How Do LNers Deal With Givens?

[John Corbett]

The Nutter narrative is that from 12:00 noon until Bonnie Ray left the 6th floor (around 12:25pm), Oswald was hidden in the SN, quiet as a mouse, just a few yards away from Bonnie Ray as he ate his lunch sat on an incredibly uncomfortable trolley while he looked out on Dealey Plaza through a closed, dirty window.
For almost half an hour Oswald hid in silence.
And he must have been really, amazingly silent because there was no work going on in the TSBD building. Most employees were outside waiting for the parade.
Silence.
For almost half an hour.
Can't assemble a rifle in silence.
Can't move Rolling Reader boxes around in silence.

So let's not accept the lies of the Warren Commission Sham.
Once we accept that the accounts of Williams, Givens, Lovelady, Arce and Piper, it turns out Oswald never had enough time to even get into the SN before Bonnie Ray was in position, let alone organise the SN or assemble a rifle.
And what's with Arnold Rowland's sighting of a white male, fitting the description of the shooter as seen by others, with a scoped rifle at the southwest end of the 6th floor 15 minutes before the arrival of the motorcade in Dealey Plaza.
And what to make of Arnold's observation of a black male in the SN at the same time, who disappeared around 5 minutes before the motorcade arrived?
And what to make of the statements of every single one of the first responders, at least 6 of them, who put the remains of Bonnie Rays lunch in the SN before Fritz arrived on the scene?

What, exactly, was the Warren Commission Sham trying to cover up?

Your problem is that you accept the accounts from the above-named witnesses as if they are established facts. None of the above were keeping a time log for their activities just prior to the assassination, so when they were asked what they did and when they did it, all they could do was guess. For example, what reason would Bonnie Ray Williams have had for making a mental note of what time he arrived at the sixth-floor window or what time he left there? None whatsoever. We also don't know where Oswald was during the time BRW was at the window. He could have been anywhere on the 6th floor and not have been seen by BRW, and he might have been pondering his next move if BRW had remained at the 6th floor window. He might have been contemplating whether to move to the 7th floor if BRW remained in place. All of these are what-ifs that can be fun to speculate about but don't give us a clue as to what actually happened.   

[Dan O'meara]

Your problem is that you accept the accounts from the above-named witnesses as if they are established facts.

No I don't.
The only established facts are that the Warren Commission Sham ignored the testimonies and statements of these men in favour of the fictional account of events Givens gave. The Sham ignored that Givens had been questioned in detail about his movements and his observations of Oswald on the day of the assassination and had never once even hinted he had returned to the 6th floor and seen Oswald near the scene of the shooting.
Why was Givens, all of a sudden, introducing this vital piece of evidence that would be used by the Sham to establish Oswald was on the 6th floor all alone after everyone else went down to lunch. This question was never asked, the new version of events was simply accepted.
Time after time in the hearings witnesses were referred back to earlier statements they had given if it differed with their testimony.
Not Givens.
Let's not forget, Oswald was on the first floor talking to Eddie Piper at 12 noon. Piper was the last employee to see Oswald, not Givens. The Sham deliberately ignored this evidence.

None of the above were keeping a time log for their activities just prior to the assassination, so when they were asked what they did and when they did it, all they could do was guess. For example, what reason would Bonnie Ray Williams have had for making a mental note of what time he arrived at the sixth-floor window or what time he left there? None whatsoever.

Each person was giving their account of what they did during lunch.
They remember Oswald trying to get on the elevator and asking for it to be sent back up to him.
They remember Oswald was trying to get down to the first floor.
But then along comes the Givens fiction - now Givens is asking Oswald if he wants to come down to the first floor when, in reality, it was Oswald asking Givens. Now Oswald is refusing to come down when, in reality, he was trying to get down to the first floor which we know he did.

