info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
New discovery of Lovelady's arrow in CE 369
96 views
Skip to first unread message
Ralph Cinque
Mar 8, 2013, 3:08:14 PM3/8/13
to
The Oswald Innocence Campaign has just made the research coup of the
decade. We have discovered the arrow that Billy Lovelady drew on the
Altgens photo to indicate himself. And it does not point to Doorway Man,
as most have assumed. Rather, it points to Black Hole Man.
But first a little history:
The Warren Commission asked two individuals to locate and identify Billy
Lovelady in the Altgens photo, and they were Billy Lovelady and Buell Frazier.
Both were asked to draw an arrow to Billy Lovelady. But, for some reason,
on different occasions, they gave them each the exact same copy of the
Altgens photo to draw on.
To avoid bias, wouldn’t they provide each a fresh, unmarked copy of the
Altgens photo to draw on? You would think so, but that’s not what they
did. Buell Frazier went first, and he drew an arrow in the white pointing
to Doorway Man, and that has become known as CE 369.
http://tinypic.com/r/mv0z1t/6
People talk about that exhibit as if it was the handiwork of Billy
Lovelady, but the arrow we see was drawn by Buell Frazier. Lovelady drew
one in the black, but since he used a black pen, which made it black on
black, we are unable to see his arrow. Or so we thought….
I have examined the black space above Doorman’s head looking for Lovelady’s arrow but never could find a hint of it. But then it occurred to me:
What if Billy drew his arrow elsewhere in the photograph away from Doorman?
So, I decided to look in proximity to Black Hole Man since he is the
figure whom we assume to be Lovelady. And lo and behold….
http://tinypic.com/r/14wxa3n/6
Do you see that black line extending over his forearm? It’s about the
middle but closer to his wrist than his elbow on the inside. What could
that possibly be other than an arrow? Look at it up closer:
http://tinypic.com/r/1620fgi/6
Now here it is compared to the unmarked Altgens:
http://tinypic.com/r/14u7uaa/6
As you can see, in the unmarked Altgens, his forearm is undefiled. It is
uninterrupted. It is unlined.
What could cause that line? Certainly not a shadow. From what? There is no
object that could cast such a shadow. There is nothing else it could be
except the arrow that Lovelady drew.
Now consider the testimony: WC Attorney Joseph Bell took out CE 369 with
the arrow in the white pointing to Doorman that Buell Frazier had drawn:
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.
Mr. LOVELADY - Where I thought the shots are?
Mr. BALL - No; you in the picture.
Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, here (indicating).
Mr. BALL - Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow
in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when
the picture was taken?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right there at the entrance of the building standing on the
top step, would be here (indicating).
Mr. BALL - You were standing on which step?
Mr. LOVELADY - It would be your top level.
Mr. BALL - The top step you were standing there?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
What is Ball talking about? We know now that the arrow Lovelady drew
pointed to a different figure than to what Frazier pointed to. So how
could Ball say, “You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white
pointing toward you” when the “you” was different figures?
Are you wondering if there was also an arrow in the dark above Doorman
that might have been the one that Lovelady drew? Well, see for yourself.
http://tinypic.com/r/2lxgvi9/6
There is no arrow in the dark above Doorman’s head. There are only two
arrows: the prominent diagonal arrow in the white pointing to Doorman
drawn by Buell Frazier and the smaller fainter arrow pointing to Black
Hole Man drawn by Billy Lovelady. That is it.
And again, if that line across the forearm of Black Hole Man is not part
of Lovelady’s arrow, what can it possibly be? It is not shadow. There is
no object that could cast such a shadow.
The irony is that for decades, lone-nutters have used CE 369 as evidence
of Lovelady pointing to himself as Doorman in the Altgens photo. But that
was never the case. The arrow to which they were referring was Frazier’s
arrow. Lovelady’s arrow was never visualized –until now. Now we know
that Lovelady, at the time, was being truthful. Lovelady was Black Hole
Man in that picture, and he knew it.
And think about what it means. Black Hole is not wearing a plaid shirt. He
is not even wearing a long-sleeved shirt. That means that ALL of the
images of Lovelady wearing a plaid shirt on 11/22/63, including the famous
Martin frames and the various frames from the PD footage, with the famous
walk-by of Lovelady, are all false. None of those figures were Lovelady.
Every single one of them was somehow faked. Lovelady told the truth when
he told the FBI that he wore a short-sleeved striped shirt on 11/22.
Obviously, there are no stripes on the shirt of Black Hole Man, but
that’s because they took them out. They blackened out his face and they
whitened his shirt.
