It has everything to do with your playing your semantic seesaw game.
Bill,
I totally agree with your assessment.
John may be willing to (grudgingly?) agree that Frazier claimed to have seen Oswald walking through the parking lot with the package, but getting him to admit that Frazier was probably right in assuming (i.e., by not noticing Oswald kick the package under a car on the way, etc) that Oswald entered the TSBD with said package is ... well ... the mother of all fools' errands, IMHO ... i.e., it ain't gonna happen.
He's pulled the same kind of hair-splitting, deflecting and/or obfuscating "semantic shenanigans" on me on other threads of this forum.
One that comes to mind is his insisting that the seven young ladies comprising two different groups of TSBD work colleagues (three in one group, and four in the other) did not necessarily stand close enough (i.e., within fifty feet or so) to the other members of their respective group
to be caught on film with all of them while watching the motorcade, even though they all said in their FBI statements that they had, in so many words, walked to their respective group's viewing spot on Elm Street
together, and had watched the motorcade from their group's viewing spot
together.
In short, I find Iacoletti impossible to debate on a common "horse sense," shared-understanding-of-the-common-meanings-and-significations-of-words-and-phrases level.
He seems to be on an "Exoneration Of Oswald At All Costs" mission, and therefore seems to be more than willing to ignore the common meanings of words and phrases used by certain witnesses in their testimonies and FBI statements when he shortsightedly THINKS it suits his purpose to do so.
All my humble opinion, of course ...
-- MWT