Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How David Von Pein misread the testimonies
59 views
Skip to first unread message
Ralph Cinque
May 4, 2014, 7:23:29 PM5/4/14
to
I just thought of something else. Look at this exchange between Ball and
Arce:
Mr. BALL. I am not going to mark this purposely because other witnesses
have to see it.
Mr. ARCE. Yes.
The date was April 7, 1964, and the time was 2:15. An hour later, Ball was
going to show that picture to Lovelady and have him mark it. But, the
picture that Ball showed to Lovelady was ALREADY marked with Frazier's
arrow. That was from a month earlier: March 11, 1964. And that means that
the picture Ball showed to Arce was definitely ALREADY marked with
Frazier's arrow.
So, there was Joseph Ball- holding a photograph in his hands that had a
big mark on it consisting of an arrow drawn by Buell Frazier, and while
holding that marked photo, Ball had the audacity to say:"I'm not going to
mark this purposely because other witnesses have to see it."
IT WAS ALREADY MARKED! Ball said that as if it were unmarked. Think about
the loonyness of holding a marked photo and saying that you don't want to
put any marks on it.
So, the situation was that the same photo was shown to all three. The
first one, Frazier, was made to mark. Then with Arce, there was no
marking, just pointing and responding. And then an hour later with
Lovelady, it went back to marking WITHOUT REFERRING TO DOORMAN AT ALL.
Mr. BALL - I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you on
that picture?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are.
Now compare that to this:
Mr. BALL. Just 1 minute, I want to show you a picture. I show you
Commission Exhibit No. 369. I show you this picture. See this man in
this picture? Recognize him?
Ball must have been pointing to Doorman when he said that. And you can't
get any more direct than that. You point to the guy and ask, who is he?
Ball did that with Frazier, and he could have done it with Lovelady an
hour later, but he didn't. You'd think that he would have, but he didn't.
But right now, I just want you to dwell on Ball holding a marked photo-
one with a big glaring black arrow- and saying I don't want it marked
because other witnesses have to see it.
And let's go further because it was just as weird with Lovelady. How weird
was it for Ball to ask Lovelady to draw an arrow on a photo which already
had an arrow? If you were in charge, wouldn't you have used a fresh photo?
DIdn't they have copy machines in those days? Wasn't there an unlimited
supply of Altgens photos? Was Ball trying to save the taxpayers a few
pennies? Wasn't it possible that the pre-existing arrow would bias
Lovelady, and wouldn't Ball, being a lawyer, realize that?
Here's an idea: maybe Ball was trying to bias Lovelady. Maybe Ball was
trying to give Lovelady a not-so-subtle hint as to where his arrow should
go. But, Lovelady didn't take it. Lovelady drew his arrow to Black Hole
ManSo, Danny Arce was sandwiched in-between two guys who were asked to
draw arrows on the same photograph. But, there was no arrow-drawing for
Danny. For Danny, it was a simple matter: a point to Doorman, and: "Who is
he?"
Danny Arce said Doorman was Lovelady even though Doorman was wearing
Oswald's distinctive clothing; had Oswald's slender build; and was doing
Oswald's distinctive stance of clasping his hands in front, left over
right. Arce admitted to seeing Oswald when he arrived at 8:00 AM. He
admitted seeing him again during the morning. He admitted to seeing him
again when they broke for lunch. And he admitted to seeing him again at
the Dallas PD where we all saw him- wearing his distinctive clothing, the
same clothes we see on Doorman. And yet, three times Danny Arce said,
"That's Billy Lovelady." "That's Billy Lovelady." "That's Billy Lovelady."
He didn't elaborate. He didn't break it down. He didn't say how he knew or
what he recognized. Rather, he just sparsely, flatly, and abruptly said
without the slightest explanation, "That's Billy Lovelady." That's bull
shit is what it is.
Arce:
Mr. BALL. I am not going to mark this purposely because other witnesses
have to see it.
Mr. ARCE. Yes.
The date was April 7, 1964, and the time was 2:15. An hour later, Ball was
going to show that picture to Lovelady and have him mark it. But, the
picture that Ball showed to Lovelady was ALREADY marked with Frazier's
arrow. That was from a month earlier: March 11, 1964. And that means that
the picture Ball showed to Arce was definitely ALREADY marked with
Frazier's arrow.
So, there was Joseph Ball- holding a photograph in his hands that had a
big mark on it consisting of an arrow drawn by Buell Frazier, and while
holding that marked photo, Ball had the audacity to say:"I'm not going to
mark this purposely because other witnesses have to see it."
