There is no single piece of evidence that BY ITSELF places Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. Taken as a whole, the body of evidence places Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. For any single piece of evidence, you can come up with an unlikely but plausible alternative explanation that doesn't implicate Oswald. When you have to reach for the least likely explanation for so many pieces of evidence in order to argue for Oswald's innocence, the argument becomes laughable. If you dispute that fact, then give us a PLAUSIBLE alternative explanation that takes into account all of the evidence below.

1. Several witnesses saw a gunman in the southeast corner window of the 6th floor of the TSBD.
2. 3 spent shells were found at that window a short time later.
3. A rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
4. The 3 spent shells were determined to have been fired by the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
5. Only 2 bullets were recovered from the shooting, both determined to have been fired by the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
6. A clear paper trail established that Oswald ordered the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
7. Oswald was photographed with the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
8. Oswald's palm print was found on the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
9. Fibers matching the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested were found on the butt plate of the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
10. A bag was found nearby the sniper's nest with Oswald's finger and palm print on it. The bag had fibers that matched the blanket that Oswald has used to store the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
11. Oswald's fingerprints were found on the top of the boxes that had been stacked to form a rifle rest. The fingerprints were oriented as they would be had Oswald fired the shots from behind those boxes.

We also have Oswald's action following the shooter which point to his guilt in the JFKA. but I'll settle for a plausible explanation of the 10 items listed above that does no conclude that Oswald was the assassin.

My prediction is that if you accept this challenge at all, you will do what CTs always do when presented the evidence listed above. You will attack pieces of the evidence individually, but you will not present a single comprehensive narrative that explains all of these pieces collectively. No such explanation is possible. If it was, somebody would have come up with it by now.

There is no single piece of evidence that BY ITSELF places Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired.

I've not bothered reading past this opening line as I've no doubt it's the usual WC arselicking nothingness.
You previously posted - "There is ample evidence that Oswald was in the sniper's nest at 12:30"
There is no evidence that Oswald was in the SN at 12:30.
It's good to see you back-tracking on this nonsense and throwing Tim under the bus at the same time.

As I had to inform Tim, your interpretation of the select pieces of evidence you choose to interpret is your interpretation. And that's all it is.
The assumptions you draw from this interpretation are just your assumptions. And that's all they are.
Your theory is your theory.
Jumping up and down and insisting it's a fact, like some petulant child, means nothing.

LATER EDIT: I couldn't resist and read your post.
I'm so glad I did or I would have missed the challenge:

give us a PLAUSIBLE alternative explanation that takes into account all of the evidence below.

Oswald was framed using his own rifle.

That's why the eye-witnesses described a man wearing clothes Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own.
It's why Euins described the shooter having a distinctive bald spot on top of his head which he could only see when the shooter tilted his head to look down the rifle. This would require the shooter to tilt his head to the left demonstrating he was a left-handed shooter - which Oswald wasn't.
Euins also failed to notice a telescopic sight on the rifle even though he described it in detail and recalled the shooter taking aim down the rifle.
Brennan, the only other witness who saw the rifle while it was being used, also failed to notice a telescopic sight.
Reportedly, Oswald stated he was on the first floor having lunch in the Domino Room when he saw Junior Jarman and Hank Norman. Thanks to the testimonies of Jarman and Norman we know the only time this would have been possible was after they entered the back door of the TSBD building around 12:23pm

And that's before getting into all the evidence demonstrating how the Warren Commission fabricated and omitted evidence in order to create a false narrative regarding what took place on the 6th floor before the assassination - the subject of this thread.

I had to start this thread in response to something a Nutter posted on another thread insinuating that Arnold Rowland made up seeing the man with the rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building.
Of all the crazy things the Warren Commission has forced Nutters to believe this has to be right up there.

Barbara Rowland confirms her husband's account of seeing the man with the rifle at the southwestern end of the 6th floor of the TSBD building:

Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, my husband and I were talking about Mr. Stevenson’s visit and the way the people had acted, and we were talking about security measures, and he said he saw a man on the sixth floor of the School Book
Depository Building, and when I looked up there I didn’t see the man, because I didn’t know exactly what window he was talking about at first. And when I found out which window it was, the man had apparently stepped
back, because I didn’t see him.
Mr. BELIN. Which window was it?
Mrs. ROWLAND. It was the far left-hand window.
Mr. BELIN. As you face the building?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. It would be the window to the south side of the building?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Would it be on the eastern part of the south side or the western part of the south side?
Mrs. ROWLAND. West.
Mr. BELIN. Would it be the farthermost west window?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes; the farthermost west pair of windows.
Mr. BELIN. The farthermost west pair of windows. What did your husband say to you?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, we assumed that it was a Secret Service man.
Mr. BELIN. But what did he say, if you remember?
Mrs. ROWLAND. He told me that he saw a man there who looked like he was holding a rifle, and that it must be a security man guarding the motorcade.