And we don't need Bonnie Ray to remember what time he left the 6th floor. Norman and Jarman provide that evidence but their testimonies are also ignored by the Sham. Hank Norman heard from a police motorcycle that the motorcade was on or approaching Main Street. This timestamps when they decided to go upstairs to 12:22pm at the earliest. they walk to the corner of Elm and Houston, alongside the building on Houston Street, up to the back loading dock and in the back door. The east elevator, the one closest to the back door, was not available forcing them to walk around the elevator shaft to the west side (it was at this point Oswald saw them from the Domino Room). They then took the elevator up to the 5th and walked all the way across to the southeast side. Jarman reckons they were up there around 12:25 - 12:28pm.
It was then, and only then that Williams decided to go down to meet them - if you believe the official narrative.

We also don't know where Oswald was during the time BRW was at the window. He could have been anywhere on the 6th floor and not have been seen by BRW, and he might have been pondering his next move if BRW had remained at the 6th floor window. He might have been contemplating whether to move to the 7th floor if BRW remained in place. All of these are what-ifs that can be fun to speculate about but don't give us a clue as to what actually happened.

Wasn't Oswald hiding as quiet as a mouse in the SN?
Was Oswald the man with the scoped, high-powered rifle that Arnold spotted at the west end of the 6th floor?
Doesn't the rifle bag in the SN demonstrate that the shooter assembled his rifle there?

There is so much evidence telling us what happened up on the 6th floor.
You are the only one who doesn't have a clue.

[John Corbett]

What nonsense. There is nothing that Givens said that in any way incriminates or exonerates Oswald. He is a non-factor.

[Dan O'meara]

This is the only thing Corbett has posted that is of any significance:

"We also don't know where Oswald was during the time BRW was at the window. He could have been anywhere on the 6th floor and not have been seen by BRW, and he might have been pondering his next move if BRW had remained at the 6th floor window. He might have been contemplating whether to move to the 7th floor if BRW remained in place."

This is a significant shift from the usual Oswald-hiding-in-the-SN nonsense.
The one thing we can say with any kind of confidence is that Oswald WAS NOT in the SN...but that's not really the issue.
The issue is that it has been demonstrated, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the WC Sham fabricated and omitted key evidence in order to create the narrative that the last time Oswald was seen was on the 6th floor, near the southeast corner, the scene of the shooting.
In order to create this false narrative all testimony and statements regarding the elevator race had to be wilfully omitted as this revealed Oswald was trying to get down to the first floor with the floor-laying crew. Eddie Piper's testimony also had to be wilfully omitted as this revealed Oswald did in fact go down to the first floor and was there around 12 noon.
The numerous statements by Bonnie Ray, that he was on the 6th floor by 12 noon, also had to be omitted from the WC Report.

To replace all this first-hand testimony, the story of Givens going back up to the 6th floor and seeing Oswald there, had to be created.

The reason this new narrative had to be created was to give Oswald time to organise the SN and assemble his rifle (it took an FBI weapons expert 6 minutes to assemble the rifle). With Oswald on the first floor at 12 noon and Bonnie Ray up on the 6th floor at the same time, there was no time for Oswald to assemble the rifle in the SN before Bonnie Ray was up on the 6th floor. Because Bonnie Ray stayed up on the 6th floor for so long, there was no time for Oswald to assemble his rifle in the SN before the limo arrived in Dealey Plaza.

As Corbett speculates - Oswald could have been anywhere on the 6th floor.
He seems to be admitting that the man with the scoped, high-powered rifle spotted by Arnold Rowland might have been Oswald. However, this is more testimony that the WC Sham had to omit. The way Rowland's witness testimony was treated by the WC Sham is it's own scandal. Rowland's observation of the man with the rifle should have dictated the narrative of Oswald's whereabouts in the moments leading up to the assassination. But Rowland's testimony had to be ignored because it held a revelation far more important than the man with the rifle.
Rowland was absolutely insistent that there was a black male in the SN from around 12:15pm until a few minutes before the limo arrived in Dealey Plaza. This was more testimony that had to be ignored.

