Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )

[Martin Weidmann]

"Why can "we" say that with great confidence? Just because you decided so?"

No John, it's not because I decided so. The answer to your question is in the section of my post you decided to leave out (a familiar tactic). Let's assume prayer-blob is Oswald. The reason I believe "we" can say with great confidence at least one of he witnesses who knew Oswald by sight would have spotted him on the steps is because there are so many of them. They are stood on the landing with him, on the steps just in front of him and passing by him on the steps as they return to the building. I believe the chances of him being spotted by at least one of the many witnesses are very high.

"Did the people watching the motorcade on Elm Street have some kind of 360-degree vision?"

Really John? This nonsense is the best you can come up with? People have necks on which they can turn their heads. They have bodies that can move about. Your assertion that people can only look in one direction is childish. But lets imagine you're right and they can only look straight ahead. The people coming up the steps would still be able to see him wouldn't they? (unless you also have a rule about having to close your eyes as you go up steps!)

"Talk about misrepresentations. John said nothing of the kind."

Referring to yourself in the first-person is creepy. This is what you said:
"Dan would have you think that everybody who worked in the TSBD was intimately familiar with LHO prior to the assassination even though he rarely socialized with anybody or even talked to them and would have specifically remembered seeing him standing in the shadows during a traumatic event with people scattered around everywhere." (my italics)
This is what I said:
"John would have you believe Oswald was stood back in the shadows..."
Please explain how you've been misrepresented.

"By the way, what “height requirement”?"

An analysis of the Darnell film by Andrej Stancak measures the height of prayer-blob as about 5'2". This is too short for Oswald so in order for him to meet the "height requirement" (5'2") he has to be standing with one foot on the first step as shown in the graphic I posted.

"Why does it not matter? You entire argument is that if nobody mentioned noticing him then he wasn’t there."

My argument is that if Oswald was stood on the top step one of the many witnesses who knew him by sight would surely have seen him there. The reason it doesn't matter if someone like Carl Edward Jones wasn't mentioned by other witnesses is that he wasn't suspected of assassinating JFK. The FBI was specifically asking if anyone had seen Oswald. People were being asked to remember if they had seen Oswald at the time of the assassination, not Carl Jones.

My argument is that if Oswald was stood on the top step one of the many witnesses who knew him by sight would surely have seen him there.

Wow, that's a massive assumption and a flawed one, for two reasons;

1. People were all looking in the direction of Elm street, where the motorcade was passing. They had no reason to turn around and look who was behind them. After the shots were fired it was complete chaos, with people not knowing what was going on. Under those circumstances people notice very little of their surroundings.

2. Even if nobody saw Oswald there, that still only means that nobody saw him (or possibly did not recall seeing him) there. It doesn't mean he wasn't there.

A while ago I was walking down the street when a car hit a cyclist. The accident quickly got the attention of lots of people and one of them was a good friend of mine. He was on the other side of the street and I waved to him, but got no reaction. About an hour later he phoned me and told me about the accident and I answered I knew about it because I had been there when it happened and had seen him. He had not seen me!

Going by your "logic", he did not see me, so I couldn't have been there, right? Yet, I was there nevertheless!

Do you now see how flawed you reasoning is?

[Dan O'meara]

My argument is that if Oswald was stood on the top step one of the many witnesses who knew him by sight would surely have seen him there.

Wow, that's a massive assumption and a flawed one, for two reasons;

1. People were all looking in the direction of Elm street, where the motorcade was passing. They had no reason to turn around and look who was behind them. After the shots were fired it was complete chaos, with people not knowing what was going on. Under those circumstances people notice very little of their surroundings.

2. Even if nobody saw Oswald there, that still only means that nobody saw him (or possibly did not recall seeing him) there. It doesn't mean he wasn't there.

A while ago I was walking down the street when a car hit a cyclist. The accident quickly got the attention of lots of people and one of them was a good friend of mine. He was on the other side of the street and I waved to him, but got no reaction. About an hour later he phoned me and told me about the accident and I answered I knew about it because I had been there when it happened and had seen him. He had not seen me!

Going by your "logic", he did not see me, so I couldn't have been there, right? Yet, I was there nevertheless!

Do you now see how flawed you reasoning is?

