that was so
obviously committed by a man called Lee Harvey).
And your "JUST BEFORE" comment re. Rowland, Walt? Another "honest
mistake", right? (Even though you should know the WC testimony by
heart, since you love to utilize it so much in here; but since you
skew so much of it beyond all tolerance, it is, indeed, difficult to
separate your sheer ignorance from something that you know damn well
isn't true, but you'll cite it as the truth anyway -- e.g., everything
you believe re. Howard Leslie Brennan's WC session.)
Walt
> >>> "Von Pea Brain ....you and Stupid Bastard have to learn that there is a difference between an honest mistake and a lie." <<<
>
> It's just that we have a hard time telling the difference sometimes
> (seeing as how we're dealing with nutty CTers who believe stupid shit
> about this very simple shooting event in Dealey Plaza that was so
> obviously committed by a man called Lee Harvey).
>
And your "JUST BEFORE" comment re. Rowland, Walt? Another "honest
mistake", right?
I'm not surprised that you can't understand that my statement that
Rowland saw the gunman who was NOT Lee Oswald JUST BEFORE the
motorcade arrived as an honest mistake...... We all have a tendency
to see others as we are ourselves.... And since you are a gullible
idiot and a liar, you see others in your image.
I'll bet anybody that the liar Von Pea Brain will not admit that
Arnold Rowlands testimony is strong evidence that there was a man who
was NOT Oswald standing behind the wide open window at the WEST end of
the sixth floor shortly before JFK was murdered beneath that very
window. Nor will the liar admit that Rowland's description fits very
nicely with Howard Brennan's description and NEITHER of them described
Oswald as the man they's seen. They both said that the man with the
high powered rifle was STANDING behind the wide open WEST end window
with a high powered rifle. The both described the man as in his early
thirties, wearing a light colored sport shirt. Rowland provided some
details that Brennan didn't and Brennan provided some details that
Rowland didn't ...but they both were describing the same man and that
man was NOT Lee Oswald.
Walt
> >>> "I'm not surprised that you can't understand that my statement that Rowland saw the gunman who was NOT Lee Oswald [WHICH IS ANOTHER LIE FROM WALT'S LIPS, OF COURSE, SINCE ROWLAND MOST CERTAINLY SAW LEE HARVEY OSWALD ON THE WEST END WITH A RIFLE ON NOV. 22, SINCE THE ONLY PERSON UP THERE WITH A RIFLE THAT DAY WAS LEE HARVEY OSWALD, OF COURSE] JUST BEFORE the motorcade arrived as an honest mistake...." <<<
Pea Brain.....Hereafter, I'll address you as Lying, Obtuse,
Bastard.... I'll just use LOB for short....
Dear LOB.... I'm not going to reply to you diatribe below ...most of
it isn't worth replying to.
But since we're discussing Arnold Rowlands testimony, I'd like to
point out something that I'm sure has escaped you. ( I realized that
your tiny little brain can only focus on a small portion of the case
at a time. )
You probably haven't noticed that Arnold Rowland said that when he saw
the man in the light colored clothes with a hunting rifle with a large
scope, he thought that the man was a Secret Service security guard.
In all of his testimony Rowland never once said the man was Lee
Oswald. (naturally because he was NOT Oswald)
When he was pressed to say the gunman was Oswald he refused....saying
that he could not identify the man. PERIOD.
But here's the point that makes it clear that he KNEW the gunman was
NOT Oswald... Rowland said that he thought the man was a Secret
Service security guard .... AND he knew damned well that Oswald was
NOT a secret Service security guard. Therefore, he knew that
"security guard" was NOT Oswald.
>
> Two "honest mistakes" in the same post, eh Walt?
>
> Yes, the two things are, indeed, related -- Walt's "honest mistake"
> when he said "JUST BEFORE" and Walt's "honest mistake" when he said
> "the sounds of the approaching motorcade distracted his [A. Rowland's]
> attention from the gunman".
>
> But I find it interesting that Walt, in his (double) "honest mistake"
> post, seemed so sure of his position regarding the timing of when
> Arnold Rowland said he had observed a man in a window on the west side
> of the TSBD on Nov. 22nd. Sure enough was Walter that he placed the
> words "JUST BEFORE" in all-capital letters, to emphasize that totally-
> incorrect point.
>
> And keep in mind that Arnold Rowland's WC testimony is testimony that
> Walt The Idiot has cited MANY times prior to this first week of
> October here in the year 2008. He's OFTEN citing stuff that Rowland
> supposedly saw in the Depository windows.
>
> How is it, then, that Walt (of all kooks!) could possibly have made
> such a (double) "honest mistake" in a post here in October 2008?
>
> Such "honest mistakes" by a person like Walt should make a reasonable
> person wonder just many other "honest mistakes" that Walter "Evidence
> Mangler" Cakebread has made with respect to the testimony of gobs of
> other witnesses (that he SHOULD know by heart, given the kook's 24/7
> hobby of scrutinizing these things in ultra-detail, as he looks for
> inconsistencies and for ways to pretend that his prized patsy named
> Lee Harvey was innocent of the two murders he committed in Dallas on
> 11/22).
>
> I wonder if all of the stupid shit being spouted by Walt in the post
> below could be considered "honest mistakes" on Walt's part?:
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7d3264251021ff76
>
> >>> "And since you are a gullible idiot and a liar, you see others in your image." <<<
>
> About the only person I can think of (offhand) who just might surpass
> Walter Cakebread in the "gullible idiot" and "liar" categories would
> be a kook named "Robcap". And maybe another mega-kook named "Gil",
> too.
>
> (And, of course, there's Roger D. Craig, too. He was the biggest
> "liar" of all time, as far as the JFK case is concerned, that is. He
> was never a member of this acj asylum, of course....but he was a big
> fat liar all the same.)
>
> Oh, by the way, Walt......
>
> How's that theory of yours coming along regarding JFK being shot by
> the invisible gunman from the front as evidenced in the Robert Croft
> photo? Have you gotten any publisher interested enough to market that
> great case-solving book of yours yet -- you know, the one you were
> going to call "A Speck Of White: Croft Holds The Proof To The JFK
> Conspiracy" (copyright: Kookbreak Press, Inc.)?
>
> And have you ever gotten that photo examined by a professional in
> photography....to verify that "piece of white shirt" that is flying
> out of the President's back in the Croft picture? Even though Walt
> knows the "piece of shirt" is not there in clearer, color copies of
> the photo, like this one:
>
> http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/031.+CROFT+PHOTO?gda=n...
>
> Therefore, since his theory is full of shit from the very beginning
> (as is quite evident to anyone with one working brain cell in their
> head), Walt is now forced to insist that the Croft photo has been
> altered or faked in some way--in order to hide the piece of white
> shirt in the above color version of Croft's photo.
>
> Monthly reminder for the one forum lurker (as if it's needed):
>
> Walt Cakebread is an evidence-mangling moron (aka: a Super-Kook of the
> First Order).
>
> And, incredibly, he's proud to wear those labels in bright neon
> lettering, day and night.
>
> Go figure.
Walt
>
David Von Pein
>>> "Here's the point that makes it clear that he [Rowland] KNEW the gunman was NOT Oswald... Rowland said that he thought the man was a Secret Service security guard .... AND he knew damned well that Oswald was NOT a secret Service security guard. Therefore, he knew that "security guard" was NOT Oswald." <<<
LOL.
Reprise...
El-Oh-El (times fifty)!!
Oh, dear sweet Lord in the sky!
Tell me Walt didn't just say the stupid shit he just said above.
Can Walt POSSIBLY be more idiotic?? Is it physically possible??
My bladder!!
My bladder!!
David Von Pein
I'll try to continue now, following the incredible hilarity brought on
by Walt's last hunk of idiocy, which I'll label this way:
"Arnold Rowland THOUGHT The Man With A Rifle Was A Security
Guard, And Since (MUCH LATER, Mind You) Rowland Knew Oswald Was Not A
Security Guard, It Must Mean That Rowland Knew (AT THE TIME HE SAW THE
MAN AT 12:15) That The Man With The Rifle Wasn't Oswald".
Can it GET much funnier than this, folks?
If you tried to sell it to Comedy Central....would even THEY go for
it??
WALT'S NEXT GEM.....
