[Patrick C]

It is getting rather commonplace that you Ben make the assertion that I will not respond to a post and when I do, you make no reference to the fact that your prediction was wrong.

So in response to you assertion "nor will you"......

In the chapter entitled Summary of Oswald’s Guilt, Vincent Bugliosi writes on page 958 of Reclaiming History.:-
 
Oswald…
 
“If we are to believe Oswald’s story”……
 
“claiming in one version that he was having lunch on the first floor of the Book Depository Building at the time of the shooting, and in another version that he was working on the sixth floor”. (as in the TSBD)

My interpretation is that Bugliosi  is clearly making reference to a version of events that Oswald was working on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, he does not however cite for the latter scenario.

It would seem that  Bugliosi is saying that somewhere there is a statement from Oswald that he was up on the sixth floor when JFK was shot. This could either be a written statement from a witness such as individual from the DPD or FBI or Secret Service for example, or a recollection in an interview on film or even word of mouth from an individual who heard Oswald make that assertion.

It may be a confused message and Oswald could have simply said he worked on the sixth floor leading up to the assassination.

Eitherway Buglisosi is indicating that there were at least two stories from Oswald on his location at the time of the shots.

I have not seen nor heard of the story that Oswald said he was on the 6th floor, but that does not make Bugliosi wrong. 

If he is wrong, he could simply be mistaken and in error. That does not  make him a liar. However IF he has constructed that statement deliberately with no actual evidence then he is misleading the reader and that is a lie.

I would suggest that there is in fact a reasonable explanation.

But thank you for reminding me about the 53 points of guilt - what an EXCELLENT chapter "Summary of Oswald's Guilt" is. Really he does an outstanding job of demonstrating that Oswald acted alone beyond reasonable doubt.

The old addage that "you can't see the wood for the trees" is apt......in your case you can't see the wood for the twigs on the ground Holmes.