I agree it's an assumption but by no means is it a massive one. It's a totally reasonable assumption. Read through the thread, for Oswald to make the height requirement he has to be stood at the front of the landing with one foot on the first step. He's not stood at the back where people would have to turn round to see him. He would be more to the front than anyone else on the landing. Buell Frazier and Roy Edward Lewis are stood in the lobby behind the glass and would have an unobstructed view of him as would the people returning to the building who would have to pass right by him. You too seem to have this impression that nobody can turn their heads round and look in different directions! Caroline Arnold was stood at the bottom of the steps but thought she might have seen him behind the glass!
In your example one person doesn't see you yet you think you can compare it to this situation. If a dozen people who knew you by sight were at the accident, some of them passing right next to you but nobody saw you it's comparable.
Can't you see how flawed your reasoning is?

[Martin Weidmann]

I agree it's an assumption but by no means is it a massive one. It's a totally reasonable assumption. Read through the thread, for Oswald to make the height requirement he has to be stood at the front of the landing with one foot on the first step. He's not stood at the back where people would have to turn round to see him. He would be more to the front than anyone else on the landing. Buell Frazier and Roy Edward Lewis are stood in the lobby behind the glass and would have an unobstructed view of him as would the people returning to the building who would have to pass right by him. You too seem to have this impression that nobody can turn their heads round and look in different directions! Caroline Arnold was stood at the bottom of the steps but thought she might have seen him behind the glass!
In your example one person doesn't see you yet you think you can compare it to this situation. If a dozen people who knew you by sight were at the accident, some of them passing right next to you but nobody saw you it's comparable.
Can't you see how flawed your reasoning is?

I agree it's an assumption but by no means is it a massive one. It's a totally reasonable assumption.

There is no such thing as a "reasonable assumption". An assumption is by definition biased and will always support the argument that the person making the assumption wants to make. There is nothing reasonable about that.

Read through the thread, for Oswald to make the height requirement he has to be stood at the front of the landing with one foot on the first step. He's not stood at the back where people would have to turn round to see him. He would be more to the front than anyone else on the landing. Buell Frazier and Roy Edward Lewis are stood in the lobby behind the glass and would have an unobstructed view of him as would the people returning to the building who would have to pass right by him. You too seem to have this impression that nobody can turn their heads round and look in different directions! Caroline Arnold was stood at the bottom of the steps but thought she might have seen him behind the glass!

All this is, is an argument in support of your assumption. It has no significant value... There is no cut off point, where you can say; "oh, 20 people didn't see him there, so he wasn't there".

You too seem to have this impression that nobody can turn their heads round and look in different directions!

No... Of course it is possible that somebody turned their head. The problem is that there is no evidence to support the argument that somebody actually did. Personally, I find it somewhat unlikely that anybody who has waited for the President for some time would actually look away at the moment he passes by.

Caroline Arnold was stood at the bottom of the steps but thought she might have seen him behind the glass!

That's one version. Another one is that she saw him in the 2nd floor lunchroom. There is nothing solid there, either way.

In your example one person doesn't see you yet you think you can compare it to this situation. If a dozen people who knew you by sight were at the accident, some of them passing right next to you but nobody saw you it's comparable.
Can't you see how flawed your reasoning is?

There is no flaw in my reasoning. The actually flaw is your failure to understand what I was saying. It's human nature that you fail to ignore. If something interesting is going on in front of you, you don't turn around and look the other way. It doesn't matter if you apply that to one person or to a dozen. The outcome is still the same.

But even if it wasn't, and all 12 people turned around at the same time and did not see Oswald there, that still does not mean he wasn't there. It only means that, for whatever reason, they didn't see him.

Your basic argument requires that you prove a negative and that's something nobody has ever been able to do.

Btw, just so you understand. I don't know if Oswald was there or not nor do I argue that he was there. I think it's possible he was indeed there, but that's only because of Baker's initial comments before they morphed into a 2nd floor lunchroom encounter. What is beyond clear to me by now is that Oswald being at the 6th floor at 12.30 shooting at Kennedy's limo is a highly unlikely scenario.

[Dan O'meara]

I agree it's an assumption but by no means is it a massive one. It's a totally reasonable assumption.

There is no such thing as a "reasonable assumption". An assumption is by definition biased and will always support the argument that the person making the assumption wants to make. There is nothing reasonable about that.

Read through the thread, for Oswald to make the height requirement he has to be stood at the front of the landing with one foot on the first step. He's not stood at the back where people would have to turn round to see him. He would be more to the front than anyone else on the landing. Buell Frazier and Roy Edward Lewis are stood in the lobby behind the glass and would have an unobstructed view of him as would the people returning to the building who would have to pass right by him. You too seem to have this impression that nobody can turn their heads round and look in different directions! Caroline Arnold was stood at the bottom of the steps but thought she might have seen him behind the glass!

