Jump to content


Spartacus

Arnold Rowland


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,094 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 12:38 PM

Arnold Rowland is one of the most important witnesses who appeared before the Warren Commission. He was an intelligent witness who refused to back down from his original statement made on 22nd November.

It is interesting that Earl Warren actually left the room when Rowland began to tell his story of the two gunman from the TBSD.

At 12.15 p.m. Rowland saw a man with a "high-powered rifle" standing about five feet from the south-west corner window, on the other side of the building from the "sniper's nest" where it was argued Oswald fired his rifle. He told the Warren Commission: "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, This appeared to me to be a fairly high-powered rifle because of the scope and the relative proportion of the scope to the rifle..."

Later, Rowland saw another man with a rifle at the "east end of the building, the one that they said the shots were fired from". He added that the man was black, about 55 years old, practically bald and very thin.

Despite this Rowland claimed that all 3 shots came from in front of JFK. Rowland himself ran towards the Grassy Knoll after the shooting took place.

As Arnold Rowland is only 59 he should still be alive. Has anyone interviewed him recently? For more information on Rowland see:

http://www.spartacus.../JFKrowland.htm

Here is the statement made on 22nd November.

I am a student at Adamson High School in Dallas, Texas. I am employed on weekends at the Pizza Inn located on West Davis Avenue in Dallas. At approximately 12:10 p.m. today, my wife Barbara and I arrived in downtown Dallas and took position to see the President's motorcade. We took position at the west entrance of the Sheriff's Office on Houston Street. We stood there for a time talking about the security measures that were being made for the president's visit in view of the recent trouble when Mr. Adelai [sic) Stevenson had been a recent visitor to Dallas. It must have been 5 or 10 minutes later when we were just looking at the surrounding buildings when I looked up at the Texas Book Depository building and noticed that the second floor from the top had two adjoining windows which were open, and upon looking I saw what I thought was a man standing back about 15 feet from the windows and was holding in his arms what appeared to be a high-powered rifle because it looked like it had a scope on it. He appeared to be holding this at a parade rest sort of position. I mentioned this to my wife and merely made the remark that it must be the secret service men. This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light colored shirt on, open at the neck. He appeared to be of slender build and appeared to have dark hair. In about 15 minutes President Kennedy passed the spot where we were standing and the motorcade had just turned west on Elm heading down the hill when I heard a noise which I thought to be a back fire. In fact some of the people around laughed and then in about 8 seconds I heard another report and in about 3 seconds a third report. My wife, who had ahold of my hand, started running and dragging me across the street and I never did look up again at this window.

Here are some of the most important passages from his testimony before the Warren Commission.

Arnold Rowland, interviewed by Arlen Specter and Gerald Ford before the Warren Commission (10th March, 1964)

Arnold Rowland: 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, This appeared to me to be a fairly high-powered rifle because of the scope and the relative proportion of the scope to the rifle, you can tell about what type of rifle it is. You can tell it isn't a .22, you know, and we thought momentarily that maybe we should tell someone but then the thought came to us that it is a security agent. We had seen in the movies before where they have security men up in windows and places like that with rifles to watch the crowds, and we brushed it aside as that, at that time, and thought nothing else about it until after the event happened.

Arlen Specter: Now, by referring to the photograph on this Commission Exhibit No. 356, will you point to the window where you observed this man?

Arnold 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....

Arlen Specter: What is your best estimate of the distance between where you were standing and the man holding the rifle whom you have just described?

Arnold Rowland: 150 feet approximately, very possibly more. I don't know for sure.

Arlen Specter: Are you very good at judging distances of that sort?

Arnold Rowland: Fairly good.

Arlen Specter: Have you had any experience or practice at judging such distances?

Arnold Rowland: Yes. Even in using the method in physics or, you know, elementary physics of looking at a position in two different views, you can tell its distance. I did that quite frequently. And the best r can recollect it was within 150 to 175 feet.

Arlen Specter: Can you describe the rifle with any more particularity than you already have?

Arnold Rowland: No. In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope.

Arlen Specter: When you say, .30-odd-6, exactly what did you mean by that?

Arnold Rowland: That is a rifle that is used quite frequently for deer hunting. It is an import....


Arlen Specter: Describe, as best you can, the appearance of the individual whom you saw?

