Muck O'meara,
You know that your comrade-in-arms, Mark Lane, was paid by the KGB, don't you?
And that overly ambitious, scandal-plagued, and revengeful Jim Garrison changed his theory against Clay Shaw from "He organized a homosexual thrill-kill" to "He did it for the evil, evil CIA!!!" based on a KGB article that had been published in a Communist-owned Italian newspaper (Paese Sera) three days after he'd arrested Shaw?
And that traumatized-by-the-Vietnam-War Oliver Stone's buddy, Vladimir Putin, is a "former" KGB counterintelligence officer, and that Stone's JFKA guru, Jimmy DiEugenio, has never met a Communist he didn't absolutely cherish?
Once again, Muck O'meara, how many evil, evil bad guys and really, really bad gals do you figure were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
Oodles and gobs?
And please tell us once again how and why they created CE-399 with such unusual deformation, and why they included Tomlinson, O.P. Wright and Johnsen in the chain of people who eventually gave it to FBI agent Elmer Todd.
Thanks!
Little Tommy "the Commie" McMahon,
Rather than deal with your issues, let's carry on with the topic of this thread.
"One witness, however, offered testimony which, if accurate, would create the possibility of an accomplice at the window at the time of the assassination. The witness was 18-year-old Arnold Rowland, who testified in great detail concerning his activities and observations on November 22, 1963. He and his wife were awaiting the motorcade, standing on the east side of Houston Street between Maine and Elm, when he looked toward the Depository Building and noticed a man holding a rifle standing back from the southwest corner window on the sixth floor. The man was rather slender in proportion to his size and of light complexion with dark hair. Rowland said that his wife was looking elsewhere at the time and when they looked back to the window the man "was gone from our vision." They thought the man was most likely someone protecting the President. After the assassination Rowland signed an affidavit in which he told of seeing this man, although Rowland was unable to identify him."
[Warren Commission Report pg 250]Around 12:15 pm, Arnold Rowland spotted a man with a scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building. He told his wife, Barbara, about the man and in the minutes after the assassination he told numerous law enforcement officials about this man until eventually giving an affidavit. This observation was a truly massive headache for the WC Sham. The lie they were trying to push involved Oswald sneaking into the SN after the floor-laying crew had vacated the 6th floor and hiding silently there until the assassination. Bonnie Ray's lunch remains being initially discovered on the SN blew that story out of the water so the testimony/statements of the 6 officers who made the discovery was simply ignored. Eddie Piper's testimony that Oswald was on the first floor around 12:00 pm was also ignored and the fabricated testimony of Charles Givens incorporated so the Sham could tell the lie that Givens was the last TSBD employee to see Oswald before the assassination and that Oswald was on the 6th floor near the southeast corner.
And Rowland's testimony was yet another piece of testimony that blew the Sham's narrative out of the water.
So, how did the Sham deal with it?
Extraordinarily, they asked the FBI to launch an investigation into a civilian witness, the strict purpose of which was to discredit Rowland. The FBI investigation discovered "that numerous statements by Rowland concerning matters about which he would not normally be expected to be mistaken--such as subjects he studied in school, grades he received, whether or not he had graduated from high school, and whether or not he had been admitted to college--were false."
It seems that Rowland was bullsh^tting about how smart he was. This was corroborated by a most likely source, his wife Barbara:
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. It turns out that Rowland liked to make out he was smarter than he actually was.
But was this enough to disregard his testimony about seeing a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building?
Clearly not.
At least half a dozen people could attest that Rowland told the story of the man with the rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building on the day of the assassination. His description of the man was uncannily similar to that of Fischer, Edwards and Brennan. Rowland was surely describing the same man. And how could Rowland know this man had a scoped rifle if he hadn't seen it? Was it some miraculous coincidence?
How could the Sham simply ignore this report of a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building 15 minutes before the motorcade arrived in Dealey Plaza?