To our adversaries, I demand to know what that black line is over Black
Hole Man’s forearm if it is not Lovelady’s arrow. Answer the
question. And if you can’t answer it- and I mean convincingly- you lose.
It is game over. And it is Oswald in the doorway.
decade. We have discovered the arrow that Billy Lovelady drew on the
Altgens photo to indicate himself. And it does not point to Doorway Man,
as most have assumed. Rather, it points to Black Hole Man.
But first a little history:
The Warren Commission asked two individuals to locate and identify Billy
Lovelady in the Altgens photo, and they were Billy Lovelady and Buell Frazier.
Both were asked to draw an arrow to Billy Lovelady. But, for some reason,
on different occasions, they gave them each the exact same copy of the
Altgens photo to draw on.
To avoid bias, wouldn’t they provide each a fresh, unmarked copy of the
Altgens photo to draw on? You would think so, but that’s not what they
did. Buell Frazier went first, and he drew an arrow in the white pointing
to Doorway Man, and that has become known as CE 369.
http://tinypic.com/r/mv0z1t/6
People talk about that exhibit as if it was the handiwork of Billy
Lovelady, but the arrow we see was drawn by Buell Frazier. Lovelady drew
one in the black, but since he used a black pen, which made it black on
black, we are unable to see his arrow. Or so we thought….
I have examined the black space above Doorman’s head looking for Lovelady’s arrow but never could find a hint of it. But then it occurred to me:
What if Billy drew his arrow elsewhere in the photograph away from Doorman?
So, I decided to look in proximity to Black Hole Man since he is the
figure whom we assume to be Lovelady. And lo and behold….
http://tinypic.com/r/14wxa3n/6
Do you see that black line extending over his forearm? It’s about the
middle but closer to his wrist than his elbow on the inside. What could
that possibly be other than an arrow? Look at it up closer:
http://tinypic.com/r/1620fgi/6
Now here it is compared to the unmarked Altgens:
http://tinypic.com/r/14u7uaa/6
As you can see, in the unmarked Altgens, his forearm is undefiled. It is
uninterrupted. It is unlined.
What could cause that line? Certainly not a shadow. From what? There is no
object that could cast such a shadow. There is nothing else it could be
except the arrow that Lovelady drew.
Now consider the testimony: WC Attorney Joseph Bell took out CE 369 with
the arrow in the white pointing to Doorman that Buell Frazier had drawn:
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.
Mr. LOVELADY - Where I thought the shots are?
Mr. BALL - No; you in the picture.
Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, here (indicating).
Mr. BALL - Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow
in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when
the picture was taken?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right there at the entrance of the building standing on the
top step, would be here (indicating).
Mr. BALL - You were standing on which step?
Mr. LOVELADY - It would be your top level.
Mr. BALL - The top step you were standing there?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
What is Ball talking about? We know now that the arrow Lovelady drew
pointed to a different figure than to what Frazier pointed to. So how
could Ball say, “You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white
pointing toward you” when the “you” was different figures?
Are you wondering if there was also an arrow in the dark above Doorman
that might have been the one that Lovelady drew? Well, see for yourself.
http://tinypic.com/r/2lxgvi9/6
There is no arrow in the dark above Doorman’s head. There are only two
arrows: the prominent diagonal arrow in the white pointing to Doorman
drawn by Buell Frazier and the smaller fainter arrow pointing to Black
Hole Man drawn by Billy Lovelady. That is it.
And again, if that line across the forearm of Black Hole Man is not part
of Lovelady’s arrow, what can it possibly be? It is not shadow. There is
no object that could cast such a shadow.
The irony is that for decades, lone-nutters have used CE 369 as evidence
of Lovelady pointing to himself as Doorman in the Altgens photo. But that
was never the case. The arrow to which they were referring was Frazier’s
arrow. Lovelady’s arrow was never visualized –until now. Now we know
that Lovelady, at the time, was being truthful. Lovelady was Black Hole
Man in that picture, and he knew it.
And think about what it means. Black Hole is not wearing a plaid shirt. He
is not even wearing a long-sleeved shirt. That means that ALL of the
images of Lovelady wearing a plaid shirt on 11/22/63, including the famous
Martin frames and the various frames from the PD footage, with the famous
walk-by of Lovelady, are all false. None of those figures were Lovelady.
Every single one of them was somehow faked. Lovelady told the truth when
he told the FBI that he wore a short-sleeved striped shirt on 11/22.
Obviously, there are no stripes on the shirt of Black Hole Man, but
that’s because they took them out. They blackened out his face and they
whitened his shirt.
To our adversaries, I demand to know what that black line is over Black
Hole Man’s forearm if it is not Lovelady’s arrow. Answer the
question. And if you can’t answer it- and I mean convincingly- you lose.
