45th Anniversary

[Duke Lane]

So DPD officer Robert Rowe was working undercover on 11/22/63, wearing a poney tail and dressed like a beatnick, and was in on the arrest of Oswald at the Texas Theater, but all photos of him have been docktored to protect his identity? Now you're gun shy about discrediting witnesses?

If Rowe was indeed a participant in Oswald's arrest, doing what he claims to have been doing, then the only explanation would be that the photos have been altered to eliminate him from them, presumably to protect his cover. He was not deposed or taken to Washington and did not fill out any internal reports that might've ended up in the WC volumes or the Dallas archives, presumably for the same reason. His fellow officers would want to not mention him in their reports, statements and testimonies either, so he wouldn't be exposed to the druggies and left-wingers he was investigating. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Maybe I should offer to ghost his book. Ya think? Then I could be a shameless promoter like some people, or a prostheletyzer like others crying, "How could he know about the snap of the pistol if he wasn't there? How else would he have known that Oswald was complaining about 'police brutality' unless he was there?" (Y'know, since I know about those things, I must've been there too! Gosh, and I didn't even realize it! Watch for my forthcoming book instead!) It makes for great, harmless entertainment, doncha think? Add tears for effect and you get theater! I'm lovin' it already!

I've never discredited - or even attempted to discredit - an actual witness. Bob Rowe says that he's an actual witness. What reason do I have to doubt him? What reason would he have to lie about it? Gosh, I can't think of a single one. Can you?

Who gets to choose which "witnesses" "deserve" to be discredited and which don't?

[Duke Lane]

I've recently learned that one actual witness, whose story has been published by "a noted historical research company" and who should be "embraced for coming forward" was instead "crucified by the electronic and print media." Who could that be? "Crucified by the electronic and print media?!?"

[William Kelly]

So DPD officer Robert Rowe was working undercover on 11/22/63, wearing a poney tail and dressed like a beatnick, and was in on the arrest of Oswald at the Texas Theater, but all photos of him have been docktored to protect his identity? Now you're gun shy about discrediting witnesses?

So Duke, You don't know anything more about Robert Rowe other than what's in the 45th anniversary article and are just speculating that his picture was removed from photos? How do you know he had a pony tail?

If Rowe was indeed a participant in Oswald's arrest, doing what he claims to have been doing, then the only explanation would be that the photos have been altered to eliminate him from them, presumably to protect his cover.

If this is true, then it would be an example of DPD retouching photos, which makes me disbelieve it ever happened. I would think that once he helps arrest the cop killer and accused assassin of the President, his undercover days would be over. If not, then he must have been under Deep Cover.

He was not deposed or taken to Washington and did not fill out any internal reports that might've ended up in the WC volumes or the Dallas archives, presumably for the same reason.

The reason being that his under cover work was more important than arresting the cop killer and accused assassin? I don't think so.

His fellow officers would want to not mention him in their reports, statements and testimonies either, so he wouldn't be exposed to the druggies and left-wingers he was investigating. Makes sense, doesn't it?

So his job was to investigate druggies and left-wingers, which makes his testimony more significant, especially if he tried to infiltrate the same groups Oswald was associated with - FPCC, ACLU, etc. And makes me wonder if they had similar undercover officers investigating the other end of the spectrum - Walker & Co.?

Maybe I should offer to ghost his book. Ya think? Then I could be a shameless promoter like some people, or a prostheletyzer like others crying, "How could he know about the snap of the pistol if he wasn't there?

I don't doubt he was there, just that they tampered with photos to keep him being there secret, or his identity secret.

The fact that the gun didn't go off makes me think that the gun couldn't have been fired at all, and thus was not the gun that was used to kill Tippit.

How else would he have known that Oswald was complaining about 'police brutality' unless he was there?" (Y'know, since I know about those things, I must've been there too! Gosh, and I didn't even realize it! Watch for my forthcoming book instead!) It makes for great, harmless entertainment, doncha think? Add tears for effect and you get theater! I'm lovin' it already!

Duke, Your propensity for verbosity and taking anything to its most absurd limits make you a bad candidate for Crime Scene Investigator.

I've never discredited - or even attempted to discredit - an actual witness. Bob Rowe says that he's an actual witness. What reason do I have to doubt him? What reason would he have to lie about it? Gosh, I can't think of a single one. Can you?

No, that's why I don't understand your continued speculation that he wasn't there? Why? Nobody has made that accusation except you. I believe he was there, I don't believe your assertion that the photos of the Texas Theater arrest were altered to protet the id of an undercover cop who was in on the arrest of the cop/killer assassin.

Who gets to choose which "witnesses" "deserve" to be discredited and which don't?

I think Bob Rowe deserves his own thread, and I hope that there's more such witnesses who we haven't really heard about before.

BK

[William Kelly]

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/jfk-45th...-2008/910593607

Retired DPD undercover officer Robert Rowe is interviewed on camera beginning at 1:35

http://cbs11tv.com/video/?id=35136@ktvt.dayport.com