OK. Who was the leftist judge(s) and organization(s) that impeded this process?
Or is that just some CT phantom leftest ONLY group you make up - like w/ elections and pandemics?   

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.

Hold on. You're not calling it a war? - So, do u prefer conflict? 
  but not actual war, huh? - Fox News propaganda is very effective indeed.

Good post Dan, you almost nailed it.  But maybe this time, explain why Arnold Rowland is to be believed as a reliable witness. It is well known what he said. Point out the part he gets right. The problem is he gets the description wrong. Weren’t you able to read all of this in the post you were referring to? Didn’t you understand it?
Instead of making grand proclamations, explain how his description of the man with a rifle framed in the 29 inch tall open window, which started 14 inches off the floor, is to be believed. Specter and the WC Panel knew he was full of it. I bet they were not impressed with him wasting their time.
Sorrels didn’t buy into Arnolds description of the man with the rifle having been standing 15 feet back into the room so Arnold moved the man up to 3 feet. Even Barbara noted he changed the distance. You probably do not have an issue with Rowland using a 30 odd size six caliber rifle, do you also have a 30 odd size six caliber rifle like Rowlands? Specter was enjoying himself asking him questions knowing he made up the answers. Maybe Arnold making things up is the kindred spirit you feel for Rowland. Even Gerald Ford was making fun of him by the end of it.

With such a great witness, it is not surprising he is the poster child for your whole conspiracy story. He lived in the same fantasy world.
The best part is his physical description of the man.

Mr. ROWLAND - He was rather slender in proportion to his size. I couldn't tell for sure whether he was tall and maybe, you know heavy, say 200 pounds, but tall whether he would be and slender or whether he was medium and slender, but in proportion to his size his build was slender.

HUH
-----------
To add insult to injury he was not sure if he was a white man or negro.

Arnold doesn't realize it, because Arnold admits he was never in the TSBD. His estimate of the height of the man with the rifle would be one to two feet tall

Mr. SPECTER - Could you give us an estimate on his height?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; I couldn't. That is why I said I can't state what height he would be. He was just slender in build in proportion with his width. This is something I find myself doing all the time, comparing things in perspective.
Mr. SPECTER - Was he a white man or a Negro or what?
Mr. ROWLAND - Seemed, well, I can't state definitely from my position because it was more or less not fully light or bright in the room. He appeared to be fair complexioned, not fair, but light complexioned, but dark hair.

According to Arnold’s description of the man standing next to the window, he was less than 43 inches tall. Actually a couple of feet short of 43 inches. It seems it would not be hard to locate him. You just had to look down. Way down.
The rifle is 42 inches and the actual window opening is 29 inches tall. Yet he can see all of the rifle and two to three feet above his head. 


Nobody was buying that man with the rifle was 15 feet back in the room so Arnold had to move him closer.

Mr. SPECTER - And what is your best recollection as to how close to the window he was standing?
Mr. ROWLAND - He wasn't next to the window, but he wasn't very far back. I would say 3 to 5 feet back from the window.
Mr. SPECTER - How much of the rifle was separated from your line of vision by the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - The entire rifle was in my view.

LHO was 69 inches tall. Again, the window opening was 29 inches reaching a maximum window opening height of 43 inches in which to see the gunman.

Mr. SPECTER - And how much of his body, if any, was in the open view where there was no window between your eyes and the object of his body?
Mr. ROWLAND - Approximately two-thirds of his body just below his waist.
Mr. SPECTER - Up to what point?
Mr. ROWLAND - Mid point between the waist and the knees, this is again in my proportion to his height that I make that judgment.
Mr. SPECTER - So from the waist, some point between his knees and his waist, you started to see hi clear in the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And from that point how far up his body were you able to see without any obstruction of a window between you and him?
Mr. ROWLAND - To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.

No matter how badly you twist Rowland’s testimony, this is not ever going to be the smoking gun you are so desperately hoping to find.


Any new theories remotely relevant to the assassination? This one is the joke is on you, courtesy of Arnold Rowland.

I recommend that everyone, especially newcomers to the acoustical evidence, read Jason Wakefield's March 2003 article "An In-Depth Study of the Acoustical Evidence in the JFK Assassination." Wakefield's article provides an excellent overview of the history of the acoustical evidence and where research on the dictabelt stood as of 2003.

In 2003, Linsker and his colleagues were still struggling to produce a response to Dr. Don Thomas's 2001 defense of the acoustical evidence in the forensic science journal Science & Justice. The Linsker group submitted a rebuttal to Thomas's article in March 2002 but quickly withdrew it. In reading the draft rebuttal, it is apparent why they withdrew it: it raised only minor points against Thomas's article. They spent three more years working on a response.