It is game over. And it is Oswald in the doorway.
Ralph Cinque
Mar 8, 2013, 8:22:20 PM3/8/13
to
Here's another telling point: Lovelady drew that line awfully timid. It
could not have been more subtle. He must have realized that they weren't
looking for what he was offering. He didn't want to lie, but he did not
want to upset them either. So, he did them the favor of making his arrow
very small and almost imperceptible.
http://tinypic.com/r/28l9uew/6
if you were going to draw an arrow, why would you draw it so timidly? Why
wouldn't he draw it as boldly as Frazier drew his?
I think that it was because, either consciously or subconsciously, he
realized that he wasn't giving them what they wanted; he was letting them
down; and maybe it would lessen the disappointment if he made it small and
barely noticeable. It was like he was winking at Mr. Ball and telling him
non-verbally:
"Look, Mr. Ball, you really don't want me drawing any visible arrow on
this photo because I know what you're looking for, but I can't deliver it.
It would best for you to just drop it and move on"
And after Ball saw what Lovelady did, I'm sure he got the message, and
then he went into theatrics:
Mr. Ball : Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow
in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when
the picture was taken?
What? What a con artist, and you and I were the ones being conned.
the picture was taken?
Lovelady drew his arrow to a different figure than Frazier had done and
Ball just ignored it. He put on an act, but I bet his heart was racing. He
had to know at that moment that it was Oswald in the doorway.
Ralph Cinque
Mar 8, 2013, 8:33:57 PM3/8/13
to
There is something else that supports that arrow being Lovelady's: the
angle of it.
http://tinypic.com/r/28l9uew/6
We know from the testimony that Lovelady was shown the photo with that big
prominent arrow already on it. So visually, he was given the impetus to
draw his arrow the same way, at the same angle, and he did. He could have
drawn it vertically or horizontally. Or even if he drew it diagonally, he
could have drawn it at a different angle. But, he drew it at the same
angle. He was influenced by it.
John Fiorentino
Mar 8, 2013, 8:48:00 PM3/8/13
to
Do you really believe this drivel Cinque?
I mean what is your real agenda?
John F.
"Ralph Cinque" <buda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3eeae8e3-a020-4a6f...@googlegroups.com...
Altgens photo to draw on? You would think so, but that�s not what they
I have examined the black space above Doorman�s head looking for Lovelady�s
http://tinypic.com/r/14wxa3n/6
Do you see that black line extending over his forearm? It�s about the
could Ball say, �You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white
pointing toward you� when the �you� was different figures?
Are you wondering if there was also an arrow in the dark above Doorman
that might have been the one that Lovelady drew? Well, see for yourself.
http://tinypic.com/r/2lxgvi9/6
There is no arrow in the dark above Doorman�s head. There are only two
arrow. Lovelady�s arrow was never visualized �until now. Now we know
question. And if you can�t answer it- and I mean convincingly- you lose.
I mean what is your real agenda?
John F.
"Ralph Cinque" <buda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3eeae8e3-a020-4a6f...@googlegroups.com...
The Oswald Innocence Campaign has just made the research coup of the
decade. We have discovered the arrow that Billy Lovelady drew on the
Altgens photo to indicate himself. And it does not point to Doorway Man,
as most have assumed. Rather, it points to Black Hole Man.
But first a little history:
The Warren Commission asked two individuals to locate and identify Billy
Lovelady in the Altgens photo, and they were Billy Lovelady and Buell
Frazier.
Both were asked to draw an arrow to Billy Lovelady. But, for some reason,
on different occasions, they gave them each the exact same copy of the
Altgens photo to draw on.
To avoid bias, wouldn�t they provide each a fresh, unmarked copy of the
decade. We have discovered the arrow that Billy Lovelady drew on the
Altgens photo to indicate himself. And it does not point to Doorway Man,
as most have assumed. Rather, it points to Black Hole Man.
But first a little history:
The Warren Commission asked two individuals to locate and identify Billy
Lovelady in the Altgens photo, and they were Billy Lovelady and Buell
Frazier.
Both were asked to draw an arrow to Billy Lovelady. But, for some reason,
on different occasions, they gave them each the exact same copy of the
Altgens photo to draw on.
