I didn't take a position on this question because I have no way of knowing what Rowland saw and there is nothing the confirms or refutes what he claimed to see.

 
There is nothing that confirms or refutes what he claimed to see??
Are you high?
Rowland claimed to see a slender white guy with a high-powered, scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building in the minutes before the assassination...and you don't think there is anything to confirm or refute this claim!!
There was actually, IN REALITY, a slender white guy with a high-powered, scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building...don't you think this confirms Rowland's claim? 

The things Nutters are forced to say, thanks to the deviousness of the Warren Commission, defy belief.

Again, you are reading far more into my reply than was there. I would find Rowland a bit more credible if he had bothered to alert the nearest cop to what he claimed to have seen.
It would be quite easy for Rowland to make up this story AFTER the shooting. That's why I said he would be more believable had he told his story before the shots were fired, and also much more consequential. This is a perfect illustration of what I just told MGT in another thread on how I judge witnesses. If they are corroborated by other evidence, I believe them. If they are refuted by other evidence, I don't believe them. If they are neither corroborated nor refuted, which is the case with Rowland, I can only say their account MIGHT be true.
That question assumes Oswald would have been walking around that floor at the time BRW was there.
It hasn't been established Oswald was walking around and if he was, it hasn't been established what kind of shirt he was wearing.
Not established.
You seem to have misworded your question so it is hard to know what you meant. BRW is the only one who would have known why he chose the window he did.
There is absolutely nothing Rowland said that refutes the findings of the WC.

Because you are so unfamiliar with the evidence you are unaware that Rowland did tell his story before the shots were fired. Your whole, childish argument disappears.
Rowland's observations are just a piece of the pattern of lies, manipulation, fabrication and omission the Warren Commission used to construct it's report.
Rowland's description of the man with the rifle contains key information confirmed by other eye-witnesses...information that also refutes the WC's Oswald-Did-It narrative.
But there's no point in telling you any of this.
Your undying love for the Warren Commission is creepy.

    This traces back to the timeline of the Darnell Film. It shows Officer Baker running across The Island. The timestamp for those images of Officer Baker is currently accepted as being :20 seconds after the kill shot. Prior to that, the Darnell Film's opening frame shows the driver of Camera Car #2 standing flatfooted outside of his camera car #2. This clearly indicates that all 3 camera cars had been standing still for an extended period of time. Certainly longer than the :20 second timeline attached to Officer Baker running across the Island. Wiegman jumped out of Camera Car #1, and ran down Elm St. He filmed the JFK Limo going under the Triple Underpass. With all 3 camera cars being at a dead stop, a dead stop that was so long that that the driver of Camera Car #2 vacated the vehicle, means the filming of the JFK Limo being on Elm St was far longer than the Zapruder Film leads us to believe. This means the JFK Limo did an extended "rolling stop" or a flat-out "Stop" on Elm St. Extending Officer Baker's currently accepted :20 second timestamp on the Darnell Film also places his confronting Oswald inside the 2nd Floor Lunch Room to a later point in time. There are other dominoes also falling as other timelines are properly put into place. This ALL started with the Hi Definition Opening Frames of the Darnell Film being released by the Sixth Floor Museum. I believe that the Darnell Film Hi Definition revelations also reveals why NBC has Never released their Original Darnell Film or their Original Wiegman Film.   

I can't even begin to follow the hairbrained reasoning in this post or who you have arrived at the conclusions contained in it. I might get an aneurism if he tried.

I'm glad to see that not even you can quite swallow the WC line on this issue, which is really saying something.

I didn't take a position on this question because I have no way of knowing what Rowland saw and there is nothing the confirms or refutes what he claimed to see.

To imagine that Rowland guessed there was a slender, white male with a scoped, high-powered rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building moments before the assassination is too much for even you to accept.

Again, you are reading far more into my reply than was there. I would find Rowland a bit more credible if he had bothered to alert the nearest cop to what he claimed to have seen.

It is obviously the case Rowland saw this man, to suggest otherwise would have you replacing logic with the miraculous.

It would be quite easy for Rowland to make up this story AFTER the shooting. That's why I said he would be more believable had he told his story before the shots were fired, and also much more consequential. This is a perfect illustration of what I just told MTG in another thread on how I judge witnesses. If they are corroborated by other evidence, I believe them. If they are refuted by other evidence, I don't believe them. If they are neither corroborated nor refuted, which is the case with Rowland, I can only say their account MIGHT be true.

This made the WC's narrative even more difficult to construct - how is Oswald wandering around the 6th floor, "scouting possible shooting locations", without BRW noticing?
How is that possible?

That question assumes Oswald would have been walking around that floor at the time BRW was there.

And why is the man with the rifle wearing a shirt Oswald wasn't wearing that day, and didn't have in his possessions?

It hasn't been established Oswald was walking around and if he was, it hasn't been established what kind of shirt he was wearing.

And why is there a black man in the SN?

Not established.

And why isn't Bonnie Ray sat looking out of the closed third set of windows?

You seem to have misworded your question so it is hard to know what you meant. BRW is the only one who would have known why he chose the window he did.

Rowland's testimony was utterly devastating for the false narrative the WC Sham was trying to create so, rather than simply accepting the testimony of this witness, they took the unprecedented step of launching an FBI investigation into a private citizen with the express purpose of finding anything they could on him in order to nullify his testimony.
Luckily for the Warren Commission, Rowland felt the need to lie about how intelligent he was and this was enough to dismiss his witness statements regarding the man with the rifle and, more to the point, the black man in SN window who stayed there until around 12:25pm (around the same time BRW went down to the 5th floor).
It was a truly devious and underhand strategy.

