Yes, but he's not a contrarian, someone arguing just for the joy of arguing and for no other purpose. That's a contrarian to me. He has a purpose: he's an Oswald defender. It's a weird Oswald-as-Dreyfus view.
This is a common whine by people who spin and misrepresent the evidence in order to be Oswald prosecutors.
Of course no one looks at an event, reconstructs it, by looking at one piece of information alone. And ignoring all of the other pieces. You look at them in their totality and not as isolated blocks. If you applied this type of thinking to any other event then it would be impossible to come to any conclusion as to what happened.
As it should be. Several pieces of non-evidence, unsubstantiated claims, or questionable, tainted, or unverifiable circumstantial evidence do not magically combine to give anybody a "reliable conclusion as to what happened". Your desire to have an answer doesn't justify making one up out of whole cloth.