All this is, is an argument in support of your assumption. It has no significant value... There is no cut off point, where you can say; "oh, 20 people didn't see him there, so he wasn't there".

You too seem to have this impression that nobody can turn their heads round and look in different directions!

No... Of course it is possible that somebody turned their head. The problem is that there is no evidence to support the argument that somebody actually did. Personally, I find it somewhat unlikely that anybody who has waited for the President for some time would actually look away at the moment he passes by.

Caroline Arnold was stood at the bottom of the steps but thought she might have seen him behind the glass!

That's one version. Another one is that she saw him in the 2nd floor lunchroom. There is nothing solid there, either way.

In your example one person doesn't see you yet you think you can compare it to this situation. If a dozen people who knew you by sight were at the accident, some of them passing right next to you but nobody saw you it's comparable.
Can't you see how flawed your reasoning is?

There is no flaw in my reasoning. The actually flaw is your failure to understand what I was saying. It's human nature that you fail to ignore. If something interesting is going on in front of you, you don't turn around and look the other way. It doesn't matter if you apply that to one person or to a dozen. The outcome is still the same.

But even if it wasn't, and all 12 people turned around at the same time and did not see Oswald there, that still does not mean he wasn't there. It only means that, for whatever reason, they didn't see him.

Your basic argument requires that you prove a negative and that's something nobody has ever been able to do.

Btw, just so you understand. I don't know if Oswald was there or not nor do I argue that he was there. I think it's possible he was indeed there, but that's only because of Baker's initial comments before they morphed into a 2nd floor lunchroom encounter. What is beyond clear to me by now is that Oswald being at the 6th floor at 12.30 shooting at Kennedy's limo is a highly unlikely scenario.

I disagree with so much you say here but I'm not sure there's much point getting into it. There is such a thing as a reasonable assumption and it should be used to form an opinion rather than, as you assert, have an opinion and use the assumption to support it. The Darnell and Wiegman pictures on which a lot of these arguments are concerned take place after the Presidential limo has passed out of sight so your points about everyone being engrossed with the President are invalid. There is a massive difference between one person missing something and a dozen people missing the same thing.
You ignore the witnesses stood behind, alongside and walking right up to 'Oswald' on the steps.
What I agree with is that all these witnesses missing 'Oswald' doesn't prove he wasn't there. It's about probabilities which can be subjective so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Martin Weidmann]

I disagree with so much you say here but I'm not sure there's much point getting into it. There is such a thing as a reasonable assumption and it should be used to form an opinion rather than, as you assert, have an opinion and use the assumption to support it. The Darnell and Wiegman pictures on which a lot of these arguments are concerned take place after the Presidential limo has passed out of sight so your points about everyone being engrossed with the President are invalid. There is a massive difference between one person missing something and a dozen people missing the same thing.
You ignore the witnesses stood behind, alongside and walking right up to 'Oswald' on the steps.
What I agree with is that all these witnesses missing 'Oswald' doesn't prove he wasn't there. It's about probabilities which can be subjective so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I disagree with so much you say here but I'm not sure there's much point getting into it.

Yes, there is a point. I only have an opinion. If that opinion is incorrect, I would love to know about it.

There is such a thing as a reasonable assumption and it should be used to form an opinion rather than, as you assert, have an opinion and use the assumption to support it.

Let me correct my previous comment. There is indeed a thing as a reasonable assumption, but only in those cases where the assumption has no consequence for the subsequent opinion. In other words; when you wake up in the morning and the streets are wet, it is reasonable to assume that it rained during the night.  It still could be the wrong conclusion as it could also be that a fire hydrant exploded, but it was a reasonable conclusion nevertheless, as it was a conclusion without consequence.

However, as soon as the final outcome is determined by the assumption, it is no longer reasonable.

The Darnell and Wiegman pictures on which a lot of these arguments are concerned take place after the Presidential limo has passed out of sight so your points about everyone being engrossed with the President are invalid.

Wrong. As soon as the shots were fired, it was chaos at Dealey Plaza... The observations of individuals became less reliable, not more reliable. The human brain can only process so much. When the POTUS is killed in front of you, most people hardly pay attention to their surroundings. Instead their main focus is to find out what happened.

You ignore the witnesses stood behind, alongside and walking right up to 'Oswald' on the steps.

I don't ignore anything. A dozen people said they didn't see Oswald, so what? Big deal! When did they say that? Months later, after Oswald was already dead and buried and branded by the media as the sole assassin. Now. let's suppose, you are a witness who did see Oswald on the stairs (meaning he couldn't be the killer), what do you do? Don't underestimate the survival instinct of people... Why rock the boat? When the media tells us he did it, who am I to tell them they are wrong and what would be the consequences for me?