Altgens photo to draw on? You would think so, but that�s not what they
did. Buell Frazier went first, and he drew an arrow in the white pointing
to Doorway Man, and that has become known as CE 369.
http://tinypic.com/r/mv0z1t/6
People talk about that exhibit as if it was the handiwork of Billy
Lovelady, but the arrow we see was drawn by Buell Frazier. Lovelady drew
one in the black, but since he used a black pen, which made it black on
black, we are unable to see his arrow. Or so we thought�.
to Doorway Man, and that has become known as CE 369.
http://tinypic.com/r/mv0z1t/6
People talk about that exhibit as if it was the handiwork of Billy
Lovelady, but the arrow we see was drawn by Buell Frazier. Lovelady drew
one in the black, but since he used a black pen, which made it black on
I have examined the black space above Doorman�s head looking for Lovelady�s
arrow but never could find a hint of it. But then it occurred to me:
What if Billy drew his arrow elsewhere in the photograph away from Doorman?
So, I decided to look in proximity to Black Hole Man since he is the
figure whom we assume to be Lovelady. And lo and behold�.
What if Billy drew his arrow elsewhere in the photograph away from Doorman?
So, I decided to look in proximity to Black Hole Man since he is the
http://tinypic.com/r/14wxa3n/6
Do you see that black line extending over his forearm? It�s about the
pointing toward you� when the �you� was different figures?
Are you wondering if there was also an arrow in the dark above Doorman
that might have been the one that Lovelady drew? Well, see for yourself.
http://tinypic.com/r/2lxgvi9/6
arrows: the prominent diagonal arrow in the white pointing to Doorman
drawn by Buell Frazier and the smaller fainter arrow pointing to Black
Hole Man drawn by Billy Lovelady. That is it.
And again, if that line across the forearm of Black Hole Man is not part
of Lovelady�s arrow, what can it possibly be? It is not shadow. There is
drawn by Buell Frazier and the smaller fainter arrow pointing to Black
Hole Man drawn by Billy Lovelady. That is it.
And again, if that line across the forearm of Black Hole Man is not part
no object that could cast such a shadow.
The irony is that for decades, lone-nutters have used CE 369 as evidence
of Lovelady pointing to himself as Doorman in the Altgens photo. But that
was never the case. The arrow to which they were referring was Frazier�s
The irony is that for decades, lone-nutters have used CE 369 as evidence
of Lovelady pointing to himself as Doorman in the Altgens photo. But that
arrow. Lovelady�s arrow was never visualized �until now. Now we know
that Lovelady, at the time, was being truthful. Lovelady was Black Hole
Man in that picture, and he knew it.
And think about what it means. Black Hole is not wearing a plaid shirt. He
is not even wearing a long-sleeved shirt. That means that ALL of the
images of Lovelady wearing a plaid shirt on 11/22/63, including the famous
Martin frames and the various frames from the PD footage, with the famous
walk-by of Lovelady, are all false. None of those figures were Lovelady.
Every single one of them was somehow faked. Lovelady told the truth when
he told the FBI that he wore a short-sleeved striped shirt on 11/22.
Obviously, there are no stripes on the shirt of Black Hole Man, but
that�s because they took them out. They blackened out his face and they
Man in that picture, and he knew it.
And think about what it means. Black Hole is not wearing a plaid shirt. He
is not even wearing a long-sleeved shirt. That means that ALL of the
images of Lovelady wearing a plaid shirt on 11/22/63, including the famous
Martin frames and the various frames from the PD footage, with the famous
walk-by of Lovelady, are all false. None of those figures were Lovelady.
Every single one of them was somehow faked. Lovelady told the truth when
he told the FBI that he wore a short-sleeved striped shirt on 11/22.
Obviously, there are no stripes on the shirt of Black Hole Man, but
whitened his shirt.
To our adversaries, I demand to know what that black line is over Black
Hole Man�s forearm if it is not Lovelady�s arrow. Answer the
To our adversaries, I demand to know what that black line is over Black
question. And if you can�t answer it- and I mean convincingly- you lose.
Ralph Cinque
Mar 9, 2013, 12:12:11 PM3/9/13
to John Fiorentino
No one has offered an alternative explanation as to what that little arrow is pointing to Black Hole Man. If it's not the arrow that Lovelady drew, what is it?
It has to be something. It can't be nothing. It can't be a shadow because were it a shadow, it would appear on every copy of the Altgens and not just CE 369.
Fiorentino's response only shows that he has no interest in the case. He isn't here to plumb it. On the contrary, he is here not to delve into it and to make sure nobody else does.
This is a very big find. There's been nothing bigger in the last 10 years.
And if you want to fight it, here's what you have to do: you have to provide a different explanation of what it is.
If you don't do that, if you can't do it, then you can't fight it, and you can't win.
So, what the f is it? what is the f is it? what the f is it? what the f is it?
I don't want to hear anything else. Anything else is pure evasiveness. If it's not Lovelady's arrow, just tell me what it is.
It has to be something. It can't be nothing. It can't be a shadow because were it a shadow, it would appear on every copy of the Altgens and not just CE 369.