Arnold Rowland: He was rather slender in proportion to his size. I couldn't tell for sure whether he was tall and maybe, you know heavy, say 200 pounds, but tall whether he would be and slender or whether he was medium and slender, but in proportion to his size his build was slender.

Arlen Specter: Could you give us an estimate on his height?

Arnold Rowland: No; I couldn't. That is why I said I can't state what height he would be. He was just slender in build in proportion with his width. This is something I find myself doing all the time, comparing things in perspective.

Arlen Specter: Was he a white man or a Negro or what?

Arnold 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.

Arlen Specter: What race was he then?

Arnold Rowland: I would say either a light Latin or a Caucasian.

Arlen Specter: And were you able to observe any characteristics of his hair?

Arnold Rowland: No; except that it was dark, probably black.

Arlen Specter: Were you able to observe whether he had a full head of hair or any characteristic as to quantity of hair?

Arnold Rowland: It didn't appear as if he had a receding hairline but I know he didn't have it hanging on his shoulders. Probably a close cut from - you know it appeared to me it was either well-combed or close cut.

Arlen Specter: What, if anything, did you observe as to the clothes he was wearing?

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...

Arlen Specter: Were you able to form any opinion as to the age of that man?

Arnold Rowland: This is again just my estimation. He was - I think I remember telling my wife that he appeared in his early thirties. This could be obscured because of the distance, I mean...

Arlen Specter: When you saw him, you told her about him, and then did she look in the direction of the man?

Arnold Rowland: After she pointed something else out to me she looked in that direction.

Arlen Specter: Did you then look back toward the direction of, to the window where you had seen him?

Arnold Rowland: Yes; I even pointed to it with my wife.

Arlen Specter: Did you look back at the same time she looked back?

Arnold Rowland: Yes.

Arlen Specter: And when you looked back what, if anything, did you observe in the window?

Arnold Rowland: There was nothing there then.

Arlen Specter: Following that did you and she have any additional conversation about this man in the window?

Arnold Rowland: We talked about it momentarily, just for a few seconds that it was of most likelihood a security man, had a very good vantage point where he could watch the crowds, talked about the rifle, it looked like a very high-powered rifle.

Arlen Specter: Did you mention that to your wife?


Arnold Rowland: Yes; I did.


Arlen Specter: Have you described as fully as you can everything you discussed with your wife at that juncture?


Arnold Rowland: I think so.


Gerald Ford: Was there anybody else standing close to you as you had this conversation with your wife?


Arnold Rowland: There was a policeman about as far as me to the flag.

Gerald Ford: That is about how many feet, would you say?

Arnold Rowland: Twelve, thirteen feet.


Gerald Ford: Did it ever enter your mind that you should go and tell the policeman of this sight or this vision that you had seen?


Arnold Rowland: Really it didn't.


Gerald Ford: It never entered your mind?


Arnold Rowland: I never dreamed of anything such as that. I mean, I must honestly say my opinion was based on movies I have seen, on the attempted assassination of Theodore Roosevelt where they had Secret Service men up in the building such as that with rifles watching the crowds, and another one concerned with attempted assassination of the other one, Franklin Roosevelt. and both of these had Secret Service men up in windows or on top of buildings with rifles, and this is how my opinion was based and why it didn't alarm me. Perhaps if I had been older and had more experience in life it might have made a difference. It very well could have.

Gerald Ford: After you and your wife looked up and saw that there was no one in the window, did you ever again look at the window?

Arnold Rowland: Yes; I did, constantly.


Gerald Ford: And as you looked at the window subsequently did you ever see anything else in the window?


Arnold Rowland: No; not in that window, and I looked back every few seconds, 30 seconds, maybe twice a minute, occasionally trying to find him so I could point him out to my wife. Something I would like to note is that the window that I have been told the shots were actually fired from, I did not see that, there was someone hanging out that window at that time.

Gerald Ford: At what time was that?

Arnold Rowland: At the time I saw the man in the other window, I saw this man hanging out the window first. It was a colored man, I think.

Gerald Ford: Is this the same window where you saw the man standing with the rifle?

Arnold Rowland: No; this was the one on the east end of the building, the one that they said the shots were fired from.

Gerald Ford: I am not clear on this now. The window that you saw the man that you describe was on what end of the building?

Arnold Rowland: The west, southwest corner.

Gerald Ford: And the man you saw hanging out from the window was at what corner?

Arnold Rowland: The east, southeast corner.