>>> "I'm not going to reply to you diatribe below ...most of it isn't worth replying to." <<<
I guess I can assume that your "Croft Proves Conspiracy" book hasn't
gotten much attention from Random House then....huh Walt?
Too bad. The kooks who buy books containing gobs of conspiracy-tinged
trash (like Lifton's and Armstrong's) probably would have eaten up
your Croft Theory tome, big-time.
David Von Pein
>>> "I'm not surprised that you can't understand that my statement that Rowland saw the gunman who was NOT Lee Oswald [WHICH IS ANOTHER LIE FROM WALT'S LIPS, OF COURSE, SINCE ROWLAND MOST CERTAINLY SAW LEE HARVEY OSWALD ON THE WEST END WITH A RIFLE ON NOV. 22, SINCE THE ONLY PERSON UP THERE WITH A RIFLE THAT DAY WAS LEE HARVEY OSWALD, OF COURSE] JUST BEFORE the motorcade arrived as an honest mistake...." <<<
Two "honest mistakes" in the same post, eh Walt?
Yes, the two things are, indeed, related -- Walt's "honest mistake"
when he said "JUST BEFORE" and Walt's "honest mistake" when he said
"the sounds of the approaching motorcade distracted his [A. Rowland's]
attention from the gunman".
But I find it interesting that Walt, in his (double) "honest mistake"
post, seemed so sure of his position regarding the timing of when
Arnold Rowland said he had observed a man in a window on the west side
of the TSBD on Nov. 22nd. Sure enough was Walter that he placed the
words "JUST BEFORE" in all-capital letters, to emphasize that totally-
incorrect point.
And keep in mind that Arnold Rowland's WC testimony is testimony that
Walt The Idiot has cited MANY times prior to this first week of
October here in the year 2008. He's OFTEN citing stuff that Rowland
supposedly saw in the Depository windows.
How is it, then, that Walt (of all kooks!) could possibly have made
such a (double) "honest mistake" in a post here in October 2008?
Such "honest mistakes" by a person like Walt should make a reasonable
person wonder just how many other "honest mistakes" that Walter
"Evidence Mangler" Cakebread has made with respect to the testimony of
gobs of other witnesses (that he SHOULD know by heart, given the
kook's 24/7 hobby of scrutinizing these things in ultra-detail, as he
looks for inconsistencies and for ways to pretend that his prized
patsy named Lee Harvey was innocent of the two murders he committed in
Dallas on 11/22/63).
I wonder if all of the stupid shit being spouted by Walt in the post
below could be considered "honest mistakes" on Walt's part?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7d3264251021ff76
>>> "And since you are a gullible idiot and a liar, you see others in your image." <<<
About the only person I can think of (offhand) who just might surpass
Walter Cakebread in the "gullible idiot" and "liar" categories would
be a kook named "Robcap". And maybe another mega-kook named "Gil",
too.
(And, of course, there's Roger D. Craig, too. He was the biggest
"liar" of all time, as far as the JFK case is concerned, that is. He
was never a member of this acj asylum, of course....but he was a big
fat liar all the same.)
Oh, by the way, Walt......
How's that theory of yours coming along regarding JFK being shot by
the invisible gunman from the front as evidenced in the Robert Croft
photo? Have you gotten any publisher interested enough to market that
great case-solving book of yours yet -- you know, the one you were
going to call "A Speck Of White: Croft Holds The Proof To The JFK
Conspiracy" (copyright: Kookbreak Press, Inc.)?
And have you ever gotten that photo examined by a professional in
photography....to verify that "piece of white shirt" that is flying
out of the President's back in the Croft picture? Even though Walt
knows the "piece of shirt" is not there in clearer, color copies of
the photo, like this one:
Walt
Dear LOB.... Go ahead and wet yerself .....you should be used to wet,
dirty, underwear by now......
After you finish filling yer pants....try to refute what Rowland
said.... He said that he thought the guy was a security guard .... He
KNEW that Oswald was NOT a security Guard.... He was shown pictures of
Oswald and he had seen him on TV and yet he said he could NOT identify
the "security guard" as Oswald. He described physical features of the
security guard that did NOT fit Oswald.... Early thirties, black
hair...light colored sport shirt open at the collar with a T shirt
beneath the outter shirt.
Have ya finished messing yer pants now?? Let's hear you lie......
David Von Pein
Walt, if you don't stop soon, I'm going to sue you for "Murder Of An
Already-Weak Urinary Bladder"!
Please....if you've got ANY pity...any at all...you'll stop now! My
bladder cannot take any more of your idiocy.
Let's use Walt's logic to knock down the "Badge Man" theory, shall we
(in a simulated way, of course):
Jean Hill, let's assume, THOUGHT that "Badge Man" was a real
policeman; she thought he was there to protect the President from
harm. Later, let's pretend, she is asked to I.D. the "Badge Man" in a
lineup. But since she now knows that "Badge Man" wasn't really who she
THOUGHT he was on 11/22 in Dealey Plaza (a real cop; or "security"
man), she now cannot possibly ID the man in the lineup as Badge Man.
Walt, as we all know, is nuttier than a jumbo-sized jar of Planters.
David Von Pein
>>> "He [Arnold Rowland] said that he thought the guy was a security guard. He KNEW that Oswald was NOT a security guard..." <<<
LOL.
Therefore, per what Walt seems to be implying here -- The ONLY
possible way that ANY gunman seen by Rowland in the TSBD could have
been legitimately and positively identified by Arnold Rowland is if
that gunman turned out to REALLY BE A "SECURITY GUARD", since the man
doing the identifying (Arnold Rowland) THOUGHT that the gunman was a
security guard at 12:15 PM CST on November 22.
LOL replay.
Let's see Walt's next brainstorm....(as my bladder weakens still
more)....
>>> "He [Rowland] was shown pictures of Oswald and he had seen him on TV and yet he said he could NOT identify the "security guard" as Oswald. He described physical features of the security guard that did NOT fit Oswald" <<<
This just keeps getting better and more hilarious all the time.
The kook named Duncan-Hines (aka Cakebread) now seems to believe that
Rowland really did see a security guard on the 6th Floor. (The kook
should have put "security guard" in quotes that second time up above
too.)
Maybe Rowland's merely THINKING (incorrectly, of course) that the man
with the gun (Oswald, of course) was a "security guard" has rubbed off
on the feeble mind of a kook named Walt. Ya think? It could happen.
After all, this kook named Walt actually seems to think Oswald didn't
kill J.D. Tippit.
>>> ".... Early thirties, black hair...light colored sport shirt open at the collar with a T shirt beneath the outer shirt." <<<
If that, in fact, was Arnold Rowland's exact description of the sixth-
floor gunman (and I haven't got his testimony memorized; I'd have to
check it, and I probably should too*, because trusting this kook named
Walt to get anything right is like trusting Lee Oswald to tell the
truth about his Carcano mail-order purchase), then that description
certainly does nothing whatsoever to EXCLUDE Oswald (not even the age
estimate, given the fact that other people said the SAME DAMN THING
about Oswald looking older than he was), you idiot.
And to emphasize this once more, if Rowland said "early 30s"*, then we
have on the record just one additional example of the CONSISTENCY with
which people described Oswald's age -- e.g., Baker, Brennan, the 10th-
St. witness responsible for the 1:22 APB re. Tippit's killer (whoever
that was), and now Rowland too*.
But to a kook, consistency like this re. LHO equates to Oswald's
complete innocence. Somehow. (Don't ask me how. Go ask a kook. Walt?)
* = Footnote:
I just now checked Rowland's testimony...and yes, he did say "early
thirties":
"I think I remember telling my wife that he appeared in his
early thirties. This could be obscured because of the distance, I
mean." -- 1964 W.C. TESTIMONY OF ARNOLD L. ROWLAND
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rowland_a.htm
So, thanks Walt, for providing that quote from Rowland re. the age of
the sixth-floor gunman....which matches perfectly the testimony of DPD
Officer Marrion Baker (who we KNOW saw Oswald just after the shooting)
and Howard Brennan and at least one other 11/22 witness.
>>> "Have ya finished messing yer pants now??" <<<
I doubt it very much. Not unless you finally want to stop typing out
the hilarious bladder-busting idiocy that you've been typing out
tonight.
The more Walt types, the more I hope the bathroom isn't occupied.