IT WAS ALREADY MARKED! Ball said that as if it were unmarked. Think about
the loonyness of holding a marked photo and saying that you don't want to
put any marks on it.
So, the situation was that the same photo was shown to all three. The
first one, Frazier, was made to mark. Then with Arce, there was no
marking, just pointing and responding. And then an hour later with
Lovelady, it went back to marking WITHOUT REFERRING TO DOORMAN AT ALL.
Mr. BALL - I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you on
that picture?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are.
Now compare that to this:
Mr. BALL. Just 1 minute, I want to show you a picture. I show you
Commission Exhibit No. 369. I show you this picture. See this man in
this picture? Recognize him?
Ball must have been pointing to Doorman when he said that. And you can't
get any more direct than that. You point to the guy and ask, who is he?
Ball did that with Frazier, and he could have done it with Lovelady an
hour later, but he didn't. You'd think that he would have, but he didn't.
But right now, I just want you to dwell on Ball holding a marked photo-
one with a big glaring black arrow- and saying I don't want it marked
because other witnesses have to see it.
And let's go further because it was just as weird with Lovelady. How weird
was it for Ball to ask Lovelady to draw an arrow on a photo which already
had an arrow? If you were in charge, wouldn't you have used a fresh photo?
DIdn't they have copy machines in those days? Wasn't there an unlimited
supply of Altgens photos? Was Ball trying to save the taxpayers a few
pennies? Wasn't it possible that the pre-existing arrow would bias
Lovelady, and wouldn't Ball, being a lawyer, realize that?
Here's an idea: maybe Ball was trying to bias Lovelady. Maybe Ball was
trying to give Lovelady a not-so-subtle hint as to where his arrow should
go. But, Lovelady didn't take it. Lovelady drew his arrow to Black Hole
ManSo, Danny Arce was sandwiched in-between two guys who were asked to
draw arrows on the same photograph. But, there was no arrow-drawing for
Danny. For Danny, it was a simple matter: a point to Doorman, and: "Who is
he?"
Danny Arce said Doorman was Lovelady even though Doorman was wearing
Oswald's distinctive clothing; had Oswald's slender build; and was doing
Oswald's distinctive stance of clasping his hands in front, left over
right. Arce admitted to seeing Oswald when he arrived at 8:00 AM. He
admitted seeing him again during the morning. He admitted to seeing him
again when they broke for lunch. And he admitted to seeing him again at
the Dallas PD where we all saw him- wearing his distinctive clothing, the
same clothes we see on Doorman. And yet, three times Danny Arce said,
"That's Billy Lovelady." "That's Billy Lovelady." "That's Billy Lovelady."
He didn't elaborate. He didn't break it down. He didn't say how he knew or
what he recognized. Rather, he just sparsely, flatly, and abruptly said
without the slightest explanation, "That's Billy Lovelady." That's bull
shit is what it is.
David Von Pein
May 4, 2014, 11:46:46 PM5/4/14
to
Another meaningless rant by Dr. Cinque.
Regardless of Joe Ball's comments to Danny Arce about CE369, the
information still came out via Arce's testimony that "Doorway Man" was
Billy Lovelady. At least Arce had no problem coming to that conclusion
after seeing CE369--regardless of whether an arrow was pointing to him in
the exhibit or not.
So, thank you Ralph for emphasizing in this thread just one MORE reason
(Arce's testimony re: Lovelady) to know that your "OIC" project is full of
holes.
Arce says it's Lovelady.
Frazier says it's Lovelady.
Lovelady says it's Lovelady.
The HSCA's Photographic Panel says it's Lovelady.
And Oswald says he's "inside" during the shooting.
You'd think the above batch of stuff might be enough. But for the Ralph
Cinques of the world--bent on having an innocent Oswald--no amount of
corroboration will ever be enough. Right, Ralph?
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/doorway-man.html
Regardless of Joe Ball's comments to Danny Arce about CE369, the
information still came out via Arce's testimony that "Doorway Man" was
Billy Lovelady. At least Arce had no problem coming to that conclusion
after seeing CE369--regardless of whether an arrow was pointing to him in
the exhibit or not.
So, thank you Ralph for emphasizing in this thread just one MORE reason
(Arce's testimony re: Lovelady) to know that your "OIC" project is full of
holes.
Arce says it's Lovelady.
Frazier says it's Lovelady.
Lovelady says it's Lovelady.
The HSCA's Photographic Panel says it's Lovelady.
And Oswald says he's "inside" during the shooting.
You'd think the above batch of stuff might be enough. But for the Ralph
Cinques of the world--bent on having an innocent Oswald--no amount of
corroboration will ever be enough. Right, Ralph?