Gerald Ford: Southeast corner. On the same floor?

Arnold Rowland: On the same floor.

Gerald Ford: When did you notice him?

Arnold Rowland: This was before I noticed the other man with the rifle.

Gerald Ford: I see. This was before you saw the man in the window with the rifle?

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

Gerald Ford: After 12:22 or thereabouts you indicated you periodically looked back at the window in the southwest corner where you had seen the man with the rifle What happened as the motorcade came along?

Arnold Rowland: As the motorcade came along, there was quite a bit of excitement. 1 didn't look back from then. I was very interested in trying to see the President myself. I had seen him twice before but I was interested in seeing him again.

Gerald Ford: You never again, after the motorcade once came into your view, looked back at the School Depository Building?

Arnold Rowland: I did after the shots were fired...

Arlen Specter: Will you now relate what occurred as the Presidential motorcade passed by you?

Arnold Rowland: Well, the car turned the corner at Houston and Main. Everyone was rushing, pressing the cars, trying to get closer. There were quite a few people, you know, trying to run alongside of the car such as this; officers were trying to prevent this. The car turned--we had more or less a long period of time that they were within our sight considering some of the other people. The car went down Houston, again turned on Elm, and it was proceeding down Elm when we heard the first of the reports. This I passed off as a backfire, so did practically everyone in the area because gobs of people, when I say gobs, I mean almost everyone in the vicinity, started laughing that couldn't see the motorcade. The motorcade was obscured from our vision by the crowd.

Arlen Specter: What would the occasion be for laughter on the sound of a backfire?

Arnold Rowland: I don't know. A lot of people laughed. I don't know. But a lot of people laughed, chuckled, such as this. Then approximately 5 seconds, 5 or 6 seconds, the second report was heard, 2 seconds the third report. After the second report, I knew what it was, and -

Arlen Specter: What was it?

Arnold Rowland: I knew that it was a gun firing.

Arlen Specter: How did you know that?

Arnold Rowland: I have been around guns quite a bit in my lifetime.

Arlen Specter: Was the sound of the fire different from the first and second sounds you described?

Arnold Rowland: No, that is just it. It did not sound as though there was any return fire in that sense.

Arlen Specter: What do you mean by return fire?

Arnold Rowland: That anyone fired back. You know, anyone in the procession such as our detectives or Secret Service men fired back at anything else. It gave the report of a rifle which most of the Secret Service men don't carry in a holster although I am sure they had some in the cars but the following two shots were the same report being of the same intensity, I state, because from a different position I know that the same rifle is not going to make the same sound in two different positions especially in a position such as it was, because of the ricocheting of sound and echo effects.

Arlen Specter: What is your basis for saying that, Mr. Rowland, that the rifle would not make the same sound in two different positions?

Arnold Rowland: This is due to a long study of sound and study of echo effects.

Arlen Specter: When had you conducted that study?

Arnold Rowland: In physics in the past 3 years.

Arlen Specter: Have you read any special books on that subject?

Arnold Rowland: Quite a few....

Arlen Specter: Can you describe the second sound by comparison with the first sound which you have described as being similar to a backfire?

Arnold Rowland: The second to my recollection was identical or as closely as could be.

Arlen Specter: How about the third shot?

Arnold Rowland: The same.

Arlen Specter: Sounded the same to you?

Arnold Rowland: Yes.

Arlen Specter: Did you have any impression or reaction as to the point of origin when you heard the first noise?

Arnold Rowland: Well, I began looking, I didn't look at the building mainly, and as practically any of' the police officers that were there then will tell you, the echo effect was such that it sounded like it came from the railroad yards. That is where I looked, that is where all the policemen, everyone, converged on the railroads...

Arlen Specter: Now, as to the second shot, did you have any impression as to the point of origin or source?

Arnold Rowland: The same point or very close to it.

Arlen Specter: And how about the third shot?

Arnold Rowland: Very close to the same position.

Arlen Specter: After the shots occurred, did you ever look back at the Texas School Book Depository Building?

Arnold Rowland: No; I did not. In fact, I went over toward the scene of the railroad yards myself.


#2 Ron Ecker

Ron Ecker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,188 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 06:27 PM

One thing that struck me as odd in Rowland's testimony, although I guess it's not important, is that he said he was familiar with the Texas School Book Depository Building because he had been there on occasion to purchase books.

