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

[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?

[Dan O'meara]

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

Come on John.

Q: How many TSBD employees were asked if they'd seen Sarah Stanton?
A: None
Q: How many TSBD employees were asked if they'd seen Oswald?
A: All of them

[Dan O'meara]

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?

More misrepresentation.
I'm not starting with any unproven assumption. The part you leave out (as usual) is that I'm responding to and disagreeing with Zeon's assumption that Stanton (the 300lb fat lady) is drinking a cup of coffee.
I know you know this but you choose to misrepresent.

[Dan O'meara]

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.

Even by your high standards of misrepresentation this stands out.
In the post you refer to I state that the President was not shot in front of the steps of the TSBD and that the people stood there only started to find out from returning employees (ie: Gloria Calvery).
What on earth do you mean I "can't have it both ways"? What do you mean by "the very same frame"?
What, exactly, are you talking about?

[Martin Weidmann]

Even by your high standards of misrepresentation this stands out.
In the post you refer to I state that the President was not shot in front of the steps of the TSBD and that the people stood there only started to find out from returning employees (ie: Gloria Calvery).
What on earth do you mean I "can't have it both ways"? What do you mean by "the very same frame"?
What, exactly, are you talking about?

If you don't know or understand what John is talking about exactly, how can you call it a "misrepresentation"?