In the immediate aftermath of the shooting Rowland ran around telling every law enforcement officer he could find about the man with the rifle. He told three or four officials about this man before he gave his affidavit:

"...We stood there for a time talking about the security measures that were being made for the president’s visit in view of the recent trouble when Mr. Adelai Stevenson had been a recent visitor to Dallas. It must have been 5 or 10 minutes later when we were just looking at the surrounding buildings when I looked up at the Texas Book...building and noticed that the second floor from the top had two adjoining windows which were open, and upon looking I saw what I thought was a man standing back about 15 feet from the windows and was holding in his arms what appeared to be a hi powered rifle because it looked like it had a scope on it.

He appeared to be holding this at a parade rest sort of position. I mentioned this to my wife and merely made the remark that it must be the secret service men.

This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light colored shirt on, open at the neck. He appeared to be of slender build and appeared to have dark hair. In about 15 minutes President Kennedy passed the spot where we were standing and the motorcade had just turned west on Elm heading down the hill when I heard a noise which I thought to be a back fire."

To imagine that Rowland invented this sighting is beyond belief as it would require the almost miraculous coincidence of him inventing a man (whose description closely matches that of other eyewitnesses) carrying a scoped, high-powered rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building.
What are the chances Rowland making up a white, slender male carrying a scoped, high-powered rifle on the 6th floor and it turns out that's exactly what happened?

ROLL UP, ROLL UP NUTTERS.
LET'S HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS MATTER.
DON'T BE SHY.
DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE MIRACLE ON ELM STREET?

I'm really surprised at you, Tim, for posting such utter nonsense.
Finding Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor DOES NOT place Oswald at the SN window at 12:30
Because Oswald had no alibi at the time of the shooting DOES NOT place him at the SN window at 12:30
Finding Oswald's prints on boxes in the SN DOES NOT place at the SN window at 12:30

There is no piece of evidence - NONE - that places Oswald at the SN window at 12:30
Your interpretation of these select pieces of evidence is that Oswald was the shooter - that's your interpretation of these particular pieces of evidence.
And your assumption is that if Oswald was the shooter, then he was at the SN window at 12:30pm.
It's a theory, Tim, and nothing more.
You never struck me as a true Nutter, in the mould of Corbett or Smith, but it appears you may well be.

There is no single piece of evidence that BY ITSELF places Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. Taken as a whole, the body of evidence places Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. For any single piece of evidence, you can come up with an unlikely but plausible alternative explanation that doesn't implicate Oswald. When you have to reach for the least likely explanation for so many pieces of evidence in order to argue for Oswald's innocence, the argument becomes laughable. If you dispute that fact, then give us a PLAUSIBLE alternative explanation that takes into account all of the evidence below.

1. Several witnesses saw a gunman in the southeast corner window of the 6th floor of the TSBD.
2. 3 spent shells were found at that window a short time later.
3. A rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
4. The 3 spent shells were determined to have been fired by the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
5. Only 2 bullets were recovered from the shooting, both determined to have been fired by the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
6. A clear paper trail established that Oswald ordered the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
7. Oswald was photographed with the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
8. Oswald's palm print was found on the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
9. Fibers matching the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested were found on the butt plate of the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
10. A bag was found nearby the sniper's nest with Oswald's finger and palm print on it. The bag had fibers that matched the blanket that Oswald has used to store the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
11. Oswald's fingerprints were found on the top of the boxes that had been stacked to form a rifle rest. The fingerprints were oriented as they would be had Oswald fired the shots from behind those boxes.

We also have Oswald's action following the shooter which point to his guilt in the JFKA. but I'll settle for a plausible explanation of the 10 items listed above that does no conclude that Oswald was the assassin.

My prediction is that if you accept this challenge at all, you will do what CTs always do when presented the evidence listed above. You will attack pieces of the evidence individually, but you will not present a single comprehensive narrative that explains all of these pieces collectively. No such explanation is possible. If it was, somebody would have come up with it by now. 

What you are saying isn't accurate...

The Sprague copy shows the plaid pattern better...

You are conspicuously avoiding discussing the fact that the scanned original would really show Lovelady's plaid pattern...

Oswald's rifle being the assassination weapon, together with the fact that he had no alibi for the time of the shooting, places him in the SN at 12:30pm. That's not even considering his fingerprints and palmprints being found there.

I'm really surprised at you, Tim, for posting such utter nonsense.
Finding Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor DOES NOT place Oswald at the SN window at 12:30
Because Oswald had no alibi at the time of the shooting DOES NOT place him at the SN window at 12:30
Finding Oswald's prints on boxes in the SN DOES NOT place at the SN window at 12:30

There is no piece of evidence - NONE - that places Oswald at the SN window at 12:30
Your interpretation of these select pieces of evidence is that Oswald was the shooter - that's your interpretation of these particular pieces of evidence.
And your assumption is that if Oswald was the shooter, then he was at the SN window at 12:30pm.
It's a theory, Tim, and nothing more.
You never struck me as a true Nutter, in the mould of Corbett or Smith, but it appears you may well be.