There is a massive difference between one person missing something and a dozen people missing the same thing.
You ignore the witnesses stood behind, alongside and walking right up to 'Oswald' on the steps.

You are way too much interested in reaching a pre-determined conclusion.

What I agree with is that all these witnesses missing 'Oswald' doesn't prove he wasn't there.

Finally...  which, of course, destroys your entire argument.

It's about probabilities which can be subjective so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Please explain? Probabilities can be subjective.... I really need you to explain this to me as it doesn't make sense to me.

[Dan O'meara]

I disagree with so much you say here but I'm not sure there's much point getting into it.

Yes, there is a point. I only have an opinion. If that opinion is incorrect, I would love to know about it.

And what opinion is that?

There is such a thing as a reasonable assumption and it should be used to form an opinion rather than, as you assert, have an opinion and use the assumption to support it.

Let me correct my previous comment. There is indeed a thing as a reasonable assumption, but only in those cases where the assumption has no consequence for the subsequent opinion. In other words; when you wake up in the morning and the streets are wet, it is reasonable to assume that it rained during the night.  It still could be the wrong conclusion as it could also be that a fire hydrant exploded, but it was a reasonable conclusion nevertheless, as it was a conclusion without consequence.

However, as soon as the final outcome is determined by the assumption, it is no longer reasonable.

As I said, the assumption informs your opinion, it doesn't support an already existing opinion. I'm glad I could help.

The Darnell and Wiegman pictures on which a lot of these arguments are concerned take place after the Presidential limo has passed out of sight so your points about everyone being engrossed with the President are invalid.

Wrong. As soon as the shots were fired, it was chaos at Dealey Plaza... The observations of individuals became less reliable, not more reliable. The human brain can only process so much. When the POTUS is killed in front of you, most people hardly pay attention to their surroundings. Instead their main focus is to find out what happened.

Wrong. The people stood on the steps didn't know what was going on as the Presidential limo was out of sight at the time of the shooting. The POTUS was not killed in front of them. This observation demonstrates a tenuous grasp on what actually occurred. No-one was in shock on the steps in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, it was only when other employees began to return that those on the steps began to understand what had happened. In all probability the people on the steps were turning to each other wondering what was going on.

You ignore the witnesses stood behind, alongside and walking right up to 'Oswald' on the steps.

I don't ignore anything. A dozen people said they didn't see Oswald, so what? Big deal! When did they say that? Months later, after Oswald was already dead and buried and branded by the media as the sole assassin. Now. let's suppose, you are a witness who did see Oswald on the stairs (meaning he couldn't be the killer), what do you do? Don't underestimate the survival instinct of people... Why rock the boat? When the media tells us he did it, who am I to tell them they are wrong and what would be the consequences for me?

Here we go. What a massive and wild assumption that any potential witnesses refused to answer questions truthfully in order not to 'rock the boat'. I've no doubt you view this as a reasonable assumption but I do not.

There is a massive difference between one person missing something and a dozen people missing the same thing.
You ignore the witnesses stood behind, alongside and walking right up to 'Oswald' on the steps.

You are way too much interested in reaching a pre-determined conclusion.

There is no pre-determined conclusion. There is no conclusive evidence on this matter one way or the other. It's a matter of opinion. At no point have I stated that the lack of witness corroboration 'proves' Oswald wasn't there. Oswald is not placed there by any witnesses, I think this has relevance so I tried to determine how many potential witnesses might be involved and was surprised by the high number. In my opinion, the higher the number of witnesses the higher the probability Oswald would have been spotted on the steps.

What I agree with is that all these witnesses missing 'Oswald' doesn't prove he wasn't there.

Finally...  which, of course, destroys your entire argument.

This statement reveals your own biased attitude. As I've explained, I'm fully aware there is no conclusive evidence on this matter. It's a matter of opinion based on interpreting the available evidence. You interpret it one way I interpret it another.

It's about probabilities which can be subjective so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Please explain? Probabilities can be subjective.... I really need you to explain this to me as it doesn't make sense to me.

I think the probability that Oswald would have been spotted by one of so many witnesses is really high. You don't. I can't put it any simpler than that.

[Martin Weidmann]

And what opinion is that?
As I said, the assumption informs your opinion, it doesn't support an already existing opinion. I'm glad I could help.

