I prefer relying on Evidence/Corroboration vs "inference" when making a determination as to what is a Fact or what I believe to be The Truth. This would Especially apply to the Alibi of a suspect.
Well, this might explain why you're rather late to the Prayer Man party. In the case of a cover-up, where by definition crucial evidence has been suppressed, researchers must use inference to tease out the truth. And it was a set of brilliant inferences that predicted quite precisely the contents of the now-revealed Hosty note. The Hosty note now gives us the hard evidence we sought that Mr Oswald's claimed alibi was suppressed.
If Mr Oswald was telling the truth about having gone outside, yet is not Prayer Man, then where is he?
And who the hell is Prayer Man?If Mr Oswald was not telling the truth about having gone outside, and is not Prayer Man, then why was his lie suppressed?
And who the hell is Prayer Man? 