In this 2001 article, Dr. Thomas made a convincing case, based on the NRC/NAS panel's calculations for the timing of the transmissions on Channel 1 and Channel 2, that the Bellah "you want" transmission was a far more plausible timing indicator than the Decker "hold everything" transmission. In short, Dr. Thomas showed that if the NRC/NAS timing calculations were correct (and he assumed they were), the Bellah transmission was a far superior timing indicator than the Decker transmission, which refuted the NRC/NAS panel's main argument against the acoustical evidence.

It is crucial to understand that the primary scientific argument that the NRC/NAS panel made against the acoustical evidence was that the Decker "hold everything" transmission was crosstalk and that this proved the impulse patterns on the dictabelt were recorded about one minute after the shooting. Until the panel finally looked into Steve Barber's information about the Decker transmission, they had done nothing but manage to reduce the probability of the timing-movement correlations from 99+% to 93% and to reduce the probability of the grassy knoll shot from 95+% to 77.7% (and only by introducing two severe errors into their calculations).

It is even more crucial to understand that the Decker crosstalk hoax was based on the demonstrably false assumption that Channel 2 stopped recording for about 60 seconds. You don't need to be a scientist to understand that if Channel 2 had stopped recording for 60 seconds, the police dispatcher's subsequent time notations would reflect such a pause, but this did not happen. There is no time missing between the 12:30 and 12:32 transmissions, and the 12:35 and 12:36 time notations occur exactly five and six minutes respectively after the 12:30 time notation, proving, at least on this planet, that Channel 2 could not have stopped recording for 60 seconds (nor for 35 seconds). Dr. Thomas:

The linear regression analysis of the dispatcher's time notations proves that the Audograph machine must have shut off for extended times prior to the assassination. But after 12:30, the approximate time of the shooting, the dispatcher's announced times and the actual elapsed time fall into very close agreement for the six minutes after the shooting. There did not seem to be any appreciable amount of time missing, and none between 12:30 and 12:32 when the relevant broadcasts were made and where a full minute of time is supposed to be missing according to the NRC Panel. That is, there is exactly 120 seconds of playback time between the dispatcher's time notations at 12:30 and 12:32. . . .

Note for example (Table 15) that the dispatcher's time notation for 12:32 occurs exactly two minutes after the notation at 12:30. The NRC panel's theory holds that the recorder stopped for a half minute during this interval. It is indeed possible that the real interval between the time notations was actually two and a half minutes apart and by coincidence the lost 31 seconds only makes it appear that no time was lost. But if this were the case, one would expect to see an offset in the time notations downstream. But there is not. The 12:35 and 12:36 time notations fall exactly five and six minutes respectively after the 12:30 time notation, suggesting that the recording is continuous. . . . (Hear No Evil, 2010, pp. 638-639)     

So let us return to the Linsker group and Dr. Thomas's 2001 article. As mentioned, using the NRC/NAS panel's own timing calculations, Dr. Thomas showed that the Bellah "you want" transmission, which the panel acknowledged was crosstalk, was a far more probable timing indicator than the Decker "hold everything" transmission.

In order to refute Dr. Thomas's argument, Linsker and his colleagues had to make a painful admission when they finally submitted their rebuttal in 2005: they had to admit that the NRC/NAS panel's timing calculations were badly off the mark because they had miscalculated the needle-skip adjustment as 60 seconds when in fact it was 35 seconds.

But this was the poster child for a "ruinous victory," i.e., a victory that does fatal damage to the victor. Why? Because, in proving the Bellah crosstalk was not the best time indicator, Linsker and his colleagues were forced to admit that the only way the Decker "hold everything" transmission could be crosstalk was if Channel 2 stopped recording for 35 seconds. This version of the recording-pause theory faced the same unanswerable objection that the NRC/NAS version of the theory faced: a substantial pause on Channel 2, whether 60 seconds, or 44 seconds, or 35 seconds, would cause the dispatcher's subsequent time notations to reflect such a pause, but they do not.

Again, as many scholars have noted, the 12:35 and 12:36 time notations occur exactly five and six minutes respectively after the 12:30 time notation, and there is no time missing between the 12:30 and 12:32 broadcasts. How could this be if Channel 2 stopped recording for 35 seconds? Linsker et al. offered no explanation for why the alleged 35-second pause does not show up in the dispatcher's subsequent time notations. This is one of the facts that caught Dr. David Kaiser's attention and caused him to reject the attacks on the acoustical evidence.

And, as discussed in previous replies, subsequent research by BBN scientists from 2015-2019 has proved that the Decker transmission is an overdub and that the Fisher "I'll check" transmission is crosstalk, which proves that the dictabelt's impulse patterns were recorded during the assassination. Dr. Josiah Thompson discusses this historic new research at length in his book Last Second in Dallas. BBN scientists Dr. James Barger and Dr. Richard Mullen each wrote an appendix for the book.