Likely because he held a similar lecture in the Tippit thread last year.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4116.msg158279.html#msg158279
So much learning going on today. Remarkable progress. The thing speaks for itself. If the evidence is deemed conclusive that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 as the evidence, history books, and law enforcement indicate and that he was on the 2nd floor a couple of minutes later, then that is conclusive that he moved from the 6th to 2nd floor unnoticed in that timeframe. The evidence supports both conclusions even if his exact movements can't be recreated with certainty or even deemed improbable by those who apply an impossible standard of proof to the topic.
All the subjective nitpicking of witness testimony and pedantic attempts to analyze events down to the second are not necessary to reach this conclusion. The inability to do so creates no doubt of the fact.
How can be unknowable, even contrary to some interpretations, and still raise no doubt that it could be done because the evidence confirms that it was done. It is not necessary for me or anyone to prove how it was done to the satisfaction of anyone else. Once a thing has occurred, the odds against it occurring are no longer relevant in determining whether it did in fact occur. Even if the odds were a billion to one against it happening, and there is nothing like that in this context. This is called discovering the simplicity that lies on the far side of complexity (i.e. not going down the rabbit hole). Res ipsa loquitur.
