When the SN was built

[Alan Ford]

What claim are you talking about?

The claim that Mrs. Rowland undermines Mr. Rowland's account of what he said to the authorities about the 'elderly Negro'.

Take the L and move on, Mr. Collins. Better luck next time!

 

[Charles Collins]

The claim that Mrs. Rowland undermines Mr. Rowland's account of what he said to the authorities about the 'elderly Negro'.

Take the L and move on, Mr. Collins. Better luck next time!

 

I don’t believe that I even suggested that. Here are some definitions of your word, which one are you accusing me of claiming?

undermine:

to injure or destroy by insidious activity or imperceptible stages, sometimes tending toward a sudden dramatic effect.

to attack by indirect, secret, or underhand means; attempt to subvert by stealth.

to make an excavation under; dig or tunnel beneath, as a military stronghold.

to weaken or cause to collapse by removing underlying support, as by digging away or eroding the foundation.

[Jack Nessan]

LOL. Of course that's your opinion, Mr. Collins, because your opinion is always going to be favorable to the official story. But I'm afraid that your own extreme gullibility about the nature of the official 'investigation' does absolutely nothing to undermine the integrity and memory of Mr. Rowland.

You thought you had something with the Mrs. Rowland thing, but you didn't. So you don't get to trash the man's reputation by claiming she claimed to have been present at the Saturday FBI interview. That idea was about as grounded in reality as your fantasy 12:15pm ambulance sirens.

It is no doubt utopian of me, but maybe one day the cognitive dissonance will intensify to a point of such discomfort that you will say to yourself, 'Jeez, maybe there's more to researching this case than playing robotic defense for the official story......................'

 

The other change she made on the same page was put into the official record. It is more like she completely reaffirms Arnold did not say anything about another person in the SN. She had to have known the impact on her marriage and did the right thing anyway. Everything about Arnold was BS and the person in the SN was just another instance of it. Barbara knew that and never completed the change.

[Jack Nessan]

I did find something interesting regarding Barbara Rowland's testimony. Here is an image of CE 2783 and a link to it at history-matters.com:





https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2783.pdf


Arnold Rowland testified to the WC in Washington DC on 3/10/63. During this testimony he spoke of (for the first time in the record) of seeing an elderly black man on the sixth floor.

Barbara Rowland testified to the WC via Belin in Dallas, TX on 4/7/63. She was asked extensively about the sighting of the elderly black man on the sixth floor. This was apparently news to her because, as she testified, Arnold never said a word to her about it. Babs indicated that she wanted to return to read and sign her testimony after it was typed up. The amendments shown on CE 2783 would have been her amendments that she made when she returned to sign the testimony. I don't know how long it took for them to type the testimony and call Babs back to sign it. But lets say that it was enough time for Babs to confront Arnie with a big: "WTF is this about an elderly black man on the sixth floor?" After Arnie clued Babs in, and Babs (and perhaps Arnie was with her) returned to read the testimony, she/they decided to add her amendment. Now, folks, do you really think that the court reporter really and truly missed that long sentence that Babs added to her testimony? There is not a chance in hell that it happened that way. I think that the more likely scenario is that the two Arnolds decided that the amendment needed to be added to give Arnie's testimony regarding the elderly black man on the sixth floor any chance of appearing to be being legit. If one wants to believe that the WC omitted this for some sort of sinister purpose, then why in the heck would they even include WC exhibit 2783 in the volumes?

The other change she made on the same page was put into the official record. It is more like she completely reaffirms Arnold did not say anything about another person in the SN. She had to have known the impact on her marriage and did the right thing anyway. Everything about Arnold was BS and the person in the SN was just another instance of it. Barbara knew that and never completed the change.

[Martin Weidmann]

I did find something interesting regarding Barbara Rowland's testimony. Here is an image of CE 2783 and a link to it at history-matters.com:





https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2783.pdf


Arnold Rowland testified to the WC in Washington DC on 3/10/63. During this testimony he spoke of (for the first time in the record) of seeing an elderly black man on the sixth floor.

Barbara Rowland testified to the WC via Belin in Dallas, TX on 4/7/63. She was asked extensively about the sighting of the elderly black man on the sixth floor. This was apparently news to her because, as she testified, Arnold never said a word to her about it. Babs indicated that she wanted to return to read and sign her testimony after it was typed up. The amendments shown on CE 2783 would have been her amendments that she made when she returned to sign the testimony. I don't know how long it took for them to type the testimony and call Babs back to sign it. But lets say that it was enough time for Babs to confront Arnie with a big: "WTF is this about an elderly black man on the sixth floor?" After Arnie clued Babs in, and Babs (and perhaps Arnie was with her) returned to read the testimony, she/they decided to add her amendment. Now, folks, do you really think that the court reporter really and truly missed that long sentence that Babs added to her testimony? There is not a chance in hell that it happened that way. I think that the more likely scenario is that the two Arnolds decided that the amendment needed to be added to give Arnie's testimony regarding the elderly black man on the sixth floor any chance of appearing to be being legit. If one wants to believe that the WC omitted this for some sort of sinister purpose, then why in the heck would they even include WC exhibit 2783 in the volumes?

Why was Belin so interested in questioning Mrs Rowland about her husband's testimony in the first place?

[Charles Collins]

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.

[Charles Collins]

I think that CE 2783 is very interesting. I don’t remember seeing anything similar in the record. Has anyone seen another example of an amended testimony where they included the actual document that the witness marked up? I think he staff of the WC must have been trying to tell us something when they decided to include this document.

[Alan Ford]

The other change she made on the same page was put into the official record.

'The correction made in a handwriting different to Mrs. Rowland's obviously comes from Mrs. Rowland'

It is more like she completely reaffirms Arnold did not say anything about another person in the SN. She had to have known the impact on her marriage and did the right thing anyway. Everything about Arnold was BS and the person in the SN was just another instance of it. Barbara knew that and never completed the change.

'Mrs. Rowland's making the correction means Mrs. Rowland didn't want the correction made'