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

[Zeon Mason]

If we assume prayer-blob is LHO, the problem isn't confined to Lovelady. The majority of the twelve people stood on the TSBD steps as the President passed by knew LHO by sight, as did other employees who would have a clear view of prayer-blob such as O V Campbell and Roy Edward Lewis. In Darnell we see employees streaming back into the building all filing past him. When Baker gets into the lobby he sees "several people standing around" who we can assume are returning employees who have just passed LHO on the steps.
The number of witnesses who recognised LHO on the steps would probably run into double figures. In order to avoid this inconvenience PMZ's have LHO slipping outside quietly at the last minute and taking up a position at the back where he goes unnoticed (lets ignore the employees filing past him). AND THEN, to make the height requirements the same zealots have LHO in this position:

Here we see him stood in the most awkward position imaginable, blocking part of the steps, in plain view of anyone on the top steps and right in the face of any returning employees. Hardly inconspicuous.
As soon as the FBI started interviewing people they would be hearing statement after statement placing LHO on the top step. All these people would have to be individually threatened and all would have to play along. In terms of mysterious deaths, every single person who witnessed LHO on the steps that day would become a top priority target.
This is all fantasy of course and goes away when we realise Oswald was not on the steps and is not prayer-blob.

Yes, I agree with You, Mr. Dan,  that the one step down position seems a bit awkward.

I  also agreed with the former  Mr. Doyle,  the logical place for a 300 lb fat woman to stand would be  where Prayrblob is for the reasons:

1. Out of everyone else way and not blocking the door
2. Has better LOS to see motorcade
3. Not in the sunlight, thus having hands free to hold the coffee cup carefully with both hands, instead of having to use one hand to shade eyes
4. If it’s a porcelain white coffee cup from the 2nd floor lunchroom, the out of the way corner reduces chance of being bumped into, spilling the coffee and or dropping the cup and it shattering  on the concrete landing

in summary the “fat lady” was self aware and taking precautions to avoid any potential accident or becoming an obstruction to her fellow employees.

[Dan O'meara]

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.... 

I won't bother with most of your reply as it's utter garbage coming from a truly entrenched mind. But this highlight does need dealing with:

"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."
"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."


Assuming the prayer-blob is Oswald. He is surrounded by witnesses who know him by sight - some stood behind the glass entrance with a clear view of him, some stood alongside him, some walking past him on the steps. There are about a dozen potential witnesses. Not one of then places him at that position. None of this is opinion, it's testimonial fact which I believe favours the view that it is not Oswald on the steps. But it doesn't 'prove' it's not Oswald.
For you to imagine this is a contradictory position demonstrates the kind of brainpower you have at your disposal.
Don't bother replying.

[Martin Weidmann]

I won't bother with most of your reply as it's utter garbage coming from a truly entrenched mind. But this highlight does need dealing with:

"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."
"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."


Assuming the prayer-blob is Oswald. He is surrounded by witnesses who know him by sight - some stood behind the glass entrance with a clear view of him, some stood alongside him, some walking past him on the steps. There are about a dozen potential witnesses. Not one of then places him at that position. None of this is opinion, it's testimonial fact which I believe favours the view that it is not Oswald on the steps. But it doesn't 'prove' it's not Oswald.
For you to imagine this is a contradictory position demonstrates the kind of brainpower you have at your disposal.
Don't bother replying.

Don't bother replying.

Who the hell do you think you are, to tell me what to do?

I won't bother with most of your reply as it's utter garbage coming from a truly entrenched mind.

Never was there a bigger admission of weakness and lack of sound arguments!

As for you rest of moronic comments, you can try to weasel your way out of it is much as you want, but the facts are and remain simple; Oswald was there or he wasn't. Period!

When you agree that the lack of witness corroboration does not prove he wasn't there, you can not use that same lack of witness corroboration to argue that he probably wasn't there! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! It's simply pathetic that you don't understand the contradiction in your stupid argument.

Bring me witnesses who say it was somebody else there and you might have a point, but until you do all you've got is wishful thinking, pure speculation and a hollow argument and that ain't much, but I seriously doubt that your delusional mind is able to comprehend that.

[Dan O'meara]

Yes, I agree with You, Mr. Dan,  that the one step down position seems a bit awkward.

I  also agreed with the former  Mr. Doyle,  the logical place for a 300 lb fat woman to stand would be  where Prayrblob is for the reasons:

1. Out of everyone else way and not blocking the door
2. Has better LOS to see motorcade
3. Not in the sunlight, thus having hands free to hold the coffee cup carefully with both hands, instead of having to use one hand to shade eyes
4. If it’s a porcelain white coffee cup from the 2nd floor lunchroom, the out of the way corner reduces chance of being bumped into, spilling the coffee and or dropping the cup and it shattering  on the concrete landing

in summary the “fat lady” was self aware and taking precautions to avoid any potential accident or becoming an obstruction to her fellow employees.

There are some commonsense assumptions here but I'd like to make a quick point about the white porcelain cup.

This Gif shows two images from Wiegman. It shows the white 'glowing' object being moved up and down. The first frame is the one that shows the object being held up to the face of prayer-blob, the second has the object in the lower position. In his WC testimony Bill Shelley states he went for lunch about 11:50am, went to his office on the first floor and ate part of his lunch then went out front, on the landing of the steps just outside the glass door because their were already some people outside, one of whom was Sarah Stanton.
How long does it take Shelley to get to his room and eat part of his lunch? 10 to 15 minutes seems fairly reasonable, which would mean Stanton is out there already by 12:00 to 12:05pm. The above Wiegman frames are taken seconds after the shooting around 12:30. It's just an opinion but I'm not convinced Stanton would still be drinking her coffee up to half an hour later. Maybe she liked it cold and made it last a long time. Maybe she went back up to the second floor lunchroom and came back down with a coffee just before the shooting.
Personally I have a different idea about the object in prayer-blob's hand but the images are so sketchy I find it impossible to be definitive.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

Hang on.  The very same frame has who you claim is Gloria Calvery already on the steps telling everyone that she saw the president shot.  You can't have it both ways.

[John Iacoletti]

Assuming the prayer-blob is Oswald. He is surrounded by witnesses who know him by sight - some stood behind the glass entrance with a clear view of him, some stood alongside him, some walking past him on the steps. There are about a dozen potential witnesses. Not one of then places him at that position. None of this is opinion, it's testimonial fact which I believe favours the view that it is not Oswald on the steps.

How many of these "dozen potential witnesses" mentioned seeing Sarah Stanton (or anybody else by name) standing in that spot?

[John Iacoletti]

How long does it take Shelley to get to his room and eat part of his lunch? 10 to 15 minutes seems fairly reasonable, which would mean Stanton is out there already by 12:00 to 12:05pm. The above Wiegman frames are taken seconds after the shooting around 12:30. It's just an opinion but I'm not convinced Stanton would still be drinking her coffee up to half an hour later. Maybe she liked it cold and made it last a long time. Maybe she went back up to the second floor lunchroom and came back down with a coffee just before the shooting.

LOL. You start with the unproven premise that it's Stanton and then use that assumption to argue that she wouldn't be drinking a cup of coffee.

Unless it's not Stanton.  Or coffee.  Or a cigarette for that matter.  Do you even know if Stanton smoked?