How Do LNers Deal With Givens?

[John Corbett]

I answered the challenge.
You asked for a plausible alternative explanation that accounted for your so-called list of evidence and that's exactly what I did.

The WCR wins by default.

That's what this is for you, isn't it - a competition.
What a child you are.

What a Helicopter you are. I gave you 11 pieces of evidence to explain and your vague one sentence answer that Oswald was framed using his rifle hardly explained those 11 pieces of evidence. You didn't bother to explain how the conspirators got Oswald's rifle. You didn't explain how they got Oswald to bring a long paper bag into work that day. You don't explain how Oswald's palm and finger prints got on the bag. You didn't explain why fibers matching Oswald's rifle blanket ended in the bag. You didn't explain how fibers matching Oswald's shirt end up on the butt plate of the rifle. You didn't bother to explain why Oswald's fingerprints ended up on the boxes that were stacked to form a rifle rest oriented exactly how they would be if Oswald was facing down Elm St. You didn't bother to explain how the conspirators ensured Oswald wouldn't be seen elsewhere at the time the shots were fired. Just a simpleton statement that Oswald's rifle was used to frame him, with no evidence whatsoever that somebody else had used that rifle to kill JFK. Just crazy stuff you have imagined as an excuse to deny the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt.

It's easy to conjure up a vague alternative story to the one the WCR presented. The devil is in the details and you have provided none. The WCR's narrative addressed all of the 11 items and a whole lot more. If we were to give you a grade for your effort, it would be an incomplete.

[Zeon Mason]

The best CT alternative I could offer is that Oswald was involved with the shooter.

Oswald brought the MC rifle onto the TSBD that morning and hid it in the attached garage part just before he then went into TSBD thru the back door.

The shooter if not some other employee, would have had to been disguised as perhaps a contract worker. He retrieved the bagged disassembled rifle from where Oswald had hidden it in the annex bldg.

The shooter took the bag to the 7th floor and assembled the rifle , probably between 11:45-12:00.

The shooter then remained hidden on the 7th floor until about 12:10 when he took the assembled rifle (covered with the bag )in case he was inadvertantly seen coming down to 6th floor landing by somebody coming up stairs from 5th floor.

The shooter had checked out the 6th floor at 12:00 thinking it was clear but BRW came up unseen by the shooter at 12:05 as the shooter went back up to 7th floor to get the rifle.

When the shooter returns to the 6th floor carrying rifle in bag, he was planning to shoot from the SW window. He was surprised as he approached the SW window to notice BRW was at the SE window. Thus he was only momentarily sighted by Arnold Rowland at 12:15.

The shooter backed away from the SW window,put the  rifle back in the bag ( in case another unexpected person might appear) , moved himself with bag in hand to the NE corner of the 6th floor behind some boxes where he could wait and see if BRW would leave the floor.

The shooter saw BRW leave the floor by 12:24. The shooter then had has potentially 2-3 minutes to have arranged 3 boxes stacked as a rifle rest. The shooter was wearing gloves which is why he left no fingerprints on the boxes, the bag, and the rifle. The Oswald print on one of the boxes was merely coincidence of Oswald having  handled MANY boxes when he was helping move boxes earlier.

The shooter took the rifle out of the bag and left the bag there in the SN. He lowered the window and placed the box on the window ledge just before the Bronson film started.

The shooter sat on one box and kept himself out of sight during Bronson film and Hughes film.

The shooter hid  the MC rifle between the boxes near the staircase as early as 25 seconds post shots  because he could run faster than 8ft/sec, not having to wipe prints from rifle while running with it.

[Michael T. Griffith]

The LNers' replies in this thread are yet another example of the fact that they hold pro-WC witnesses to a much lower standard than they hold anti-WC witnesses. When they're dealing with anti-WC witnesses, they pounce on even the tiniest inconsistencies in their accounts and pretend they've found strong evidence of falsehood or unreliability. They ignore any and all evidence that corroborates the witnesses' accounts. They search far and wide for any prior evidence of character flaws in the witnesses, and if they find any, they cite them as a reason to disbelieve the witnesses' accounts. If an anti-WC witness gave more information in a subsequent account than he/she gave in their first account, LNers pounce on that as an indication of fraud or unreliability, as if everyone always remembers every single relevant detail in their first account of an event.

But, oh, when LNers deal with pro-WC witnesses, they overlook or bend over backward to excuse clear contradictions, outright changes of story, demonstrably impossible claims, failure to mention key information in the first version of their accounts, character flaws, etc., etc.

[John Corbett]

The best CT alternative I could offer is that Oswald was involved with the shooter.

Oswald brought the MC rifle onto the TSBD that morning and hid it in the attached garage part just before he then went into TSBD thru the back door.

The shooter if not some other employee, would have had to been disguised as perhaps a contract worker. He retrieved the bagged disassembled rifle from where Oswald had hidden it in the annex bldg.

The shooter took the bag to the 7th floor and assembled the rifle , probably between 11:45-12:00.

The shooter then remained hidden on the 7th floor until about 12:10 when he took the assembled rifle (covered with the bag )in case he was inadvertantly seen coming down to 6th floor landing by somebody coming up stairs from 5th floor.