>>> "Let's hear you lie." <<<
Okay, I'll do my best.
Here's the biggest lie I'll ever tell (bar none):
Walter Cakebread is a genius! He's the #1 JFK researcher that history
has ever seen. He deserves a Nobel Prize for his incredible work in
rooting out the truth about the way JFK died in November 1963.**
** = Especially that "Rowland Thought The Gunman Was A Security Guard,
Which Evidently Means That The Gunman WAS A Security Guard" gem.
Coming up with true and believable bombshells like that "Rowland/
Security Guard" thing makes us all wonder why Walt wasn't selected to
speak at the 2008 Wecht Conference. He should have been the keynote
speaker, for Christ's sake!
Walt
> >>> "He [Arnold Rowland] said that he thought the guy was a security guard. He KNEW that Oswald was NOT a security guard..." <<<
>
> LOL.
>
> Therefore, per what Walt seems to be implying here -- The ONLY
> possible way that ANY gunman seen by Rowland in the TSBD could have
> been legitimately and positively identified by Arnold Rowland is if
> that gunman turned out to REALLY BE A "SECURITY GUARD", since the man
> doing the identifying (Arnold Rowland) THOUGHT that the gunman was a
> security guard at 12:15 PM CST on November 22.
Dear LOB.... I'm not surprised that you would attempt to twist my
point.... because that's how you earn your paycheck....
You're not any different than a street walkin whore.....
The point is.... Arnold Rowland thought that the man he saw was a
Secret Service security guard....
WHY???? Why did Rowland get that impression?? Something about the
man made Rowland think that he was part of a presidential security
detail. Of course the professional looking hunting rifle would have
been one thing that would have gave Rowland that impression,but there
must have been more than that....
Let's imagine that Oswald was the man that Rowland saw in the wide
open window at the west end of the sixth floor.
Based on the official scenario that Oswald was dressed in a reddish
rusty brown colored, ragged shirt and he used an old beat up
Mannlicher Carcano to murder JFK ......
If he had been looking at Oswald who was just 24 years old, who
looked like a skinny gangly kid, and was dressed in a Rusty reddish
brown, ragged shirt, holding an old beat up MILITARY rifle., do you
think he would have thought that Oswald was a Secret Service security
guard??
Hmmmmmmm??
David Von Pein
>>> "Something about the man made Rowland think that he was part of a presidential security detail. Of course the professional looking hunting rifle would have been one thing that would have gave Rowland that impression, but there must have been more than that...." <<<
It just keeps on getting better and better (and funnier).
Walt The Idiot now is putting THOUGHTS into Arnold Rowland's head. Not
just words, but the actual INNER THOUGHTS that Walt The Moron believes
(and knows!) Rowland was definitely THINKING on 11/22.
Just when you think a kook can't get any more insane -- look what
happens....he does it again.
Walt...why not just quit while you are way, way behind?
Shutting your trap now would be much better for your sorry ass (and
dead-wrong theory) in the long run.
Don't you agree?
Walt
Hey LOB.....This would be a good time for you to supplicate the
almighty, like you occasional do. Ya know what I mean? Ya might
ask.... "Sweet Jesus, PLEEEEEEESE paralyze Walts fingers so he can't
type out the facts"
David Von Pein
>>> "This would be a good time for you to supplicate the almighty, like you occasional do. Ya know what I mean? Ya might ask.... "Sweet Jesus, PLEEEEEEESE paralyze Walts fingers so he can't type out the facts"." <<<
Not a bad idea, Walt.
God knows, my bladder could use the rest after yesterday's onslaught
of Walt-inspired hilarity.
Walt
Hey LOB...we seem to be driftin away from the subject....
The point is.... Arnold Rowland thought that the man he saw was a
Secret Service security guard....
WHY???? Why did Rowland get that impression?? Something about the
man made Rowland think that he was part of a presidential security
detail. Of course the professional looking hunting rifle ( aka
sniper rifle) would have
been one thing that would have gave Rowland that impression,but there
must have been more than that....
Do you suppose that Rowland might have got the impression that the
gunman was a presidential security guard because the man was.....
A) wearing a khaki shirt just like a law enforcement officer
B) Old enough and atheltic looking
C) calm and business like
C) holding a sniper rifle with a large scope
And because it was simply unbelievable that any assassin could be so
bold as this "security guard" appeared.
David Von Pein
>>> "Do you suppose that Rowland might have got the impression that the gunman was a presidential security guard because the man was....A) wearing a khaki shirt just like a law enforcement officer..." <<<
Another outright lie told by Walt "The Evidence-Mangling Machine"
Cakebread, I see.
Not ONCE does the word "khaki" appear in Arnold Rowland's WC
testimony. Nor does that word appear in Rowland's 11/22/63 affidavit
either.
Walt, therefore, just decided to MAKE IT UP from whole "khaki" cloth
(pun-pun). Walt, as usual, is pathetic.
Plus, when we examine what Rowland REALLY said about the gunman's
shirt, we'll find that nothing about that description equates to
"khaki" in the slightest way:
"He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a
light blue or a color such as that."
Here's more of Rowland's testimony concerning the gunman's clothing:
ARNOLD ROWLAND -- "He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored
shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at
the collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway, and then he had a
regular T-shirt, a polo shirt under this, at least this is what it
appeared to be. He had on dark slacks or blue jeans, I couldn't tell
from that I didn't see but a small portion."
Walt thinks that Rowland's opinion about the gunman being a "Secret
Service security man" is based, at least partly, on the way the gunman
was dressed. But do most Secret Service security men dress in the
above type of attire?
Well, Walt? Do SS agents usually wear blue jeans? Or partially-
unbuttoned shirts with white T-shirts exposed underneath (which, btw,
is exactly how Lee Oswald was dressed on Nov. 22--i.e., a white T-
shirt underneath another shirt)?
Please tell us again, O' Great Mind-Reading Kook, just exactly what
was Arnold Rowland THINKING when he saw the gunman, dressed as Arnold
described above, on 11/22/63.
But before Walt's tripe starts to flow once again, let's get back to
reality and common sense for a moment longer with respect to Rowland
and his "Security Man" opinion:
Occam's Ruling.....
Arnold Rowland was of the (incorrect) opinion that the man he saw
holding a rifle on the west side of the TSBD was a "security man" (he
never used the word "guard", btw, but that's just semantics) merely
due to the fact that he saw a man with a rifle in a building along the
President's motorcade route on November 22nd.
Simple as that. And quite logical under the circumstances, too. I
probably would have thought the very same thing myself, if I had been
in Rowland's shoes.
Walt
> >>> "Do you suppose that Rowland might have got the impression that the gunman was a presidential security guard because the man was....A) wearing a khaki shirt just like a law enforcement officer..." <<<
>
> Another outright lie told by Walt "The Evidence-Mangling Machine"
> Cakebread, I see.
>
> Not ONCE does the word "khaki" appear in Arnold Rowland's WC
> testimony. Nor does that word appear in Rowland's 11/22/63 affidavit
> either.
>
> Walt, therefore, just decided to MAKE IT UP from whole "khaki" cloth
> (pun-pun). Walt, as usual, is pathetic.
Hey LOB... "I" didn't make up the khaki shirt.... Howard brennan and
Rowland both saw this guy....Rowland provided details thar Brennan
didn't and Brennan provided details that Rowland .. And Howard Brennan
said that it was KHAKI.
>
> Plus, when we examine what Rowland REALLY said about the gunman's
> shirt, we'll find that nothing about that description equates to
> "khaki" in the slightest way:
>
> "He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a
> light blue or a color such as that."
A COLOR SUCH AS THAT....meaning a LIGHT COLOR And KHAKI is a LIGHT
color.
>
> Here's more of Rowland's testimony concerning the gunman's clothing:
>
> ARNOLD ROWLAND -- "He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored
> shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at
> the collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway, and then he had a
> regular T-shirt, a polo shirt under this, at least this is what it
> appeared to be. He had on dark slacks or blue jeans, I couldn't tell
> from that I didn't see but a small portion."
>
> Walt thinks that Rowland's opinion about the gunman being a "Secret
> Service security man" is based, at least partly, on the way the gunman
> was dressed. But do most Secret Service security men dress in the
> above type of attire?
>
> Well, Walt? Do SS agents usually wear blue jeans?