I thought the building was strictly for book storage. It has never been my impression that someone could walk in and buy a book. But that's what Rowland said that he did, after Specter for some reason asked him if he was familiar with the building prior to 11/22.


Mr. ROWLAND - That is Houston, Elm running in front of this building. This is the school book depository building.
Mr. SPECTER - Were you familiar with that building prior to November 22, 1963?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; I have been in there on occasion.
Mr. SPECTER - You have been in the building?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes, to purchase books.
Mr. SPECTER - When were you in the building most recently prior to November 22, 1963?
Mr. ROWLAND - Within the first week of November. This was to buy a physics notebook.
Mr. SPECTER - What part of the building were you in at that time?
Mr. ROWLAND - Just inside the door of the main lobby.

#3 Guest_Tim Carroll_*

Guest_Tim Carroll_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 November 2004 - 07:42 PM

One thing that struck me as odd in Rowland's testimony, although I guess it's not important, is that he said he was familiar with the Texas School Book Depository Building because he had been there on occasion to purchase books.
I thought the building was strictly for book storage. It has never been my impression that someone could walk in and buy a book. But that's what Rowland said that he did, after Specter for some reason asked him if he was familiar with the building prior to 11/22. 
Mr. SPECTER - When were you in the building most recently prior to November 22, 1963?
Mr. ROWLAND - Within the first week of November. This was to buy a physics notebook.
Mr. SPECTER - What part of the building were you in at that time?
Mr. ROWLAND - Just inside the door of the main lobby.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Ron,

Good one. Retail sales and a "physics notebook" as opposed to just a book. What would a physics "notebook" be?

Tim

#4 Shanet Clark

Shanet Clark

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:US/Georgia 9/06- PHOTO ON FILE VIA URL
  • Interests:Masters in Education; B.A. (Summa Cum Laude) History. GSU.

Posted 05 November 2004 - 05:00 AM

Tim, Ron

I think you're getting ahead of yourself. He was in the lobby of the Texas state bookstore facility and bought a standard physics lab text. Not very suspicious. Why not a retail interface? It was a big bookstore/depot.

Arnold Rowland saw a gunman, heard fire in three rounds, and ran circles around Gerald Ford and Arlen Specter... Spector doesn't even appear to know what a thirty ought six is.

We are treated to the amusing fact of Gerald Ford trying to trip up a witness who uses triangulation to measure and physics to testify on acoustics.

No return fire.

He tells the Warren Commission that the Dealey Plaza gunfire didn't include any defensive return fire from the 1963 Secret Service.

Six to eight seconds is a long time to drive slowly through an ambush. The missing Zapruder frames are trying to speed up a limo that slowed to walking speed for a twelve second triple barrage, with no return fire, or securing of parade route windows.

Great Post
Shanet

#5 Greg Parker

Greg Parker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 06 November 2004 - 02:50 PM

John,

are you aware of the attack made on Rowland's credibility through the interrogation of his wife by the WC? The reason for the attack was supposedly that Rowland had failed to mention the black guy in previous statements. That may have been true, but the commission did then (or would soon) know that Rowland had in fact IMMEDIATELY reported both the white/light Latino guy and the black guy to Roger Craig. I guess Rowland was just plain unlucky in who he reported it to; another non-credible (in the commision's eyes) witness. It apparently meant the commission didn't have to count this as a previous mention.

Mr. BELIN. Mrs. Rowland, you made a statement toward the beginning part of this deposition that your husband said that he had all A's, but that you knew different, because you had seen the report card.
Mrs. ROWLAND. He said he had an A average.
Mr. BELIN. But that you knew different?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, he may have had an A average overall A average, but some of his cards didn't have A's altogether.
Mr. BELIN. Well, you mentioned that he had A's and B's and some C's and some D's?
Mrs. ROWLAND. The one I saw.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what years those would have been for?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Sometimes some people are prone to exaggerate more than others, and without in any way meaning to take away from the testimony of your husband as to what he saw in the building at the time, just from your general experience, do you feel you can rely on everything that your husband says?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I don't feel that I can rely on everything anybody says.
Mr. BELIN. Well, this is really an unfair question for me to ask any wife about her husband, and I am not asking it very correctly, but---
Mrs. ROWLAND. At times my husband is prone to exaggerate. Does that answer it?
Mr. BELIN. I think it does.
Is there anything else you want to add to that, or not?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Usually his exaggerations are not concerned with anything other than himself. They are usually to boast his ego. They usually say that he is really smarter than he is, or he is a better salesman than he is, something like that.
Mr. BELIN. Anything else you care to add?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Again, I apologize for any---for in any way trying to embarrass you or anything, but your husband did see a man on the sixth floor and it is important for us to try and find out everything we can to test his accuracy as to what he saw, and so this is why I have been asking these questions. You and I have never met before?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Not that I ever remember.
Mr. BELIN. When we did meet, I immediately brought you in here and we started taking your deposition under oath, isn't that true?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. We didn't chat about anything before we started taking your deposition, did we?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No.


