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

[Frederick Clements]

The Altgens Doorway Man figure was proven to be Lovelady decades ago. Only a few people like Cinque still believe it is Oswald.

Fred

[Zeon Mason]

So if someone can explain the 5’3” inch height of Prayerperson as due to something other than slouching/leaning against the west wall, or the one foot on lower step position , and one can explain the apparent fuzziness of busy hair behind the neck (is it hair or is it some photographic anomaly?)

And the white shirt person with both hands shading the eyes. that Alan Ford  has suggested might be Sarah Stanton , then there is a still a very slight possibility that PM is Oswald?

[Dan O'meara]

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.

Hardly anybody mentioned Jeraldean Reid standing out front.

Ignore John, he likes to misrepresent everything I say.
This thread begins with me arguing that Oswald was an antisocial loner who went out of his way to avoid interacting with his fellow employees (there is plenty of testimonial evidence to this effect). Although he kept himself to himself this didn't make him invisible, far from it, it made him really stand out. John would have you believe you have to be 'intimately familiar' with someone in order to recognise their face. This is not the case, Oswald's extremely antisocial behaviour made him very recognisable.
Of the twelve employees who place themselves on the TSBD steps at the time of the assassination seven state they knew Oswald by sight, three stated they didn't know what he looked like, two simply say they didn't see him that day (Carl Edward Jones would've known Oswald from the Domino Room). Two people who were on the steps seconds after the last shot also knew Oswald by sight - Roy Truly and Roy Edward Lewis. Of the employees who were out front and who immediately returned to the TSBD after the shooting, six knew Oswald by sight - Westbrook, Hicks, Calvery, Hughes, Martha Reed and Jeraldean Reid. Carolyn Arnold, stood in front of the steps thought she may have seen Oswald behind the glass entrance about fifteen minutes before the motorcade arrived but never noticed him after that.
There are other possibilities but we can say with great confidence that if Oswald had been on the steps at least one of these people would have seen him. Nobody did.
John would have you believe Oswald was stood back in the shadows but in order to make the height requirement Oswald has to be placed at the front of the landing with one foot on the first step partially blocking the steps. Not exactly inconspicuous.
John's point about Jeraldean Reid is ridiculous. Firstly, two people - Carl Edward Lewis and Ochus Campbell - place Reid in front of the steps but this is not the point. Nobody is asking "Did you see Jeraldean Reid on the day of the assassination?" People are being specifically asked if they saw Oswald. Nobody places Carl Edward Jones on the steps but it doesn't matter. All that matters is where Oswald was at the time of the assassination and nobody, not one of all the potential witnesses who knew Oswald by sight, place him on the steps.

[Dan O'meara]

If prayer blob is Stanton , then one would have to conclude that the  Lovelady statement “and right behind me” would have ended with “Sarah Stanton”, if he had not been interrupted in his WC testimony .

But would it not be illogically redundant for Lovelady to be relocating Stanton “ behind me” when he has already just located  her along with Shelley in his previous statement?

Now if one speculates that Lovelady was just about to ID the person in his “ and right behind me” statement as Oswald, if not interrupted, then one has to wonder why Lovelady would not met with one of those curious “accidental deaths” that so many other JFK witnesses did.

Would the conspirators have allowed Lovelady to live on for another 13 years with this vital secret of knowing Oswald had an iron clad alibi?

Perhaps this “interruption” of Lovelady in the WC hearing was merely coincidental, and the conspirators never really knew Lovelady had been almost about to exonerate Oswald?

could Lovelady have kept this vital secret to himself for the next 13 years?

Should Loveladys   death very close to the HSCA hearing be considered merely  a concidental death?

Or did conspirators learn belated via some source that Lovelady might ID the person “behind” as Oswald, thus Lovelady meets with the timely fatal heart attack at only the age of 45?

Like a lot of people I too thought Lovelady had been interrupted before he could say who was behind him but I've noticed something in his WC testimony that indicates this might not be the case. For those who want to place Oswald on the steps at the time of the assassination the story must go something like this - Lovelady recognised Oswald on the steps but was warned/threatened that he was to ignore this (the same must be true of all the potential witnesses). Just before his WC testimony Lovelady would probably have been warned again not to mention Oswald but as he was being questioned about who he was stood with on the steps he was just about to let it slip that Oswald was there but, in a moment of telepathic brilliance, Mr Ball interrupts to steer him away from his potential blunder.
However, when we look more closely at Lovelady's WC testimony we notice the following two passages:

"Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I would say a good 75, between 75 to 100 yards to the first tracks. See how those tracks goes---
Mr. BALL - You went down the dead end on Elm?"

"Mr. LOVELADY - I don't know, because everybody was running from that way and naturally, I guess---
Mr. BALL - They were running from that way or toward that way?"

In both these examples we can see that Lovelady was interrupted during the questioning. These interruptions are represented by 3 dashes (---) at the end of Lovelady's words. Now look at the passage in question:

Mr. BALL - You ate your lunch on the steps?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Who was with you?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me
Mr. BALL - What was that last name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Stanton.
Mr. BALL - What is the first name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley.

Notice there are no dashes at the point where it is thought Lovelady was interrupted. It should read like this:

Mr. LOVALADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me ---
Mr. BALL - What was that last name?

So it looks like Lovelady wasn't interrupted at all. If that's the case what can we make of his reply.

[John Iacoletti]

There are other possibilities but we can say with great confidence that if Oswald had been on the steps at least one of these people would have seen him. Nobody did.

Why can “we” say that with great confidence? Just because you decided that it was so?

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

John would have you believe Oswald was stood back in the shadows but in order to make the height requirement Oswald has to be placed at the front of the landing with one foot on the first step partially blocking the steps. Not exactly inconspicuous.

Talk about misrepresentations. John said nothing of the kind. By the way, what “height requirement”?

John's point about Jeraldean Reid is ridiculous. Firstly, two people - Carl Edward Lewis and Ochus Campbell - place Reid in front of the steps but this is not the point. Nobody is asking "Did you see Jeraldean Reid on the day of the assassination?" People are being specifically asked if they saw Oswald. Nobody places Carl Edward Jones on the steps but it doesn't matter.

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

[Dan O'meara]

Why can “we” say that with great confidence? Just because you decided that it was so?

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

Talk about misrepresentations. John said nothing of the kind. By the way, what “height requirement”?

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

"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.

[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?