Here's Rowland's reply to you..." I couldn't tell from that I didn't
see but a small portion."
Or partially- unbuttoned shirts with white T-shirts exposed
underneath
Is there some law that says a security guard has to have his shirt
button and a tie??
(which, btw,
> is exactly how Lee Oswald was dressed on Nov. 22--i.e., a white T-
> shirt underneath another shirt)?
Thank you for your candor.... Oswald was in fact wearing a DARK
colored BROWN shirt over a T-shirt, which is totally at odds with ALL
witnesses who saw a man on the sixth floor BEFORE the motorcade
arrived .ALL of the witnesses said the man had on a LIGHT COLORED
shirt.
>
> Please tell us again, O' Great Mind-Reading Kook, just exactly what
> was Arnold Rowland THINKING when he saw the gunman, dressed as Arnold
> described above, on 11/22/63.
OK... Arnold Rowland saw a man who he thought was a security guard who
was holding a very businessness like shiper's rifle. THAT rifle was
THE primary thing that caused Rowand to think the man was a secrity
guard... He said that he'd just seen a movie on TV which showed
security guards with sniper rifles acting as security for President
Roosevelt.
He acknowledged that those guns in the hands of Rooosevelt's guards
influenced his thinking.
Walt
Hey LOB... Are you prepared to explain how Rowland said that the
security guard in the ligh colored shirt was armed with a HUNTING
rifle while the Warren Commission said the murder weapon was a
MILITARY rifle.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rowland_a.htm
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/arowland.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "Are you prepared to explain how Rowland said that the security guard in the ligh colored shirt was armed with a HUNTING rifle while the Warren Commission said the murder weapon was a MILITARY rifle." <<<
Who the hell cares? You're arguing silly little semantics issues,
Walt. And you surely realize that type argument is peripheral (at
most).
Rowland didn't see the rifle up close and he didn't examine the rifle
in detail. But the WC, the DPD, et al, DID examine the 6th-Floor rifle
closely.
Rowland couldn't tell if the rifle was specifically a "Hunting" rifle
vs. a Carcano 1940-era military weapon. But, for some reason, Walt
wants to place an extraordinary amount of significance on this one
statement uttered by Mr. Rowland to the WC ---
"It appeared to me to be a .30-odd [sic] size 6, a deer rifle
with a fairly large or powerful scope. .... That is a rifle that is
used quite frequently for deer hunting."
So, per Walter, since Rowland thought that the rifle he saw on 11/22
"appeared" to him to possibly be the same type of rifle he had used to
go deer hunting in the past, this automatically MAKES the rifle a
"hunting" rifle in Walt's eyes.
But I'll remind Walt that Rowland WAS, indeed, wrong about something
else that he THOUGHT was true about that same gunman -- he was wrong
about the man (who was Lee Harvey Oswald, as we all know) being a
"security man" (Rowland's exact verbiage there; not to be confused
with Walt's slightly-altered version of Rowland's words).
But since Walt (so it seems) wants desperately to believe everything
that came out of the mouth of Arnold Rowland during his WC
session....perhaps Walt does, indeed, want to believe that the REAL
ASSASSIN on the sixth floor WAS a REAL security man.
So, Walt, if Rowland was wrong about the "security man"
observation....why couldn't he be also incorrect about his "hunting
rifle" observation as well?
In reality, of course, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference if a
particular witness THOUGHT the rifle on the sixth floor was a
"hunting" type rifle or whether it was some other exact KIND of rifle
-- because the FACT remains that the only rifle found on that sixth
floor after the assassination was Lee Oswald's Italian Mannlicher-
Carcano, serial number C2766.
And that FACT about the 6th-Floor rifle will never go away....no
matter how much conspiracy theorists want it to disappear into a puff
of (Knoll) smoke.
David Von Pein
>>> "I didn't make up the khaki shirt.... Howard Brennan and Rowland both saw this guy....Rowland provided details that Brennan didn't and Brennan provided details that Rowland [didn't]. And Howard Brennan said that it was KHAKI." <<<
But Rowland didn't say "khaki". Brennan did, but Rowland didn't.
From your earlier posts about ROWLAND ONLY, you seem to want this vast
audience of 2 people out here in acj-land to think that Rowland gave a
description of "khaki" for the gunman's clothing. (Looked that way to
me anyway.)
But different witnesses will see things differently (naturally).
Rowland and Brennan undoubtedly saw the very same person with the
C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in his hands on November 22, 1963. And
that gunman was unquestionably Lee Harvey Oswald.
And the descriptions that Rowland and Brennan provided of the gunman
aren't that far apart really. They both said "white man", they both
said "slender", and they both said that the gunman was in his "early
30s" (with that latter observation also being made by Marrion Baker,
who is a person that even CTers can agree saw the real Lee H. Oswald
just after the assassination).
Walt is nit-picking here, and just refuses to admit that the
descriptions of the sixth-floor gunman supplied by BOTH Arnold Rowland
and Howard Brennan are descriptions that in no way remove Lee Harvey
Oswald from the list of candidates who generally fit those two
descriptions.
Rob The Kook even goes one step further than Walt The (Other) Kook
when it comes to descriptions either matching or not matching
Oswald.....because Robby actually thinks that the 1:22 PM APB put out
on Tippit's murderer included a description of the killer which did
not match Oswald "in any way" (Robby's nutty verbatim quote there).
Crazy, man. Totally wild.
>>> "OK...Arnold Rowland saw a man who he thought was a security guard who was holding a very business-like sniper's rifle. THAT rifle was THE primary thing that caused Rowland to think the man was a security guard. He said that he'd just seen a movie on TV which showed security guards with sniper rifles acting as security for President Roosevelt. He acknowledged that those guns in the hands of Roosevelt's guards influenced his thinking." <<<
ATTENTION ALL SQUADS! -- Walt just said something that ISN'T kooky.
Imagine that. Somebody take a picture of this, because CS&L coming
from Walt's e-lips is about as rare as ice on a Nevada sidewalk in
July.
Walt
> >>> "Are you prepared to explain how Rowland said that the security guard in the ligh colored shirt was armed with a HUNTING rifle while the Warren Commission said the murder weapon was a MILITARY rifle." <<<
>
> Who the hell cares? You're arguing silly little semantics issues,
> Walt. And you surely realize that type argument is peripheral (at
> most).
>
> Rowland didn't see the rifle up close and he didn't examine the rifle
> in detail.
It's true that Rowland didn't see the "Security guard's" rifle up
close....But he saw it in bright sunlight as the "security guard" held
it acroos his chest. He was only about 150 feet away at the time, and
he had excellent eyesight. He probably couldn't have seen the fine
details on the rifle ( like if the stock was checkered or carved) but
he most certainly would have known if the rifle was a HUNTING rifle or
a MILITARY rifle...and he said it was a HUNTING rifle.
But the WC, the DPD, et al, DID examine the 6th-Floor rifle closely.
Really??? The Warren Commission and the DPD et al examined the
"Security guard's" sniper rifle??
Incredible!!!.... I thought they only examined a beat up old Italian
Army rifle....(A model 91 /38, 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano) Where did
you learn that they examined a fine hunting rifle with a large
scope??
>
Rowland couldn't tell if the rifle was specifically a "Hunting" rifle
vs. a Carcano 1940-era military weapon.
Where did Rowland say that he couldn't tell the difference between a
beat up old military rifle and a hunting rifle??
But, for some reason, Walt wants to place an extraordinary amount of
significance on this one
statement uttered by Mr. Rowland to the WC ---
"It appeared to me to be a .30-odd [sic] size 6, a deer rifle with a
fairly large or powerful scope. .... That is a rifle that is
used quite frequently for deer hunting."
YUP...That's what the man said...He said it was a HUNTING rifle... "A
rifle that is used quite frequently for deer hunting."
(Hunting rifles are not only used to hunt deer, they are also used to
hunt... elk, and moose, and bear, and antelope, and all kinds of big
game as wekk as HUMANS... when they are employed to shoot humans from
ambush they are called "SNIPER'S RIFLES". )
So, per Walter, since Rowland thought that the rifle he saw on 11/22
"appeared" to him to possibly be the same type of rifle he had used
to
go deer hunting in the past, this automatically MAKES the rifle a
"hunting" rifle in Walt's eyes.