This is a good example of how the commission operated: giving the most appallingly bad witnesses a free pass, a helping hand, and a hearty slap on the back, so long as what they testified to met the needs of the commission to find Oswald as the probable lone assassin.

Did they go after Givens about his tale of going back up to the 6th floor for his coat and cigarettes, despite not mentioning doing so in numerous previous statements? No.

Did they go after Williams about his tale of going back up the 6th floor to eat his fried chicken, despite saying in his statement of 22nov63 that he went downstairs for lunch, then went back up to the 5th floor with Norman and Jarman - with no mention whatsoever of a return to the infamous 6th? No.

Did they go after Baker about his tale of a 2nd floor lunch-room encounter with Oswald, despite saying in his statement of 22nov63 that the incident happened on the 3rd or 4th floor, innacurately describing Oswald in that satement, and failing to mention that the person encountered was the person now under arrest -- DESPITE the fact that Oswald was in the same room as he was making that statement!? No.

Baker's description, btw, is a much better match to Rowland's rifle-man than it is to Oswald: 30yo, weight 165, height 5'9", dark hair, wearing a grey coat (which he changed to light brown during his testimony).

Campare to Rowland's description: early 30s, weight 140 to 150, dark hair, light coloured shirt or jacket.

I have no doubt Rowland did exaggerate his own abilities, as per his wife's testimony. He, for instance, told the commission he graduated high school in June '63. His wife however, advised differently:

Mr. BELIN. Do you know how far your husband got through school?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, his credits are all mixed up. I think he lacks one or two semesters.
Mr. BELIN. Of completing high school?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. You said you were going back to school. Does he plan to keep working, or does he plan to go back to school?
Mrs. ROWLAND. He plans to go back to school sometime. I'm not sure when.
Mr. BELIN. To finish high school?
Mrs. ROWLAND. And college. Go to college, I think.


So this could have been an example of his exaggerations that were "not concerned with anything other than himself." His credibility as a witness should not have been affected by this. As shown, he immediately reported BOTH the white and black guy to the first cop he came across, he told his wife what he saw before that, and apart from failing to mention the black guy in a couple of statements, his story never was consistent, believable -- and possibly even corroborated by the unlikely figure of Marion Baker.

#6 J. Raymond Carroll

J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 06 May 2008 - 02:54 PM

[color=blue] Mr. BELIN. Sometimes some people are prone to exaggerate more than others, and without in any way meaning to take away from the testimony of your husband as to what he saw in the building at the time, just from your general experience, do you feel you can rely on everything that your husband says?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I don't feel that I can rely on everything anybody says.
Mr. BELIN. Well, this is really an unfair question for me to ask any wife about her husband, and I am not asking it very correctly, but---
Mrs. ROWLAND. At times my husband is prone to exaggerate. Does that answer it?
Mr. BELIN. I think it does.
Is there anything else you want to add to that, or not?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Usually his exaggerations are not concerned with anything other than himself. They are usually to boast his ego. They usually say that he is really smarter than he is, or he is a better salesman than he is, something like that.
Mr. BELIN. Anything else you care to add?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Again, I apologize for any---for in any way trying to embarrass you or anything, but your husband did see a man on the sixth floor and it is important for us to try and find out everything we can to test his accuracy as to what he saw, and so this is why I have been asking these questions.

This is a good example of how the commission operated: giving the most appallingly bad witnesses a free pass, a helping hand, and a hearty slap on the back, so long as what they testified to met the needs of the commission to find Oswald as the probable lone assassin.



Today's New York Times describes some interesting research that bears on Rowland's credibility. It seems that a little bit of self-aggrandizement is by no means an indication that someone is an unreliable witness.