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/doorway-man.html
Marcus Hanson
May 5, 2014, 10:01:49 AM5/5/14
to
On Monday, May 5, 2014 1:46:46 PM UTC+10, David Von Pein wrote:
> You'd think the above batch of stuff might be enough. But for ==the Ralph
>
> Cinques== of the world--bent on having an innocent Oswald--no amount of
a second , David - scary thought that there's more than one of 'em:-).
Still,Ralph is a CT....so I guess there MUST be two of everything and
everyone. At least.
> You'd think the above batch of stuff might be enough. But for ==the Ralph
>
> Cinques== of the world--bent on having an innocent Oswald--no amount of
>
> corroboration will ever be enough. Right, Ralph?
>
>
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/doorway-man.html
Ah,I see what you mean - bit worried about you using the plural there for
> corroboration will ever be enough. Right, Ralph?
>
>
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/doorway-man.html
a second , David - scary thought that there's more than one of 'em:-).
Still,Ralph is a CT....so I guess there MUST be two of everything and
everyone. At least.
Ralph Cinque
May 5, 2014, 1:45:29 PM5/5/14
to
No, Von Pein. You're wrong. And how dare you? Not during his WC testimony
or any time before that did Lovelady ever say he was Doorman. In fact,
Joseph Ball deliberately avoided asking him. And when it came down to it,
Lovelady drew an arrow on CE 369 to another figure, to Black Hole Man, to
indicate himself. So much for him saying that it was Lovelady.
And the HSCA's Photographic Panel did NOT say it was Lovelady. It was
their Anthropological panel. And they were pretty darn tepid about it,
full of disclaimers- based on this, that, and the other thing, probably,
most likely, and we think. The only photographer involved was Robert
Groden, who is not and never was an expert, and he never even put an image
of Oswald and Doorman side by side. The HSCA was an extremely bad joke.
And Danny Arce was definitely an Op. Order filler? Yeah right.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2014/05/danny-arce-is-definitely-suspicious.html
or any time before that did Lovelady ever say he was Doorman. In fact,
Joseph Ball deliberately avoided asking him. And when it came down to it,
Lovelady drew an arrow on CE 369 to another figure, to Black Hole Man, to
indicate himself. So much for him saying that it was Lovelady.
And the HSCA's Photographic Panel did NOT say it was Lovelady. It was
their Anthropological panel. And they were pretty darn tepid about it,
full of disclaimers- based on this, that, and the other thing, probably,
most likely, and we think. The only photographer involved was Robert
Groden, who is not and never was an expert, and he never even put an image
of Oswald and Doorman side by side. The HSCA was an extremely bad joke.
And Danny Arce was definitely an Op. Order filler? Yeah right.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2014/05/danny-arce-is-definitely-suspicious.html
David Von Pein
May 5, 2014, 11:22:54 PM5/5/14
to
Oh, good Lord. I feel sorrier for John McAdams and Peter F. all the time,
having to read and moderate this CT nonsense every single day of the week.
What agony it must be. (Funny, but agony too.)
having to read and moderate this CT nonsense every single day of the week.
What agony it must be. (Funny, but agony too.)
Ralph Cinque
May 6, 2014, 10:19:32 AM5/6/14
to
You got those testimonies all wrong, Von Pein. The pendulum swing in how
Joseph Ball handled Danny Arce and then Billy Lovelady- one getting a
direct question and the other an arrow game- occurred on the very same
day! April 7, 1964. In the same afternoon! Within an hour and a half of
each other! What possible reason is there for the polar-opposite way in
which Joseph Ball handled those two men? It's simple: with Arce, Ball was
confident to the max, while with Lovelady, Ball was scared chitless, and
so he talked around and got Lovelady to respond non-verbally.
All that is well known, but the question is: how was the confidence with
Danny Arce derived? Where did it come from? How was it acquired? You know,
Danny Arce is still alive.
Joseph Ball handled Danny Arce and then Billy Lovelady- one getting a
direct question and the other an arrow game- occurred on the very same
day! April 7, 1964. In the same afternoon! Within an hour and a half of
each other! What possible reason is there for the polar-opposite way in
which Joseph Ball handled those two men? It's simple: with Arce, Ball was
confident to the max, while with Lovelady, Ball was scared chitless, and
so he talked around and got Lovelady to respond non-verbally.
All that is well known, but the question is: how was the confidence with
Danny Arce derived? Where did it come from? How was it acquired? You know,
Danny Arce is still alive.
0 new messages