He is sprawled  across the steps with just his feet extending beyond onto the grass is the way it looks to me. What’s the problem with thaf?

   This is yet another JFK Assassination Urban Legend that has simply been repeated until being accepted as being a fact. Wiegman has NEVER said he laid down/across the steps. No eyewitness has EVER said that they saw Wiegman laying down/across the steps. And, the Bell Film shows this figure to be FACING in the direction of the (S) portion of the Zapruder Perch. That figure is Not facing Mrs Hester on the ground.
   Gary Mack filmed a Knoll walk-through with Wiegman for, " Unsolved History JFK, Death in Dealey Plaza" (2003). So, we have Gary Mack with Wiegman walking all over the Knoll, almost standing in the shadow of the Sixth Floor Museum, yet Mack did NOT bother to show Wiegman the Bell Film to detail exactly what we are seeing on the Bell film. At a minimum, Mack should have shown Wiegman the Bell Film in the hope of jogging his memory. There is a reason why the "curator" of the Sixth Floor Museum dropped the ball here.

Sandy Larsen matched the plaid bars on Lovelady's shirt to those on the shirt of the man going up the extension beyond any reasonable doubt...When I explained to Larsen that he himself had just proven the timing of when Frazier said he was standing and staring in shock at Sarah Stanton Larsen responded by going back to his photo analysis of the plaid bars and deleting it...When I confronted Larsen for that in an e-mail he responded by saying "You and I will never agree"...But that wasn't what I asked him...I didn't ask him if we would ever agree, I asked him if he had proven the timing of when Frazier was facing Sarah Stanton by proving when Lovelady was fast-walking up the extension...The membership of The Education Forum not only allowed Larsen to get away with that rank dishonesty but they also didn't even notice or care when told...That means Sandy was the kind of person who, like DiEugenio, knowingly, with intent, allows an innocent researcher to be unfairly banned for good evidence and doesn't care as long as he prevails...They have Mark Knight always on reserve to make sure the victim is punished and the real issue is ignored...Andrew Iler then role plays being a strict enforcer of highly principled standards - but all he really is is a DiEugenio shill...The Education Forum is a dirty board where the Prayer Man people are always going to be assisted out of their malicious misconduct by dirty moderation...Commit rogue moral violations against good research and good researchers and the clique will praise you right on cue...

Sandy Larsen matched the plaid bars on Lovelady's shirt to those on the shirt of the man going up the extension beyond any reasonable doubt..

I find this very difficult to believe.
If this were true you would have pointed us to this evidence.
It would not surprise me if this turned out to be another of your fantasies but I'm open to being proven wrong.
If you can really provide another clear piece of analysis that shows Lovelady's shirt and that is nothing to do with the Sprague print I will concede that it is Lovelady and Shelley on the Elm Street extension, even though it flies in the face of all other available evidence and appears to be a physical impossibility.

Where can I find Larsen's analysis?

Your problem is that you accept the accounts from the above-named witnesses as if they are established facts.

No I don't.
The only established facts are that the Warren Commission Sham ignored the testimonies and statements of these men in favour of the fictional account of events Givens gave. The Sham ignored that Givens had been questioned in detail about his movements and his observations of Oswald on the day of the assassination and had never once even hinted he had returned to the 6th floor and seen Oswald near the scene of the shooting.
Why was Givens, all of a sudden, introducing this vital piece of evidence that would be used by the Sham to establish Oswald was on the 6th floor all alone after everyone else went down to lunch. This question was never asked, the new version of events was simply accepted.
Time after time in the hearings witnesses were referred back to earlier statements they had given if it differed with their testimony.
Not Givens.
Let's not forget, Oswald was on the first floor talking to Eddie Piper at 12 noon. Piper was the last employee to see Oswald, not Givens. The Sham deliberately ignored this evidence.

None of the above were keeping a time log for their activities just prior to the assassination, so when they were asked what they did and when they did it, all they could do was guess. For example, what reason would Bonnie Ray Williams have had for making a mental note of what time he arrived at the sixth-floor window or what time he left there? None whatsoever.

Each person was giving their account of what they did during lunch.
They remember Oswald trying to get on the elevator and asking for it to be sent back up to him.
They remember Oswald was trying to get down to the first floor.
But then along comes the Givens fiction - now Givens is asking Oswald if he wants to come down to the first floor when, in reality, it was Oswald asking Givens. Now Oswald is refusing to come down when, in reality, he was trying to get down to the first floor which we know he did.

And we don't need Bonnie Ray to remember what time he left the 6th floor. Norman and Jarman provide that evidence but their testimonies are also ignored by the Sham. Hank Norman heard from a police motorcycle that the motorcade was on or approaching Main Street. This timestamps when they decided to go upstairs to 12:22pm at the earliest. they walk to the corner of Elm and Houston, alongside the building on Houston Street, up to the back loading dock and in the back door. The east elevator, the one closest to the back door, was not available forcing them to walk around the elevator shaft to the west side (it was at this point Oswald saw them from the Domino Room). They then took the elevator up to the 5th and walked all the way across to the southeast side. Jarman reckons they were up there around 12:25 - 12:28pm.
It was then, and only then that Williams decided to go down to meet them - if you believe the official narrative.

We also don't know where Oswald was during the time BRW was at the window. He could have been anywhere on the 6th floor and not have been seen by BRW, and he might have been pondering his next move if BRW had remained at the 6th floor window. He might have been contemplating whether to move to the 7th floor if BRW remained in place. All of these are what-ifs that can be fun to speculate about but don't give us a clue as to what actually happened.

Wasn't Oswald hiding as quiet as a mouse in the SN?
Was Oswald the man with the scoped, high-powered rifle that Arnold spotted at the west end of the 6th floor?
Doesn't the rifle bag in the SN demonstrate that the shooter assembled his rifle there?

There is so much evidence telling us what happened up on the 6th floor.
You are the only one who doesn't have a clue.

Could someone explain that one to me? I don't understand it at all.

Sorry, but I can't help you on this one. I am not fluent in gibberish.

I challenge you to find a single case in which the witnesses all independently reported observing a simple fact and all were shown to have been wrong.

Note: Eyewitness identification is not an observation of fact but is really an opinion that the person at the scene, whom they did not know or recognize at the time, was the same person in a lineup or photo they were presented with later.

All one has to do is look to the JFKA. We have two groups of witnesses who all independently identified where they heard the shots come from. They all heard the same shots, yet the two groups identified a different location for the source of the shots. One group of witnesses all independently reported a simple fact and one group has to have been wrong.