[John Corbett]

This is the only thing Corbett has posted that is of any significance:

"We also don't know where Oswald was during the time BRW was at the window. He could have been anywhere on the 6th floor and not have been seen by BRW, and he might have been pondering his next move if BRW had remained at the 6th floor window. He might have been contemplating whether to move to the 7th floor if BRW remained in place."

This is a significant shift from the usual Oswald-hiding-in-the-SN nonsense.
The one thing we can say with any kind of confidence is that Oswald WAS NOT in the SN...but that's not really the issue.
The issue is that it has been demonstrated, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the WC Sham fabricated and omitted key evidence in order to create the narrative that the last time Oswald was seen was on the 6th floor, near the southeast corner, the scene of the shooting.
In order to create this false narrative all testimony and statements regarding the elevator race had to be wilfully omitted as this revealed Oswald was trying to get down to the first floor with the floor-laying crew. Eddie Piper's testimony also had to be wilfully omitted as this revealed Oswald did in fact go down to the first floor and was there around 12 noon.
The numerous statements by Bonnie Ray, that he was on the 6th floor by 12 noon, also had to be omitted from the WC Report.

To replace all this first-hand testimony, the story of Givens going back up to the 6th floor and seeing Oswald there, had to be created.

The reason this new narrative had to be created was to give Oswald time to organise the SN and assemble his rifle (it took an FBI weapons expert 6 minutes to assemble the rifle). With Oswald on the first floor at 12 noon and Bonnie Ray up on the 6th floor at the same time, there was no time for Oswald to assemble the rifle in the SN before Bonnie Ray was up on the 6th floor. Because Bonnie Ray stayed up on the 6th floor for so long, there was no time for Oswald to assemble his rifle in the SN before the limo arrived in Dealey Plaza.

As Corbett speculates - Oswald could have been anywhere on the 6th floor.
He seems to be admitting that the man with the scoped, high-powered rifle spotted by Arnold Rowland might have been Oswald. However, this is more testimony that the WC Sham had to omit. The way Rowland's witness testimony was treated by the WC Sham is it's own scandal. Rowland's observation of the man with the rifle should have dictated the narrative of Oswald's whereabouts in the moments leading up to the assassination. But Rowland's testimony had to be ignored because it held a revelation far more important than the man with the rifle.
Rowland was absolutely insistent that there was a black male in the SN from around 12:15pm until a few minutes before the limo arrived in Dealey Plaza. This was more testimony that had to be ignored.

You start with the silly assumption that the time estimates given by various witnesses are spot on accurate. Why would anyone assume such a thing. People don't mentally time stamp things they observe. Why the hell would they? If somebody says something happened at ABOUT 12:15, that could mean 12:10 or 12:20 or sometime in between or outside of those times. To be fair, it is a common practice in the discussion of JFKA for people to accept estimates as fixed times. I've also seen LNs do this as well. I've probably done it myself a few times over the years. The simple fact is that if so-and-so said something happened at about 12:15, we really don't know what time that event happened.

Furthermore, even if these time estimates were spot on accurate, it would not preclude Oswald having fired the shots at 12:30. If Oswald was on the first floor at 12:00 and BRW was on the 6th floor until 12:15, that still leaves the 6th floor all to Oswald for 15 minutes prior to JFK's arrival in Dealey Plaza. Plenty of time to assemble the rifle if he hadn't assembled it already and stack the boxes that formed the rifle rest.

This entire thread is much ado about nothing. I guess after over six decades of futility in trying to find real evidence of a conspiracy, the CTs are getting desperate to find something of significance. Instead they kept coming up with nothingburgers.

[Zeon Mason]

You start with the silly assumption that the time estimates given by various witnesses are spot on accurate. Why would anyone assume such a thing. People don't mentally time stamp things they observe. Why the hell would they? If somebody says something happened at ABOUT 12:15, that could mean 12:10 or 12:20 or sometime in between or outside of those times. To be fair, it is a common practice in the discussion of JFKA for people to accept estimates as fixed times. I've also seen LNs do this as well. I've probably done it myself a few times over the years. The simple fact is that if so-and-so said something happened at about 12:15, we really don't know what time that event happened.