Wrong. The people stood on the steps didn't know what was going on as the Presidential limo was out of sight at the time of the shooting. The POTUS was not killed in front of them. This observation demonstrates a tenuous grasp on what actually occurred. No-one was in shock on the steps in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, it was only when other employees began to return that those on the steps began to understand what had happened. In all probability the people on the steps were turning to each other wondering what was going on.

Here we go. What a massive and wild assumption that any potential witnesses refused to answer questions truthfully in order not to 'rock the boat'. I've no doubt you view this as a reasonable assumption but I do not.

There is no pre-determined conclusion. There is no conclusive evidence on this matter one way or the other. It's a matter of opinion. At no point have I stated that the lack of witness corroboration 'proves' Oswald wasn't there. Oswald is not placed there by any witnesses, I think this has relevance so I tried to determine how many potential witnesses might be involved and was surprised by the high number. In my opinion, the higher the number of witnesses the higher the probability Oswald would have been spotted on the steps.

This statement reveals your own biased attitude. As I've explained, I'm fully aware there is no conclusive evidence on this matter. It's a matter of opinion based on interpreting the available evidence. You interpret it one way I interpret it another.
I think the probability that Oswald would have been spotted by one of so many witnesses is really high. You don't. I can't put it any simpler than that.

And what opinion is that?

You need to ask? How can you say - as you did earlier - that you disagree with so much I said when you don't even know what I said?

As I said, the assumption informs your opinion, it doesn't support an already existing opinion. I'm glad I could help.

Except you're not helping. You are only showing us all that you cleary are confused, to put it mildly. It's beyond hilarious to claim that an assumption somehow can "inform your opinion".

Wrong. The people stood on the steps didn't know what was going on as the Presidential limo was out of sight at the time of the shooting. The POTUS was not killed in front of them. This observation demonstrates a tenuous grasp on what actually occurred.

Playing the semantics game doesn't enhance your credibility. It only shows the level of desperation with which you are trying to cling to your flawed argument. The people on the steps heard the shots and a co-worker (can't remember her name) ran towards them and told them the President had been shot. So, within seconds after the shots they knew what was going on.

No-one was in shock on the steps in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, it was only when other employees began to return that those on the steps began to understand what had happened. In all probability the people on the steps were turning to each other wondering what was going on.

Where did I claim that people were in shock? That's a strawman! And yes, most likely people did indeed turn to eachother to find out what happened. However, I don't know about you, but if I want to find out what happened I would look in the direction where it happened, rather than turn around and look the other way.

Here we go. What a massive and wild assumption that any potential witnesses refused to answer questions truthfully in order not to 'rock the boat'. I've no doubt you view this as a reasonable assumption but I do not.

You clearly have no understanding of human nature. In your perfect world witnesses will come forward voluntary and without fear, right? Well, your perfect world is fantasia land. In the real world, most people simply don't want to get involved. That's not an assumption, it's a fact. Just ask any detective. It is as true today as it was in the past.

There is no pre-determined conclusion. There is no conclusive evidence on this matter one way or the other. It's a matter of opinion. At no point have I stated that the lack of witness corroboration 'proves' Oswald wasn't there.

Great... end of discussion then, right?

Oswald is not placed there by any witnesses, I think this has relevance so I tried to determine how many potential witnesses might be involved and was surprised by the high number. In my opinion, the higher the number of witnesses the higher the probability Oswald would have been spotted on the steps.

Hilarious... first you agree that nobody seeing Oswald there doesn't prove he wasn't there, and then you go full contradictio in terminis and argue the opposite. Give it up, will ya! Your opinion is wrong. Even if every single person on the steps did not see Oswald, that still does not prove he wasn't there.

This statement reveals your own biased attitude. As I've explained, I'm fully aware there is no conclusive evidence on this matter. It's a matter of opinion based on interpreting the available evidence. You interpret it one way I interpret it another.
I think the probability that Oswald would have been spotted by one of so many witnesses is really high. You don't. I can't put it any simpler than that.

My biased attitude? Really?... How pathetic. As for the rest of what you've written; like a dog chasing his own tail, you are going round in circles and are not getting anywhere fast.

On the one hand, you agree that a lack of witness corroboration does not prove Oswald wasn't there and then, on the other hand, you argue that, since not one witness, you know of, out of a group of witnesses, saw him, it's probable that he wasn't there.

I am not wasting anymore time on this.... I merely wanted to point out the flaw in your argument, but you can't argue with stubborn. Good luck with trying to prove a meaningless negative. When you are done, I'm sure the real world will welcome you back with open arms..... oh wait, in your book that's an assumption....