Fiorentino's response only shows that he has no interest in the case. He isn't here to plumb it. On the contrary, he is here not to delve into it and to make sure nobody else does.
This is a very big find. There's been nothing bigger in the last 10 years.
And if you want to fight it, here's what you have to do: you have to provide a different explanation of what it is.
If you don't do that, if you can't do it, then you can't fight it, and you can't win.
So, what the f is it? what is the f is it? what the f is it? what the f is it?
I don't want to hear anything else. Anything else is pure evasiveness. If it's not Lovelady's arrow, just tell me what it is.
Ralph Cinque
Mar 9, 2013, 12:13:40 PM3/9/13
to John Fiorentino
I want to share with you all that I just heard from Professor David Wrone, who is the Honored Mentor of the Oswald Innocence Campaign. I wrote to him about finding Lovelady's arrow in CE 369.
http://tinypic.com/r/9a8jfc/6
"Ralph, you are quite scholalrly in your approach to this. Years ago, Sylvia Meagher related that Commission Exhibit 369 did not stack up as the WC asserted. The question of Lovelady's arrow was never satisfactorily resolved. I'm glad to have your data. Yes, will forward as requested to GM. DW"
GM is a reference to Professor Gerald McKnight of Hood College in Maryland. If you scroll down, you'll see that I recently posted a link to a public debate in which Drs. Wrone and McKnight teamed up against Max Holland and another guy concerning the JFK assassination. And I can honestly say that Drs. Wrone and McKnight made mincemeat of their opponents.
Dr. Wrone has been very supportive to me from the very beginning- since before the OIC got launched. Some of his letters to me were by snail mail, and I can tell that they are and shall remain prized personal possessions. Dr. Wrone devoted a whole chapter in his Zapruder book to The Man In The Doorway. He likes to stick with that term, and for short, he goes with MITD.
And regarding Dr. McKnight, I think it's accurate to say that he, more than anyone, became the intellectual heir of Harold Weisberg. And that's why Harold Weisberg's vast collection of JFK materials were donated to Hood College, to be put under Dr. McKnight's auspices.
And like Harold Weisberg, Dr. McKnight knows very well that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Man in the Doorway. He said so in that recent televised debate, and did it give me a thrill.
I just finished an hour and a half on the air with Jim Fetzer on the Real Deal. We talked about a lot of things, including Larry Rivera's great research on Buell Frazier, Richard Hooke's great new Lovelady displays, and the new discovery of Lovelady's arrow in CE 369. We are on a roll.
http://tinypic.com/r/9a8jfc/6
"Ralph, you are quite scholalrly in your approach to this. Years ago, Sylvia Meagher related that Commission Exhibit 369 did not stack up as the WC asserted. The question of Lovelady's arrow was never satisfactorily resolved. I'm glad to have your data. Yes, will forward as requested to GM. DW"
GM is a reference to Professor Gerald McKnight of Hood College in Maryland. If you scroll down, you'll see that I recently posted a link to a public debate in which Drs. Wrone and McKnight teamed up against Max Holland and another guy concerning the JFK assassination. And I can honestly say that Drs. Wrone and McKnight made mincemeat of their opponents.
Dr. Wrone has been very supportive to me from the very beginning- since before the OIC got launched. Some of his letters to me were by snail mail, and I can tell that they are and shall remain prized personal possessions. Dr. Wrone devoted a whole chapter in his Zapruder book to The Man In The Doorway. He likes to stick with that term, and for short, he goes with MITD.
And regarding Dr. McKnight, I think it's accurate to say that he, more than anyone, became the intellectual heir of Harold Weisberg. And that's why Harold Weisberg's vast collection of JFK materials were donated to Hood College, to be put under Dr. McKnight's auspices.
And like Harold Weisberg, Dr. McKnight knows very well that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Man in the Doorway. He said so in that recent televised debate, and did it give me a thrill.
I just finished an hour and a half on the air with Jim Fetzer on the Real Deal. We talked about a lot of things, including Larry Rivera's great research on Buell Frazier, Richard Hooke's great new Lovelady displays, and the new discovery of Lovelady's arrow in CE 369. We are on a roll.
Ralph Cinque
Mar 9, 2013, 12:15:56 PM3/9/13
to John Fiorentino
The US government provides the Warren Report online for free but with the exhibits removed. See for yourself.
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/index.html
It's just text. No images. No photographs. No nothing. I think it stinks. All they give us is the lip-flapping.