NO,no,no.... can't you get anything right?? Are you as stupid as Rob
Crapio??
It's not just "walt's opinion"..... Any rational person could see
that Rowland was DESCRIBING a hunting rifle and Howard Brennan
corroborated Rowland when he said that he "COULD SEE ALL OF THE
BARREL" of the rifle as the "security guard" aimed it from the wide
open window on the WEST end of the sixth floor. Brennan later ventured
that the rifle he'd seen might have been a 30-30 Winchester when he
gave the description to the cops....But since he wasn't very
knowledgable about guns he wasn't sure about what kind of High
powered (HUNTING) rifle it was.
Walt
Helloooooo LOB.........Where are you
>
>
>
>
> > But I'll remind Walt that Rowland WAS, indeed, wrong about something
> > else that he THOUGHT was true about that same gunman -- he was wrong
> > about the man (who was Lee Harvey Oswald, as we all know) being a
> > "security man" (Rowland's exact verbiage there; not to be confused
> > with Walt's slightly-altered version of Rowland's words).
>
> > But since Walt (so it seems) wants desperately to believe everything
> > that came out of the mouth of Arnold Rowland during his WC
> > session....perhaps Walt does, indeed, want to believe that the REAL
> > ASSASSIN on the sixth floor WAS a REAL security man.
>
> > So, Walt, if Rowland was wrong about the "security man"
> > observation....why couldn't he be also incorrect about his "hunting
> > rifle" observation as well?
>
> > In reality, of course, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference if a
> > particular witness THOUGHT the rifle on the sixth floor was a
> > "hunting" type rifle or whether it was some other exact KIND of rifle
> > -- because the FACT remains that the only rifle found on that sixth
> > floor after the assassination was Lee Oswald's Italian Mannlicher-
> > Carcano, serial number C2766.
>
> > And that FACT about the 6th-Floor rifle will never go away....no
> > matter how much conspiracy theorists want it to disappear into a puff
> > of (Knoll) smoke.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
>>> "It's true that Rowland didn't see the "Security guard's" rifle up close....But he saw it in bright sunlight as the "security guard" held it acroos his chest. He was only about 150 feet away at the time, and he had excellent eyesight. He probably couldn't have seen the fine details on the rifle ( like if the stock was checkered or carved) but he most certainly would have known if the rifle was a HUNTING rifle or a MILITARY rifle...and he said it was a HUNTING rifle." <<<
You're reaching, Walter.
You want to believe what you want to believe -- and that is: ANYTHING
that can lead away from the obvious truth regarding this
assassination. With that truth being (unfortunately for you kooks):
Your favorite patsy for all 11/22/63 murders in Dallas is guilty of 2
murders in Dallas on that day.
Try the moon landings, Walt. You can start from scratch with that
idiocy. But your continual efforts to take the guns out of the hands
of Lee Oswald in '63 is beyond stale (and stupid) -- those efforts are
six feet under. And they have been for a long time.
>>> "Really??? The Warren Commission and the DPD et al examined the "Security guard's" sniper rifle??" <<<
No, of course not, idiot. Because that "sniper"/"hunting" rifle only
exists in your imagination. It never existed in the first place.
The WC and DPD (et al) examined, up close, THE ONLY rifle found on the
6th Floor (the same floor where Rowland saw a man holding a rifle).
The WC/DPD examined Oswald's rifle....which was, of course, as any
reasonable person can easily figure out, the same rifle that Arnold
Rowland saw the gunman (who was LHO, of course) holding at about 12:15
on Nov. 22.
Somehow, Walt can't figure out that Rowland saw Oswald and Oswald's
rifle. And this is an easy one. Heaven forbid he should have to tackle
something more intricate.
More likely, Walt knows it was Oswald (who wouldn't?), but Walter just
doesn't want to admit it.
Right, W.?
Walt
> >>> "It's true that Rowland didn't see the "Security guard's" rifle up close....But he saw it in bright sunlight as the "security guard" held it acroos his chest. He was only about 150 feet away at the time, and he had excellent eyesight. He probably couldn't have seen the fine details on the rifle ( like if the stock was checkered or carved) but he most certainly would have known if the rifle was a HUNTING rifle or a MILITARY rifle...and he said it was a HUNTING rifle." <<<
>
> You're reaching, Walter.
>
> You want to believe what you want to believe -- and that is: ANYTHING
> that can lead away from the obvious truth regarding this
> assassination. With that truth being (unfortunately for you kooks):
> Your favorite patsy for all 11/22/63 murders in Dallas is guilty of 2
> murders in Dallas on that day.
>
> Try the moon landings, Walt. You can start from scratch with that
> idiocy. But your continual efforts to take the guns out of the hands
> of Lee Oswald in '63 is beyond stale (and stupid) -- those efforts are
> six feet under. And they have been for a long time.
>
> >>> "Really??? The Warren Commission and the DPD et al examined the "Security guard's" sniper rifle??" <<<
>
> No, of course not, idiot. Because that "sniper"/"hunting" rifle only
> exists in your imagination. It never existed in the first place.
>
> The WC and DPD (et al) examined, up close, THE ONLY rifle found on the
> 6th Floor (the same floor where Rowland saw a man holding a rifle).
Yes you're right .... The DPD, the FBI, et al did examine the model
91 /39 Mannlicher Carcano that had been found (planted) BURIED
BENEATH boxes of books on the sixth floor. And yes, that is the same
floor where Rowland saw the "security guard" with a HUNTING (sniper)
rifle with a large scope.
Where do you think the plotters should have planted that rifle to
frame Oswald....In the YWCA???
But they NEVER examined the "Security guard's" rifle.....
Do you think that the "security guard's" SNIPER rifle with the large
scope could have been the sporterized Mauser that Oswald told his
interrogators he'd seen in the TSBD just 48 hours before President
Kennedy was murdered right there in front of that same building??
>
> The WC/DPD examined Oswald's rifle....which was, of course, as any
> reasonable person can easily figure out, the same rifle that Arnold
> Rowland saw the gunman (who was LHO, of course) holding at about 12:15
> on Nov. 22.
>
> Somehow, Walt can't figure out that Rowland saw Oswald and Oswald's
> rifle. And this is an easy one. Heaven forbid he should have to tackle
> something more intricate.
>
> More likely, Walt knows it was Oswald (who wouldn't?), but Walter just
> doesn't want to admit it.
>
> Right, W.?
Yer right ....I'm not going to admit to something that I know is a
lie.
David Von Pein
>>> "But they NEVER examined the "Security guard's" rifle." <<<
That's because your "hunting" rifle never existed. So how could the WC/
DPD examine something that only exists in the mind of a Super-Kook
named Cakebread?
Walt
Dear Lying Obtuse Bastard.... Simply because you deny that BOTH
Rowland and Brennan said they man who was dressed like a "security
guard" had a HUNTING (sniper) rifle in his hands... does NOT erase
their affidavits and testimony....
David Von Pein
>>> "Simply because you deny that BOTH Rowland and Brennan said they man who was dressed like a "security guard" had a HUNTING (sniper) rifle in his hands... does NOT erase their affidavits and testimony." <<<
Another lie by Walt The Mangler Of Testimony.
You just can't help yourself, can you, Walt-Kook? It must be in the
blood.
BTW (to play Walt's current game), there's stuff in the testimony of
many witnesses that indicates your patsy was a guilty double-killer
too. But that doesn't stop you kooks from twisting or ignoring them.
Right, Dr. K?
Walt
Ha,ha,ha, hee,hee,hee....ROTFLMAO...... Looks like ol Pea Brain has
exhausted his repertoire, and is reduced to his old fallback
defense....Ad hominem attacks... Hee,hee,hee,hee......
Hey LOB aren't ya gonna try to defend your stance and tell me that
Howard Brennan never saw the the gunman who was in his early thirties
( LHO 24) who was wearing light colored clothes (LHO DARK clothes) who
was STANDING behind a wide open window, with a rifle with a long
exposed metal barrel that he saw? Aren't ya gonna try to tell me
that Howard Brennan never told the cops that the sniper he saw had a
HIGH POWERED (hunting ) rifle, possibly a 30-30 Winchester?
Well c'mon LOB..... surely you can pull up more old lies in a feeble
attempt to defens yer position.
