Pretty simple again. If someone claims that Oswald couldn't have been on the 6th floor because he couldn't have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom (where we know he was after the assassination), then that means they have concluded that Oswald couldn't have been assassin. That's the only implication that can be drawn. Yet Martin refuses to acknowledge this by having the courage of his own convictions. It is an intellectually dishonest position to suggest something is a fact but then refuse to confirm that the direct implication of that fact is your position. Rather it is a lazy defense attorney tactic to suggest doubt without ever having a position to defend. Perhaps you can explain how or why someone who believes Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor is not a conspiracy theorist?
Richard continues to chase his tail.
If someone doesn't believe the official story then they surmise that there was a cover-up.
Therefore concluding that there was a cover-up.....and I do believe there was a cover-up with substantial certainty.
Therefore ---this is no longer a theory...it is a revelation

Cheers