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

May 6, 2008
Mind
I’m Not Lying, I’m Telling a Future Truth. Really.
By BENEDICT CAREY
Some tales are so tall that they trip over their own improbable feats, narrative cracks and melodrama. That one-on-one playground victory over Kobe Bryant back in the day; the 34 hours in labor without painkillers; the former girlfriend or boyfriend who spoke eight languages and was a secret agent besides.

Yes, uh-huh, really. Is it closing time yet?

Yet in milder doses, self-serving exaggeration can be nearly impossible to detect, experts say, and there are several explanations.

A series of recent studies, focusing on students who inflate their grade-point average, suggests that such exaggeration is very different psychologically from other forms of truth twisting. Touching up scenes or past performances induces none of the anxiety that lying or keeping secrets does, these studies find; and embroiderers often work to live up to the enhanced self-images they project. The findings imply that some kinds of deception are aimed more at the deceiver than at the audience, and they may help in distinguishing braggarts and posers from those who are expressing personal aspirations, however clumsily.

“It’s important to emphasize that the motives driving academic exaggeration seem to be personal and ‘intrapsychic’ rather than public or interpersonal,” said Richard H. Gramzow, a psychologist at the University of Southampton in England who has led much of the research. “Basically, exaggeration here reflects positive goals for the future, and we have found that those goals tend to be realized.”

Psychologists have studied deception from all sides and have found that it usually puts a psychological or physical strain on the person doing the dissembling. People with guilty knowledge — of a detail from a crime scene, for example — tend to show signs of stress, as measured by heart and skin sensors, under pointed questioning.

Trying to hold onto an inflammatory secret is mentally exhausting, studies have found, and the act of suppressing the information can cause thoughts of it to flood the consciousness. When telling outright lies, people tend to look and sound tenser than usual.

“Specifically, people are especially more tense when lying, compared to telling the truth, when they are highly motivated to get away with their lies and when they are lying about a transgression,” said Bella DePaulo, a visiting professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

But a study published in February in the journal Emotion found that exactly the opposite was true for students who exaggerated their grades. The researchers had 62 Northeastern University students fill out a computerized form asking, among other things, for cumulative grade point average. The students were then interviewed while hooked up to an array of sensitive electrodes measuring nervous system activation. The scripted interview covered academic history, goals and grades.

The researchers then pulled the students’ records, with permission, and found that almost half had exaggerated their average by as much as six-tenths of a point. Yet the electrode readings showed that oddly enough, the exaggerators became significantly more relaxed while discussing their grades.

“It was a robust effect, the sort of readings you see when people are engaged in a positive social encounter, or when they’re meditating,” said Wendy Berry Mendes, an associate professor of psychology at Harvard and senior author of the study. Dr. Gramzow and Greg Willard, then at Northeastern and now at Harvard, were co-authors.

The researchers videotaped the interviews, and independent observers rated how students looked and behaved. “The ones who exaggerated the most appeared the most calm and confident” on the ratings, Dr. Mendes said.

The grade inflation was less an attempt to deceive, the authors concluded, than a reflection of healthy overconfidence and a statement of aspirations. “It’s basically an exercise in projecting the self toward one’s goals,” Dr. Gramzow said.

In earlier studies, Dr. Gramzow and Dr. Willard found that students who bumped up their averages in interviews subsequently improved their grades — often by the very amount they had exaggerated.

The findings provide another lens through which to view claims, from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s story of sniper fire in Bosnia to exaggerations of income, charitable contributions and SAT scores. As much as these are embroideries, they are also expressions of yearning, and for reachable goals.

In that sense, fibs can reflect something close to the opposite of the frustration, insecurity and secretiveness that often fuel big lies. That may be why they can come so easily, add up so fast and for some people — especially around closing time — become indistinguishable from the truth.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.c...amp;oref=slogin

#7 Mike Williams

Mike Williams

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,145 posts

Posted 08 May 2008 - 02:41 AM

John,

One of the first things that struck me in Rowland's Testimony is the fact that it would be difficult to judge the power of the weapon, by the size of the scope.

If I recall correctly they interviewed Rowland in the 67 cbs report. I have no idea why, but the way Rowland describes what he saw in that report, struck me as though Rowland may have been talking about a spotting scope. I believe he actually said that the scope was large in relation to the rifle.