Hee,hee,hee,......ROTFLMAO.
Walt
Oh, In my mirth....... I forgot ta ask you .... Have ya ever seen any
hunter out hunting with a Beat up old Mannlicher Carcano??
Here's what Arnold Rowland said....
"It appeared to me to be a .30-odd [sic] size 6, a deer rifle with a
fairly large or powerful scope. .... That is a rifle that is
used quite frequently for deer hunting."
YUP...That's what the man said...He said it was a HUNTING rifle...
Have ya ever seen any hunter, out hunting, with a Beat up old
Mannlicher Carcano?? How about an M-50 Machine Gun???
Hee,hee,hee...........
Bud
> On 8 Oct, 23:01, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "He [Arnold Rowland] said that he thought the guy was a security guard. He KNEW that Oswald was NOT a security guard..." <<<
>
> > LOL.
>
> > Therefore, per what Walt seems to be implying here -- The ONLY
> > possible way that ANY gunman seen by Rowland in the TSBD could have
> > been legitimately and positively identified by Arnold Rowland is if
> > that gunman turned out to REALLY BE A "SECURITY GUARD", since the man
> > doing the identifying (Arnold Rowland) THOUGHT that the gunman was a
> > security guard at 12:15 PM CST on November 22.
>
> Dear LOB.... I'm not surprised that you would attempt to twist my
> point.... because that's how you earn your paycheck....
> You're not any different than a street walkin whore.....
>
> The point is.... Arnold Rowland thought that the man he saw was a
> Secret Service security guard....
Because he was holding a rifle.
> WHY???? Why did Rowland get that impression??
The rifle.
> Something about the
> man made Rowland think that he was part of a presidential security
> detail.
The rifle.
> Of course the professional looking hunting rifle would have
> been one thing that would have gave Rowland that impression,but there
> must have been more than that....
Rowland got his impressions about the rifle because of the SCOPE. He
was familiar with rifles that had scopes being hunting rifles.
> Let's imagine that Oswald was the man that Rowland saw in the wide
> open window at the west end of the sixth floor.
> Based on the official scenario that Oswald was dressed in a reddish
> rusty brown colored, ragged shirt and he used an old beat up
> Mannlicher Carcano to murder JFK ......
Lets look at what the decription he gave the DPD...
"white man " Check, Oswald was a while man.
"slender build" Check, Oswald was slender.
"dark hair" Check, Oswald had brown hair
"light shirt open at neck" Check,Oswald was wearing a white t-
shirt with a stretched out collar.
All hits, coupled with the fact that Oswald`s rifle was found on
that floor, he was known to have been on that floor around lunchtime,
and a witness who said it was Oswald doing the shooting and it`s a
slam dunk.
> If he had been looking at Oswald who was just 24 years old, who
> looked like a skinny gangly kid, and was dressed in a Rusty reddish
> brown, ragged shirt, holding an old beat up MILITARY rifle., do you
> think he would have thought that Oswald was a Secret Service security
> guard??
No one said Oswald had to be wearing the reddish shirt at the time.
Rowland was well over 200 feet away, likely he made out the rifle, and
started making assumptions about the man`s function from there.
Bud
He already fucked up your brain.
Walt
That's simply your opinion....which isn't worth much.....Because He
gave you an A.B.Normal brain.
Bud
> On 9 Oct, 22:33, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Are you prepared to explain how Rowland said that the security guard in the ligh colored shirt was armed with a HUNTING rifle while the Warren Commission said the murder weapon was a MILITARY rifle." <<<
>
> > Who the hell cares? You're arguing silly little semantics issues,
> > Walt. And you surely realize that type argument is peripheral (at
> > most).
>
> > Rowland didn't see the rifle up close and he didn't examine the rifle
> > in detail.
>
> It's true that Rowland didn't see the "Security guard's" rifle up
> close....But he saw it in bright sunlight as the "security guard" held
> it acroos his chest. He was only about 150 feet away
Over 200 feet away. Check where he was on a map.
> at the time, and
> he had excellent eyesight. He probably couldn't have seen the fine
> details on the rifle ( like if the stock was checkered or carved) but
> he most certainly would have known if the rifle was a HUNTING rifle or
> a MILITARY rifle...and he said it was a HUNTING rifle.
He was familiar with hunting rifles having scopes.
> But the WC, the DPD, et al, DID examine the 6th-Floor rifle closely.
>
> Really??? The Warren Commission and the DPD et al examined the
> "Security guard's" sniper rifle??
Yah, they found Oswald`s rifle and examined it.
> Incredible!!!.... I thought they only examined a beat up old Italian
> Army rifle....(A model 91 /38, 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano) Where did
> you learn that they examined a fine hunting rifle with a large
> scope??
So, to your idiot thinking, if a witness said a bank robber fled in
a 2-door car, and a man with a gun and bags of money with the bank`s
name on them is found, that person should be set free, and the search
continued for the 2-door car. This is why you idiots should not be
looking into this case at all.
> Rowland couldn't tell if the rifle was specifically a "Hunting" rifle
> vs. a Carcano 1940-era military weapon.
>
> Where did Rowland say that he couldn't tell the difference between a
> beat up old military rifle and a hunting rifle??
He said he thought it was a hi-powered rifle, because of the scope.
It was the scope, and not the rifle, that led him to make the
conclusions he did. But you mistake conclusions with observations.
> But, for some reason, Walt wants to place an extraordinary amount of
> significance on this one
> statement uttered by Mr. Rowland to the WC ---
>
> "It appeared to me to be a .30-odd [sic] size 6, a deer rifle with a
> fairly large or powerful scope. .... That is a rifle that is
> used quite frequently for deer hunting."
>
> YUP...That's what the man said...He said it was a HUNTING rifle... "A
> rifle that is used quite frequently for deer hunting."
Yah, Rowland was familiar with hunting rifles having scopes. That
was his experience, so that influenced his impressions.
> (Hunting rifles are not only used to hunt deer, they are also used to
> hunt... elk, and moose, and bear, and antelope, and all kinds of big
> game as wekk as HUMANS... when they are employed to shoot humans from
> ambush they are called "SNIPER'S RIFLES". )
Yah, Oswald did use his rifle in the capacity of a sniper rifle.
> So, per Walter, since Rowland thought that the rifle he saw on 11/22
> "appeared" to him to possibly be the same type of rifle he had used
> to
> go deer hunting in the past, this automatically MAKES the rifle a
> "hunting" rifle in Walt's eyes.
>
> NO,no,no.... can't you get anything right?? Are you as stupid as Rob
> Crapio??
>
> It's not just "walt's opinion"..... Any rational person could see
> that Rowland was DESCRIBING a hunting rifle and Howard Brennan
> corroborated Rowland when he said that he "COULD SEE ALL OF THE
> BARREL" of the rifle as the "security guard" aimed it from the wide
> open window on the WEST end of the sixth floor. Brennan later ventured
> that the rifle he'd seen might have been a 30-30 Winchester when he
> gave the description to the cops....But since he wasn't very
> knowledgable about guns he wasn't sure about what kind of High
> powered (HUNTING) rifle it was.
Beyond weak. Only an idiot thinks this can support the premise of
the witnesses seeing a different rifle than the one found. By Walt`s
kook reasoning, Rowland and Brennan saw two different rifles, as the
one Brennan saw had no scope.
Walt
Ha,ha,ha,ha,he.hee,hee.... This is hilarious...ROTFLMAO!!
Dear Dumbass Liar..... So now you're claiming that... "the rifle
that Brennan saw had no scope"..
Excellent ....You've just displayed that you're an idiot....... Look
at any photo of the TSBD rifle and notice that it DOES in fact HAVE A
SCOPE mounted on it.
Thank you Dumbass you've just said that "Oswald's" rifle was not the
murder weapon.
Ha,ha,ha,ha...hee,hee,hee,hee
>
>
>
> > > But I'll remind Walt that Rowland WAS, indeed, wrong about something
> > > else that he THOUGHT was true about that same gunman -- he was wrong
> > > about the man (who was Lee Harvey Oswald, as we all know) being a
> > > "security man" (Rowland's exact verbiage there; not to be confused
> > > with Walt's slightly-altered version of Rowland's words).