The shooter had checked out the 6th floor at 12:00 thinking it was clear but BRW came up unseen by the shooter at 12:05 as the shooter went back up to 7th floor to get the rifle.

When the shooter returns to the 6th floor carrying rifle in bag, he was planning to shoot from the SW window. He was surprised as he approached the SW window to notice BRW was at the SE window. Thus he was only momentarily sighted by Arnold Rowland at 12:15.

The shooter backed away from the SW window,put the  rifle back in the bag ( in case another unexpected person might appear) , moved himself with bag in hand to the NE corner of the 6th floor behind some boxes where he could wait and see if BRW would leave the floor.

The shooter saw BRW leave the floor by 12:24. The shooter then had has potentially 2-3 minutes to have arranged 3 boxes stacked as a rifle rest. The shooter was wearing gloves which is why he left no fingerprints on the boxes, the bag, and the rifle. The Oswald print on one of the boxes was merely coincidence of Oswald having  handled MANY boxes when he was helping move boxes earlier.

The shooter took the rifle out of the bag and left the bag there in the SN. He lowered the window and placed the box on the window ledge just before the Bronson film started.

The shooter sat on one box and kept himself out of sight during Bronson film and Hughes film.

The shooter hid  the MC rifle between the boxes near the staircase as early as 25 seconds post shots  because he could run faster than 8ft/sec, not having to wipe prints from rifle while running with it.

Just one question. Other than BRW showing up, is there any evidence that any of this happened?

Why do you need and alternative to the WCR narrative? OK. That's two questions.

[John Corbett]

The LNers' replies in this thread are yet another example of the fact that they hold pro-WC witnesses to a much lower standard than they hold anti-WC witnesses. When they're dealing with anti-WC witnesses, they pounce on even the tiniest inconsistencies in their accounts and pretend they've found strong evidence of falsehood or unreliability. They ignore any and all evidence that corroborates the witnesses' accounts. They search far and wide for any prior evidence of character flaws in the witnesses, and if they find any, they cite them as a reason to disbelieve the witnesses' accounts. If an anti-WC witness gave more information in a subsequent account than he/she gave in their first account, LNers pounce on that as an indication of fraud or unreliability, as if everyone always remembers every single relevant detail in their first account of an event.

But, oh, when LNers deal with pro-WC witnesses, they overlook or bend over backward to excuse clear contradictions, outright changes of story, demonstrably impossible claims, failure to mention key information in the first version of their accounts, character flaws, etc., etc.

The accusation is simply not true. I hold all witnesses to the same standard. If their account can be corroborated by other forms of evidence, I find them to be credible. If their account is refuted by other forms of evidence, I find them to be not credible. If their account can neither be corroborated nor refuted, I do not pass judgement on it. It becomes a big MAYBE.

[Dan O'meara]

What a Helicopter you are. I gave you 11 pieces of evidence to explain and your vague one sentence answer that Oswald was framed using his rifle hardly explained those 11 pieces of evidence. You didn't bother to explain how the conspirators got Oswald's rifle. You didn't explain how they got Oswald to bring a long paper bag into work that day. You don't explain how Oswald's palm and finger prints got on the bag. You didn't explain why fibers matching Oswald's rifle blanket ended in the bag. You didn't explain how fibers matching Oswald's shirt end up on the butt plate of the rifle. You didn't bother to explain why Oswald's fingerprints ended up on the boxes that were stacked to form a rifle rest oriented exactly how they would be if Oswald was facing down Elm St. You didn't bother to explain how the conspirators ensured Oswald wouldn't be seen elsewhere at the time the shots were fired. Just a simpleton statement that Oswald's rifle was used to frame him, with no evidence whatsoever that somebody else had used that rifle to kill JFK. Just crazy stuff you have imagined as an excuse to deny the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt.

It's easy to conjure up a vague alternative story to the one the WCR presented. The devil is in the details and you have provided none. The WCR's narrative addressed all of the 11 items and a whole lot more. If we were to give you a grade for your effort, it would be an incomplete.

In six words I offered up an alternative that explained 10 of your 11 pieces of evidence - "Oswald was framed using his own rifle".
How is that "vague," you buffoon?

Now then, getting back to the topic of this thread, let's have your explanation for why Givens never mentioned going back up to the 6th floor when he was grilled about his movements, and what he knew about Oswald's movements, by the FBI on the day of the assassination?
Remember, he also failed to mention this incredibly important piece of information when being grilled by Fritz earlier in the day.
Try to make your answer rational.
You are free to use more than six words.

[John Corbett]

In six words I offered up an alternative that explained 10 of your 11 pieces of evidence - "Oswald was framed using his own rifle".
How is that "vague," you buffoon?

Now then, getting back to the topic of this thread, let's have your explanation for why Givens never mentioned going back up to the 6th floor when he was grilled about his movements, and what he knew about Oswald's movements, by the FBI on the day of the assassination?
Remember, he also failed to mention this incredibly important piece of information when being grilled by Fritz earlier in the day.
Try to make your answer rational.
You are free to use more than six words.

I listed specific items your narrative doesn't even begin to explain, and your one sentence reply provides no details on how your imagined conspirators accomplished the other items. The sad part is that you're not bright enough to understand that.