There is absolutely nothing Rowland said that refutes the findings of the WC.

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.

The last sentence applies perfectly to your post.

Even a newly hired Secret Service official should have realized that, if nothing else, at least the tall buildings in the plaza where the motorcade would have to slow down to make two hairpin turns needed to be checked and monitored. At a minimum, the SS should have asked Dallas police officials to have some of their officers scan the windows of the four tall buildings in Dealey Plaza as the motorcade approached the plaza and while the motorcade was moving through the plaza. This would not have required "a small army" but no more than 12 officers, with three officers assigned to scan the windows of each of the plaza's four tall buildings.

That argument presumes that Dealey Plaza was the only location an assassination could have taken place. The motorcade passed through numerous tall buildings on Harwood and Main streets before arriving in Dealey Plaza. What reason would they have to take more precautions in Dealey Plaza than elsewhere in downtown along the parade route. It is a fallacy that the motorcade would have to slow down more for the 110 degree turn from Houston to Elm than the 90 degree turns from Harwood onto Main and from Main onto Houston. The motorcade was traveling quite slowly for most of the way in downtown Dallas.

In 1963, the Secret Service routinely asked local police to scan tall buildings along motorcade routes, but this was not done in the case of the Dallas motorcade. This was one of the many suspicious deviations from SS standard procedure that occurred in Dallas.

I've heard similar claims made for decades but I have yet to see anyone offer a cite for what "SS standard procedure" was in 1963. Without such a source, we can disregard such claims as nothing more than assumptions.

Even the WC admitted that the "usual practice" of the SS official who was in charge of security arrangements for presidential motorcades, Winston Lawson, was to ask local police to scan the windows of buildings along motorcade routes. The WC also admitted that just covering "the most obvious points of possible ambush" along the motorcade route "might well have included" the TSBD:   

Admittedly, protective measures cannot ordinarily be taken with regard to all buildings along a motorcade route. Levels of risk can be determined, however, as has been confirmed by building surveys made since the assassination for the Department of the Treasury. An attempt to cover only the most obvious points of possible ambush along the route in Dallas might well have included the Texas School Book Depository Building.

Hindsight is 20/20. As of 12:29 on 11/22/1963, there was no reason for anyone to believe the TSBD posed any greater threat to JFK than any of the other tall buildings in downtown Dallas, nor any greater threat than tall buildings in any of the other cities in which JFK rode in an open top car through urban canyons.

Instead of such advance precautions, the Secret Service depended in part on the efforts of local law enforcement personnel stationed along the route. In addition, Secret Service agents riding in the motorcade were trained to scan buildings as part of their general observation of the crowd of spectators. These substitute measures were of limited value. Agent Lawson was unable to state whether he had actually instructed the Dallas police to scan windows of buildings lining the motorcade route, although it was his usual practice to do so. If such instructions were in fact given, they were not effectively carried out. Television films taken of parts of the motorcade by a Dallas television station show the foot patrolmen facing the passing motorcade, and not the adjacent crowds and buildings, as the procession passed.

Nobody is arguing that security measures in 1963 were anywhere near as stringent in 1963 as they are today. The Secret Service learned a bitter lesson on that day in 1963, as well as on the attempt assassinations, of George Wallace, Gerald Ford (twice), Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump(three times). Of the four men listed above, three actually were shot which means their security measures failed. Badly. With each incident, the Secret Service learned lessons on how they could give better protection to the protectee. In the final analysis, the primary reason JFK was so vulnerable is because he had a fondness for riding in slow moving open top cars so he could be seen up close by the public (voters). He understood the risks and decided the political considerations outweighed the security concerns.

Three officers from the Dallas Police Department were assigned to the intersection of Elm and Houston during the morning of November 22 prior to the motorcade. All received their instructions early in the morning from Capt. P. W. Lawrence of the traffic division. . . .

Captain Lawrence was not instructed to have his men watch buildings along the motorcade route and did not mention the observation of buildings to them. The three officers confirm that their primary concern was crowd and traffic control, and that they had no opportunity to scan the windows of the Depository or any other building in the vicinity of Elm and Houston when the motorcade was passing. (Warren Report, pp. 448-449)[/font]

Just how man windows do you think those three cops could have been scanning at any one time and what are the chances they would have spotted Oswald in time to stop the assassination? The Nix film shows us that Oswald did not brandish his rifle until after the limo had turned onto Elm St. and gone past the sniper's nest.

I take it you have not read any of Vince Palamara's research on JFK's SS protection nor watched any of his videos on the subject.

That might be the truest statement you've made on this forum. Palamara is a kook. I've read enough of his crap to know that. What reason would I have to read more from him?

For any newcomers or silent readers, I recommend reading Palamara's book Survivor's Guilt: The Secret Service and the Failure to Protect President Kennedy. My book A Comforting Lie: The Myth That a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy includes a long chapter on Kennedy's inexcusably and suspiciously weak SS protection in Dallas, including numerous photos that show that in other motorcades (1) SS agents rode on the limousine's side boards and/or rear boards or walked alongside the limo and (2) local police motorcycles traveled alongside the limo, neither of which was done in Dealey Plaza.

If you want to find out just how kooky some of the most popular CT authors can be, by all means read some of Palamara's crap. You should get a good chuckle from it.

I also recommend Palamara's video Uniquely Insecure: The Tragic Failure of the Secret Service on November 22, 1963.

That would require 21 minutes and 47 seconds out of their lives that they could never get back?