>
> > > But since Walt (so it seems) wants desperately to believe everything
> > > that came out of the mouth of Arnold Rowland during his WC
> > > session....perhaps Walt does, indeed, want to believe that the REAL
> > > ASSASSIN on the sixth floor WAS a REAL security man.
>
> > > So, Walt, if Rowland was wrong about the "security man"
> > > observation....why couldn't he be also incorrect about his "hunting
> > > rifle" observation as well?
>
> > > In reality, of course, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference if a
> > > particular witness THOUGHT the rifle on the sixth floor was a
> > > "hunting" type rifle or whether it was some other exact KIND of rifle
> > > -- because the FACT remains that the only rifle found on that sixth
> > > floor after the assassination was Lee Oswald's Italian Mannlicher-
> > > Carcano, serial number C2766.
>
> > > And that FACT about the 6th-Floor rifle will never go away....no
> > > matter how much conspiracy theorists want it to disappear into a puff
> > > of (Knoll) smoke.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
Good heavens, Walt's dumber than my front porch.
Bud was merely saying that by using your own STANDARDS regarding the
statements given by Brennan and Rowland, then two different rifles
MUST have been seen by those witnesses, since Brennan said he didn't
observe a scope on Oswald's rifle.
Bud wasn't implying that there was actually no scope on the rifle that
Brennan saw....only that Brennan SAID he saw no scope on it.
Therefore, since you (a kook named Walt) want to take every single
statement and attach infinite significance to it, this MUST mean that
the rifle Brennan saw REALLY didn't have a scope on it.
Get it now, kook? Or should Bud come in and diagram things some more
with chalk and a blackboard?
Walt
> Good heavens, Walt's dumber than my front porch.
>
> Bud was merely saying that by using your own STANDARDS regarding the
> statements given by Brennan and Rowland, then two different rifles
> MUST have been seen by those witnesses, since Brennan said he didn't
> observe a scope on Oswald's rifle.
>
> Bud wasn't implying that there was actually no scope on the rifle that
> Brennan saw.
Bud wasn't implying that there was actually no scope on the rifle that
Brennan saw.
Dear LOB....Once again I find myself in agreement with you... You're
quite right Dud wasn't IMPLYING there was no scope on the rifle that
Brennan saw...... He wasn't IMPLYING because he clearly wrote
"Rowland and Brennan saw two different rifles, as the one Brennan
saw had no scope."
Ha,ha,ha,ha,..hee,hee,hee.....ROTHFLMAO
David Von Pein
It's simply not humanly possible to be as stupid as Walter Cakebread.
No way.
Therefore, Walt must be from the planet Twilo.
He actually didn't realize the point Bud was making about the rifle &
scope above.
Talk about a classic "LOL" moment -- we're experiencing a beaut here
this morning via Walt's ignorance!
tomnln
Is the receiver on the Stock or, on the Barrel????
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:e541245a-5f79-4430...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Walt
What part of Dud's statement don't you understand?? It's perfectly
clear that he wrote "Rowland and Brennan saw two different rifles, as
the one Brennan saw had no scope."
"the one Brennan saw had no scope."
It's a well known FACT that the TSBD rifle DID have a scope mounted on
it. And you lying bastards have always said that the TSBD rifle
belonged to Oswald. Since the TSBD rifle DID have a scope on it and
Dud said that Brennan saw a rifle that DID NOT have a scope on it
("the one Brennan saw had no scope.") then it follows that Brennan had
NOT seen the TSBD rifle in the hands of the "security guard".
We both know what Howard Brennan actually said was; that he could see
ALL OF THE BARREL of the rifle from the muzzle back to the gunman's
hands. A few minutes after the shooting when Brennan was giving a
description of the man to the police he ventured that the "HIGH
POWERED" (hunting) rifle he'd seen in the hands of the gunman was a
30-30 Winchester. ( A sporting rifle with a long blue metal barrel)
Unless you're a lunatic you have to admit that Brennan was NOT
describing a full wooden stock Carcano like the one that was found
BURIED BENEATH boxes of books on the sixth floor. Since there is only
about 5 inches of barrel exposed in front of the wooden stock of a MC
it's rational and logical that Brennan wouldn't say " I could could
see ALL OF THE BARREL of the rifle from the muzzle back to the
gunman's hands"... Because if the rifle that Brennan saw had been an
Mannlicher Carcano then the gunman's hand would have had to have been
all the way forward on that wooden stock. Which is NOT rational or
logical, because only an orangutan would have arms long enough to hold
a rifle in this manner... You don't think the sniper was an orangutan
do you??
So Brennan said that he could see "ALL OF THE BARREL" of the "HIGH
POWERED" rifle which he thought might have been a "30-30
Winchester"... And he testified that he DID NOT remember seeing a
scope on the rifle. That doesn't mean there wasn't a scope on the
rifle...It merely means that Brennan didn't remember seeing it.
Arnold Rowland DID remember the scope on the rifle because that is one
of the characteristics of the HUNTING (sniper) rifle that caught his
attention. There's no doubt that both Brennan and Rowland saw the
same man with the same rifle behind the same window. The each gave
details of the man that fit together , like the man was in his EARLY
THIRTIES, (LHO 24) and he weighed about 165 to 175 (LHO 140) and he
was dressed in LIGHT COLORED clothes (LHO DARK clothes) he was armed
with a HIGH POWERED (hunting) rifle. In addition to the details that
they both noticed, they both notice things about the man that the
other person didn't notice ( the scope is a good example)
Rowland was specific in saying exactly where he'd seen the gunman...He
said he saw him behind the wide open window on the WEST end of the
sixth floor...whereas Brennan didn't specify the location of the
window he DESCRIBED that very same window at the WEST end of the sixth
floor.
Walt
Hey Dud.... Ol Pea Brain tried ta help you out of the mess you got
yourself into because of your inability to think. He didn't help
much....Kinda like a blind man leading another blind man ...but what
the hell he tried.. Perhaps you should thank him.
Bud
Do you think if a witness said there was a dog in the limo, that
means there was one?
Bud
> On 11 Oct, 09:44, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Good heavens, Walt's dumber than my front porch.
>
> > Bud was merely saying that by using your own STANDARDS regarding the
> > statements given by Brennan and Rowland, then two different rifles
> > MUST have been seen by those witnesses, since Brennan said he didn't
> > observe a scope on Oswald's rifle.
>
> > Bud wasn't implying that there was actually no scope on the rifle that
> > Brennan saw.
>
> Bud wasn't implying that there was actually no scope on the rifle that
> Brennan saw.
>
> Dear LOB....Once again I find myself in agreement with you... You're
> quite right Dud wasn't IMPLYING there was no scope on the rifle that
> Brennan saw...... He wasn't IMPLYING because he clearly wrote
>
> "Rowland and Brennan saw two different rifles, as the one Brennan
> saw had no scope."
That isn`t what I said, is it, Walt? But being a conspiracy kook
means you must misrepresent what people say. It`s all part of the
silly game you kooks play, and then say with a straight face that you
are on some kind of crusade for the truth. Lying and misrepresenting
every step of the way to get there, and you think nobody notices.
Walt
> On Oct 11, 10:53 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11 Oct, 09:44, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Good heavens, Walt's dumber than my front porch.
>
> > > Bud was merely saying that by using your own STANDARDS regarding the
> > > statements given by Brennan and Rowland, then two different rifles
> > > MUST have been seen by those witnesses, since Brennan said he didn't
> > > observe a scope on Oswald's rifle.
>
> > > Bud wasn't implying that there was actually no scope on the rifle that
> > > Brennan saw.
>
> > Bud wasn't implying that there was actually no scope on the rifle that
> > Brennan saw.
>
> > Dear LOB....Once again I find myself in agreement with you... You're
> > quite right Dud wasn't IMPLYING there was no scope on the rifle that
> > Brennan saw...... He wasn't IMPLYING because he clearly wrote
>
> > "Rowland and Brennan saw two different rifles, as the one Brennan
> > saw had no scope."
>
That isn`t what I said, is it, Walt?
It isn't???.... Are you denying that you wrote:.... Quote..."Rowland
and Brennan saw two different rifles, as the one Brennan saw had no
scope."...unquote.
Well Dud...did you write that ?? Yes or No... please
But being a conspiracy kook
> means you must misrepresent what people say. It`s all part of the
> silly game you kooks play, and then say with a straight face that you
> are on some kind of crusade for the truth. Lying and misrepresenting
> every step of the way to get there, and you think nobody notices.