Furthermore, even if these time estimates were spot on accurate, it would not preclude Oswald having fired the shots at 12:30. If Oswald was on the first floor at 12:00 and BRW was on the 6th floor until 12:15, that still leaves the 6th floor all to Oswald for 15 minutes prior to JFK's arrival in Dealey Plaza. Plenty of time to assemble the rifle if he hadn't assembled it already and stack the boxes that formed the rifle rest.

This entire thread is much ado about nothing. I guess after over six decades of futility in trying to find real evidence of a conspiracy, the CTs are getting desperate to find something of significance. Instead they kept coming up with nothingburgers.

Rolland said he saw 12:15 on  the digital clock on the TSBD roof as he was watching the black man hanging out the SE 6th floor window (thus the SN window higher than the 15.5 in height?) Now there may be some wiggle room here with whatever clock or watch Mrs Reid was using since she’s the one in charge of the group of female employees who began  leaving the 2nd floor lunchroom possibly as early as 12:10 according to some other clock which may have been off +/- 3 minutes relative to the rooftop digital clock.

Presuming Mrs Reid and Roy Truly were managers whom kept clocks in the building in sync as much as practical with the TSBD rooftop clock and if they were off the sort that prefer “on time” work performance then it’s doubtful they would not check those clocks routinely and not let them be lagging behind by as much as 5 minutes relative to the digital clock.

Problem is, I just don’t know for certain. Some managers can be obsessed with being “on time”, while others might not. Mrs Reid the supervisor and Roy Truly the building manager , come across in their WC testimonies as being the more time conscious type of manager.

So if we attempt another sequence of estimations of the various people going up and down the stairs and locations of where they were between 11:45-12:31 then I would start with a variance of clocks being not more than 3 minutes slower or faster than the TSBD roof top clock.

[John Corbett]

Rolland said he saw 12:15 on  the digital clock on the TSBD roof as he was watching the black man hanging out the SE 6th floor window (thus the SN window higher than the 15.5 in height?) Now there may be some wiggle room here with whatever clock or watch Mrs Reid was using since she’s the one in charge of the group of female employees who began  leaving the 2nd floor lunchroom possibly as early as 12:10 according to some other clock which may have been off +/- 3 minutes relative to the rooftop digital clock.

Presuming Mrs Reid and Roy Truly were managers whom kept clocks in the building in sync as much as practical with the TSBD rooftop clock and if they were off the sort that prefer “on time” work performance then it’s doubtful they would not check those clocks routinely and not let them be lagging behind by as much as 5 minutes relative to the digital clock.

Problem is, I just don’t know for certain. Some managers can be obsessed with being “on time”, while others might not. Mrs Reid the supervisor and Roy Truly the building manager , come across in their WC testimonies as being the more time conscious type of manager.

So if we attempt another sequence of estimations of the various people going up and down the stairs and locations of where they were between 11:45-12:31 then I would start with a variance of clocks being not more than 3 minutes slower or faster than the TSBD roof top clock.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would bother making note of the time that they observed something that would have seemed completely inconsequential at the time. I can believe that someone would look up and see Oswald on the sixth floor and either a little before or a little after look up and notice the time on the Hertz clock. I can see how someone could connect those two observations later on from memory but that doesn't establish that the two happened at the same time. I continue to be amazed at how much faith people have in other people's ability to remember fine details when those details would not have seemed the least bit important at the time. People do not have DVDs in their brains. Memories are nothing more than bits and pieces which we try to reconstruct later when asked to do so. We tend to remember important things but few people remember things clearly that wouldn't have seemed the least bit important at the time.

The least compelling arguments I see posted on this and other forums are the ones that begin "so-and-so said", as if that is proof of anything.