It's currently neither since there is not much going on but not sure what leftist TDS point you are trying to make.  A war is something that Congress declares.  Do you know something the rest of us do not?

Dear Herr Comrade Smith,

Everyone should have a case of Trump Disinformation Sanitizer (TDS).

-- Tom

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.