Best,

Mike

#8 Bernice Moore

Bernice Moore

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,939 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Canada

Posted 08 May 2008 - 07:31 AM

[quote name='Mike Williams' date='May 7 2008, 09:41 PM' post='144663']
John,

One of the first things that struck me in Rowland's Testimony is the fact that it would be difficult to judge the power of the weapon, by the size of the scope.

If I recall correctly they interviewed Rowland in the 67 cbs report. I have no idea why, but the way Rowland describes what he saw in that report, struck me as though Rowland may have been talking about a spotting scope. I believe he actually said that the scope was large in relation to the rifle.



Best,

Mike




Mike : From the CBS Special W/C Report....67-8...Arnold Rowland......

"" Quote : Eddie Barker:

Dan ( Rather).....Arnold Rowland was here with his wife on Houston Street in the crowd waiting for the motorcade. A few minutes before it arrived, Rowland told the Warren Commission , he noticed an elderly Negro man up in the window where you are now , where Oswald is suppose to have fired from . But he told the Commission , and a few days ago repeated his story for us here, of seeing a gunman lurking in another window entirely...

Rowland : And I was just lookin' around and we noticed a man up in the window and I remarked to my wife, tried to point him out . And remarked that he must be a security guard or s Secret Service agent .

Barker: So, the window, then, that you are referring to is on the opposite end of the building from where the main entrance to the building is ?.

Rowland : Yes, it is on the other side of the building . And he had a rifle. It looked like a high-powered rifle because it had a scope which looked, in relation to the size of the rifle. to be a big scope........""


...Below Barbara & Arnold Rowland on Houston Street.....during the motorcade......

B....... :

Edited by Bernice Moore, 08 May 2008 - 07:40 AM.


#9 Mike Williams

Mike Williams

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,145 posts

Posted 08 May 2008 - 09:47 AM

Bernice,

Thank You. That is what I was referring to. "it appeared to be a big scope..."

In relation to the size of a normal rifle scope, a spotting scope is quite large. Unusually so. I guess that is why Rowland's statement struck me that way.

The very first episode of that CBS report aired the day I was born, a friend of mine was kind enough to send me dvd copies of that series in color.


Best to you Bernice,

Mike

#10 Bernice Moore

Bernice Moore

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,939 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Canada

Posted 09 May 2008 - 12:32 AM

Mike:

Quote : ""The very first episode of that CBS report aired the day I was born."".......well you Spring chicken , you..... :lol:

Whatever else Rowland had to say, was clipped by CBS.....and they went on to Carolyn Walther ( never called
by the W/C......
who mentioned two men seen in the TSBD....she thought a window about even with the top of the tree...
fourth or fifth......
She recalled what to her appeared to be a shorter than a rifle weapon.....They then clip.....to
Amos Euins, and his recall of seeing what he had thought a pipe....sticking out about a foot, .....about on the sixth floor....

Then of course they went to Howard Brennan....who had become an embarassement to the W/C ...at first being hailed
as their best eye witness....yada.....and then proven to be fos.........
Why CBS used him, I have no idea, but then again, they used anyone and everything they could for that
series to prove the W/C correct....note how they cut, the witnesses they did speak to......... :blink:

Shame on Croncite......for putting his stamp of approval on all.....He was more intelligent than what he appeared
to make himself out to be in that particular series.....imo......

Hey Peter:

There were many open windows as seen in Moorman 3.....I believe it is......as well you are aware...but for posterities sake, let's have
another gander, shall we..... :huh:

As seen normal photo as well as inverted , as sometimes whatever shows up clearer......

Best fellas, your welcome.....

B......

#11 Mike Williams

Mike Williams

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,145 posts

Posted 09 May 2008 - 12:47 PM

Spring chicken indeed!!!!

Another interesting oddity, I qualified, for the first time, on the rifle range, on 21DEC84. Out boy LHO qualified on 21DEC56 I believe, or possibly 59, I have not finished enough coffee this morning to feel like looking it up.

Other historical dates for my bday

Little Big Horn 1876
Beginning of open hostilities in Korea 1950

Sorry for the off topic


I am pretty new to all this, and did not know that Rowland and his wife had some conflict in testimony. It is amazing to me the number of people who report gunmen, and where they are located.

Something else of interest. The majority of people outside in the plaza state 3 shots regardless of grouping, while many who remained inside the depository, and not at the front windows, report only 2.



Best,

Mike




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users