So, we can't get CE 369 directly from the Warren Report online. And there are not too many online sources of it elsewhere. The main one that you get to when you search for it is the one provided on history-matters.com.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0495a.htm
And when I hone in in on the doorway in the above picture, this is what I get:
http://tinypic.com/r/15887r8/6
I didn't make it too large and that's because I didn't want to pixellate it excessively. I suggest you leave it the size that it is, but get a magnifying glass and look at it that way because it helps.
There are certain assumptions that I think we can make about the arrow.
First, Lovelady took his cue from Frazier. I mentioned already that the angle of his arrow is exactly the same as Frazier's. It is coming in for a landing at the very same angle. So, Lovelady was influenced by what Frazier did. He followed Frazier's example but on a much smaller scale. And I suspect that he followed Frazier about everything, that is, he drew his arrow the same way, with three parts: a center line, a right arm, and a left arm.
So, it's a very basic, no-frills arrow, with no fancy artwork, consisting of three lines that are joined together.
The other reason why I think he drew a very basic, no frills arrow is because he obviously wanted to draw it very subtly and discreetly so that it wouldn't show too much. He didn't draw it boldly as Frazier did. He drew it timidly. And it's because he was scared. He was frightened. He was nervous. He drew that arrow for just one pair of eyes: Joseph Ball's. And I bet there was a very subtle head gesture that went along with it like a "funeral hello". Remember that from Seinfeld? Funny stuff.
Now, if YOU asked a guy to draw an arrow on a photo and that's all he gave you, wouldn't you say something? I mean like:
"Why'd you make it so small and faint? I can barely see it. We want people to see this thing. Make it larger and more visible, would you?"
That's what Ralph Cinque would have said. But, that's not what Joseph Ball said. He ignored the feebleness and obscurity of Lovelady's arrow and quickly changed the subject:
"You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the picture was taken?"
What? You can barely see the arrow. It would have been so easy for Lovelady to make it more visible. But Ball didn't want it more visible. I'm sure he regretted asking for the arrow in the first place.
So, let's look at the arrow closely. Obviously, we can see the center line very clearly, so that's no problem. But what about the right and let arms? Let's look at it again with them in mind.
http://tinypic.com/r/15887r8/6
I hope you will do as I suggest and get a magnifying glass.
As I look at it, I believe I can barely make out the left arm of the arrow. It's angling over and it's just barely reaching the margin of his forearm. The right arm I don't claim to be able to make out at all.
However, you must admit that the center line is as clear as a bell. That baby is in like Flynn. It is rock-solid. And it has to be addressed. It is not nothing. It is something. And it's as real as anything else in that photograph. And so far nobody has offered any alternative explanation for what that center line could be. There isn't any. At least, there is nothing plausible. It's the arrow that Billy Lovelady drew, and there is no doubt about it. There is no other possibility. Even my adversaries seem to agree.
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/index.html
It's just text. No images. No photographs. No nothing. I think it stinks. All they give us is the lip-flapping.
So, we can't get CE 369 directly from the Warren Report online. And there are not too many online sources of it elsewhere. The main one that you get to when you search for it is the one provided on history-matters.com.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0495a.htm
And when I hone in in on the doorway in the above picture, this is what I get:
http://tinypic.com/r/15887r8/6
I didn't make it too large and that's because I didn't want to pixellate it excessively. I suggest you leave it the size that it is, but get a magnifying glass and look at it that way because it helps.
There are certain assumptions that I think we can make about the arrow.
First, Lovelady took his cue from Frazier. I mentioned already that the angle of his arrow is exactly the same as Frazier's. It is coming in for a landing at the very same angle. So, Lovelady was influenced by what Frazier did. He followed Frazier's example but on a much smaller scale. And I suspect that he followed Frazier about everything, that is, he drew his arrow the same way, with three parts: a center line, a right arm, and a left arm.
So, it's a very basic, no-frills arrow, with no fancy artwork, consisting of three lines that are joined together.
The other reason why I think he drew a very basic, no frills arrow is because he obviously wanted to draw it very subtly and discreetly so that it wouldn't show too much. He didn't draw it boldly as Frazier did. He drew it timidly. And it's because he was scared. He was frightened. He was nervous. He drew that arrow for just one pair of eyes: Joseph Ball's. And I bet there was a very subtle head gesture that went along with it like a "funeral hello". Remember that from Seinfeld? Funny stuff.
Now, if YOU asked a guy to draw an arrow on a photo and that's all he gave you, wouldn't you say something? I mean like:
"Why'd you make it so small and faint? I can barely see it. We want people to see this thing. Make it larger and more visible, would you?"
That's what Ralph Cinque would have said. But, that's not what Joseph Ball said. He ignored the feebleness and obscurity of Lovelady's arrow and quickly changed the subject:
"You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the picture was taken?"