>
>
>
> > Ha,ha,ha,ha,..hee,hee,hee.....ROTHFLMAO
>
> > ...only that Brennan SAID he saw no scope on it.
>
> > > Therefore, since you (a kook named Walt) want to take every single
> > > statement and attach infinite significance to it, this MUST mean that
> > > the rifle Brennan saw REALLY didn't have a scope on it.
>
> > > Get it now, kook? Or should Bud come in and diagram things some more
> > > with chalk and a blackboard?- Hide quoted text -
Bud
> On 11 Oct, 09:59, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > It's simply not humanly possible to be as stupid as Walter Cakebread.
> > No way.
>
> > Therefore, Walt must be from the planet Twilo.
>
> > He actually didn't realize the point Bud was making about the rifle &
> > scope above.
>
> > Talk about a classic "LOL" moment -- we're experiencing a beaut here
> > this morning via Walt's ignorance!
>
> What part of Dud's statement don't you understand?? It's perfectly
> clear that he wrote "Rowland and Brennan saw two different rifles, as
> the one Brennan saw had no scope."
You are just lying again, aren`t you Walt? What I said was "By
Walt`s kook reasoning Rowland and Brennan saw two different rifles, as
the one Brennan saw had no scope".
> "the one Brennan saw had no scope."
Yah, the discussion was about reported details. Scope or no scope
are reported details.
> It's a well known FACT that the TSBD rifle DID have a scope mounted on
> it. And you lying bastards have always said that the TSBD rifle
> belonged to Oswald. Since the TSBD rifle DID have a scope on it and
> Dud said that Brennan saw a rifle that DID NOT have a scope on it
> ("the one Brennan saw had no scope.") then it follows that Brennan had
> NOT seen the TSBD rifle in the hands of the "security guard".
That is the retarded kook reasoning I was referring to. If a witness
said a dog was in the limo, does that mean there must have been a dog
in the limo? Using your kook reasoning, if a witness reported it, it
must be true.
> We both know what Howard Brennan actually said was; that he could see
> ALL OF THE BARREL of the rifle from the muzzle back to the gunman's
> hands. A few minutes after the shooting when Brennan was giving a
> description of the man to the police he ventured that the "HIGH
> POWERED" (hunting) rifle he'd seen in the hands of the gunman was a
> 30-30 Winchester. ( A sporting rifle with a long blue metal barrel)
>
> Unless you're a lunatic you have to admit that Brennan was NOT
> describing a full wooden stock Carcano like the one that was found
> BURIED BENEATH boxes of books on the sixth floor.
In what real way has you established Brennan must take note of the
stock?
> Since there is only
> about 5 inches of barrel exposed in front of the wooden stock of a MC
> it's rational and logical that Brennan wouldn't say " I could could
> see ALL OF THE BARREL of the rifle from the muzzle back to the
> gunman's hands"... Because if the rifle that Brennan saw had been an
> Mannlicher Carcano then the gunman's hand would have had to have been
> all the way forward on that wooden stock. Which is NOT rational or
> logical, because only an orangutan would have arms long enough to hold
> a rifle in this manner... You don't think the sniper was an orangutan
> do you??
You must think there was a dog in the limo, don`t you? Either
everything a witness supplies is always accurate, or it isn`t. I say
what the witnesses relate are impressions, imperfect and subject to
error on details.
> So Brennan said that he could see "ALL OF THE BARREL" of the "HIGH
> POWERED" rifle which he thought might have been a "30-30
> Winchester"... And he testified that he DID NOT remember seeing a
> scope on the rifle. That doesn't mean there wasn't a scope on the
> rifle...It merely means that Brennan didn't remember seeing it.
He didn`t take note of it, like the wooden stock. He didn`t know
rifles, and made no gather details about the rifle in the brief time
he saw it.
> Arnold Rowland DID remember the scope on the rifle because that is one
> of the characteristics of the HUNTING (sniper) rifle that caught his
> attention. There's no doubt that both Brennan and Rowland saw the
> same man with the same rifle behind the same window.
No doubt to an idiot. But Brennan said he saw the man firing from a
different window.
> The each gave
> details of the man that fit together , like the man was in his EARLY
> THIRTIES, (LHO 24) and he weighed about 165 to 175 (LHO 140) and he
> was dressed in LIGHT COLORED clothes (LHO DARK clothes) he was armed
> with a HIGH POWERED (hunting) rifle. In addition to the details that
> they both noticed, they both notice things about the man that the
> other person didn't notice ( the scope is a good example)
Brennan said it was Oswald he saw, and Rowland`s description was a
pretty good one of Oswald, as I pointed out in the response I made
earlier. But, instead of speaking to the points I made, you opted to
take something I said out of context to lie about..
Bud
Walt
Brennan never said that he saw the man firing the rifle from the SE
corner window
He said he had seen him there in that SE corne window BEFORE the
motocade arrived.
When he wrote his affidavit he DESCRIBED the man as standing and
steadying the rifle against the winow sill He said that he could see
all of the man as he STOOD and aimed that HIGH POWERED (hunting) rifle
from a window that had to have been WIDE OPEN for the sniper to STAND
and aim the rifle out of the window while Brennan could see ALL OF HIS
UPPER BODY.
Brennan was describing a window that had to have been wide open....and
the ONLY window that was wide open on the sixth floor was at the far
west end of the south face of the building.
Brennan's DESCRIPTION was corroborated by Arnold Rowland who
specifically said that he saw the gunman in the WIDE OPEN west window.
>
> > The each gave
> > details of the man that fit together , like the man was in his EARLY
> > THIRTIES, (LHO 24) and he weighed about 165 to 175 (LHO 140) and he
> > was dressed in LIGHT COLORED clothes (LHO DARK clothes) he was armed
> > with a HIGH POWERED (hunting) rifle. In addition to the details that
> > they both noticed, they both notice things about the man that the
> > other person didn't notice ( the scope is a good example)
>
> Brennan said it was Oswald he saw, and Rowland`s description was a
> pretty good one of Oswald, as I pointed out in the response I made
> earlier. But, instead of speaking to the points I made, you opted to
> take something I said out of context to lie about..
>
>
>
> > Rowland was specific in saying exactly where he'd seen the gunman...He
> > said he saw him behind the wide open window on the WEST end of the
> > sixth floor...whereas Brennan didn't specify the location of the
> > window he DESCRIBED that very same window at the WEST end of the sixth
> > floor.- Hide quoted text -
Bud
> On 11 Oct, 14:35,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 11, 12:24 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 11 Oct, 09:59, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > It's simply not humanly possible to be as stupid as Walter Cakebread.
> > > > No way.
>
> > > > Therefore, Walt must be from the planet Twilo.
>
Show where Brennan ever said the man he saw moved to a different
window, idiot.
Walt
I've done that a long time ago....either goole or go to hell...
Sam Brown
On 11 Oct, 14:16, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 10:53 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11 Oct, 09:44, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Good heavens, Walt's dumber than my front porch.
>
> > > Bud was merely saying that by using your own STANDARDS regarding the
> > > statements given by Brennan and Rowland, then two different rifles
> > > MUST have been seen by those witnesses, since Brennan said he didn't
> > > observe a scope on Oswald's rifle.
>
> > > Bud wasn't implying that there was actually no scope on the rifle that
> > > Brennan saw.
>
> > Bud wasn't implying that there was actually no scope on the rifle that
> > Brennan saw.
>
> > Dear LOB....Once again I find myself in agreement with you... You're
> > quite right Dud wasn't IMPLYING there was no scope on the rifle that
> > Brennan saw...... He wasn't IMPLYING because he clearly wrote
>
> > "Rowland and Brennan saw two different rifles, as the one Brennan
> > saw had no scope."
>
That isn`t what I said, is it, Walt?
It isn't???.... Are you denying that you wrote:.... Quote..."Rowland
and Brennan saw two different rifles, as the one Brennan saw had no
scope."...unquote.
Well Dud...did you write that ?? Yes or No... please
Lurkers are watching your feeble attempt to wriggle out of this on Walt.
It's not looking good old fella.
Bud
Bullshit, Walt, Brennan never said he saw the man he saw move to a
different window. Lying kook...