So, let's look at the arrow closely. Obviously, we can see the center line very clearly, so that's no problem. But what about the right and let arms? Let's look at it again with them in mind.
http://tinypic.com/r/15887r8/6
I hope you will do as I suggest and get a magnifying glass.
As I look at it, I believe I can barely make out the left arm of the arrow. It's angling over and it's just barely reaching the margin of his forearm. The right arm I don't claim to be able to make out at all.
However, you must admit that the center line is as clear as a bell. That baby is in like Flynn. It is rock-solid. And it has to be addressed. It is not nothing. It is something. And it's as real as anything else in that photograph. And so far nobody has offered any alternative explanation for what that center line could be. There isn't any. At least, there is nothing plausible. It's the arrow that Billy Lovelady drew, and there is no doubt about it. There is no other possibility. Even my adversaries seem to agree.
John Fiorentino
Mar 9, 2013, 8:01:40 PM3/9/13
to
First of all Cinque I've been here a very long time
2nd. I don't work for you, so your tone is not appreciated.
3rd. I actually wasted my time already with you on a different part of the
Altgens picture, wherein I showed that you are all wet.
4. The idea that that is Oswald in the doorway is complete and utter
lunacy.
news:69c61b7a-9137-4246...@googlegroups.com...
2nd. I don't work for you, so your tone is not appreciated.
3rd. I actually wasted my time already with you on a different part of the
Altgens picture, wherein I showed that you are all wet.
4. The idea that that is Oswald in the doorway is complete and utter
lunacy.
news:69c61b7a-9137-4246...@googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Mar 9, 2013, 8:15:17 PM3/9/13
to
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20007&st=15#entry268795
JIM FETZER SAID:
The point of Ralph's short piece is to explain that the arrow that has
been attributed to Lovelady in the past was actually drawn by Frazier.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
True. But it couldn't be any clearer from Joseph Ball's words during
Lovelady's Warren Commission testimony that the arrows drawn on
Commission Exhibit No. 369 by both Buell Wesley Frazier and Billy
Lovelady are both pointing to "Doorway Man" in the Altgens photo:
"You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing
Jim, don't you think that Mr. Ball was fairly clear as to WHO
Frazier's arrow "in the white" was pointing to when Ball said these
words -- "IN THE WHITE POINTING TOWARD YOU"?
The "you" in the above quote is, of course, Billy Lovelady.
Plus, Ball's quote is certainly not implying that the two arrows were
each pointing toward a different person in the photo. Just the
opposite, in fact. Since we know, via Ball's words, that Frazier's
arrow "in the white" is definitely pointing to a person deemed to be
"you" (Lovelady), it HAS to mean that any arrow drawn in by Lovelady
MUST also be pointing to the same person Frazier's arrow is pointing
to. Because why in the world would Lovelady draw an arrow pointing to
someone OTHER than himself in the Altgens photo?
JIM FETZER SAID:
Ralph has found the arrow that Billy actually drew.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Ralph found no such thing.
We can KNOW that Ralph found no arrow pointing to someone OTHER than
"Doorway Man" because of what I just said about Ball's "in the white
pointing toward you" quote.
More:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/03c46aba3b5d4ce0
Anthony Marsh
Mar 9, 2013, 8:16:36 PM3/9/13
to
On 3/9/2013 12:15 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> The US government provides the Warren Report online for free but with the exhibits removed. See for yourself.
>
> http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/index.html
>
> It's just text. No images. No photographs. No nothing. I think it stinks. All they give us is the lip-flapping.
>
> So, we can't get CE 369 directly from the Warren Report online. And there are not too many online sources of it elsewhere. The main one that you get to when you search for it is the one provided on history-matters.com.
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0495a.htm
>
> And when I hone in in on the doorway in the above picture, this is what I get:
>
> http://tinypic.com/r/15887r8/6
>
> I didn't make it too large and that's because I didn't want to pixellate it excessively. I suggest you leave it the size that it is, but get a magnifying glass and look at it that way because it helps.
>
> There are certain assumptions that I think we can make about the arrow.
>
> First, Lovelady took his cue from Frazier. I mentioned already that the angle of his arrow is exactly the same as Frazier's. It is coming in for a landing at the very same angle. So, Lovelady was influenced by what Frazier did. He followed Frazier's example but on a much smaller scale. And I suspect that he followed Frazier about everything, that is, he drew his arrow the same way, with three parts: a center line, a right arm, and a left arm.
>
Why would Frazier draw an arrow pointing to Lovelady's head? Wouldn't
> The US government provides the Warren Report online for free but with the exhibits removed. See for yourself.
>
> http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/index.html
>
> It's just text. No images. No photographs. No nothing. I think it stinks. All they give us is the lip-flapping.
>
> So, we can't get CE 369 directly from the Warren Report online. And there are not too many online sources of it elsewhere. The main one that you get to when you search for it is the one provided on history-matters.com.
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0495a.htm
>
> And when I hone in in on the doorway in the above picture, this is what I get:
>
> http://tinypic.com/r/15887r8/6
>
> I didn't make it too large and that's because I didn't want to pixellate it excessively. I suggest you leave it the size that it is, but get a magnifying glass and look at it that way because it helps.
>
> There are certain assumptions that I think we can make about the arrow.
>
> First, Lovelady took his cue from Frazier. I mentioned already that the angle of his arrow is exactly the same as Frazier's. It is coming in for a landing at the very same angle. So, Lovelady was influenced by what Frazier did. He followed Frazier's example but on a much smaller scale. And I suspect that he followed Frazier about everything, that is, he drew his arrow the same way, with three parts: a center line, a right arm, and a left arm.
>
witnesses be asked to mark where they see themselves?
Anthony Marsh
Mar 9, 2013, 10:23:19 PM3/9/13
to
Ralph Cinque
Mar 9, 2013, 10:25:12 PM3/9/13
to John Fiorentino
I just got off the phone with Richard Hooke where he said that what Joseph
Ball did was "a slick lawyer trick," and indeed it was.
http://tinypic.com/r/353bkf8/6
Why would you ask someone to draw a black arrow in a black space? It
reminds me of the painting of black cat in a coal mine at midnight, and
I'm sure you get the joke.
There are only two possibilties: either Ball saw where Lovelady was going
with his pen to draw his arrow, and he diverted him to the black area to
hide it, OR Ball didn't know what Lovelady was going to do, so to play it
safe, he had him draw it in the black.
One thing is for sure: if Lovelady hadn't been a little bit sloppy there,
that is, if he hadn't exceeded the black and overrun the forearm a little
bit, we would not be talking about this today. There is so little visible
in the black, it would amount to nothing if it was all we had. Even if I
suspected something, I would not have said anything because it would have
been too little to go on. It's that tiny little straight black line
dissecting the flesh-toned forearm that means everything.
Then, upon seeing the arrow Lovelady drew, Ball had the nerve to say:
"You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you.
Where were you when the picture was taken?"
figure, but that was not the case. He said that knowing full well that
Lovelady's arrow contradicted Frazier's.
Let's be clear: Ball committed a crime. It was criminal obstruction of
justice. It was a crime for which, under normal circumstances, he could
have been prosecuted, convicted, and disbarred. Of course, it wasn't
normal circumstances.
At the moment Lovelady drew his arrow, Ball had to know that it was all
wrong, that Oswald was innocent. It's very likely Ball knew that already,
but if there is any chance he didn't know it beforehand, he certainly did
afterwards. From that moment on, Joseph Ball was an accessory after the
fact in the murder of John F. Kennedy.
Walt
Mar 9, 2013, 10:28:36 PM3/9/13
to
On Mar 9, 7:16 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 3/9/2013 12:15 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The US government provides the Warren Report online for free but with the exhibits removed. See for yourself.
>
> >http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/index.html
>
> > It's just text. No images. No photographs. No nothing. I think it stinks. All they give us is the lip-flapping.
>
> > So, we can't get CE 369 directly from the Warren Report online. And there are not too many online sources of it elsewhere. The main one that you get to when you search for it is the one provided on history-matters.com.
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol...
> On 3/9/2013 12:15 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The US government provides the Warren Report online for free but with the exhibits removed. See for yourself.
>
> >http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/index.html
>
> > It's just text. No images. No photographs. No nothing. I think it stinks. All they give us is the lip-flapping.
>
> > So, we can't get CE 369 directly from the Warren Report online. And there are not too many online sources of it elsewhere. The main one that you get to when you search for it is the one provided on history-matters.com.
>
>
> > And when I hone in in on the doorway in the above picture, this is what I get:
>
> >http://tinypic.com/r/15887r8/6
>
> > I didn't make it too large and that's because I didn't want to pixellate it excessively. I suggest you leave it the size that it is, but get a magnifying glass and look at it that way because it helps.
>
> > There are certain assumptions that I think we can make about the arrow.
>
> > First, Lovelady took his cue from Frazier. I mentioned already that the angle of his arrow is exactly the same as Frazier's. It is coming in for a landing at the very same angle. So, Lovelady was influenced by what Frazier did. He followed Frazier's example but on a much smaller scale. And I suspect that he followed Frazier about everything, that is, he drew his arrow the same way, with three parts: a center line, a right arm, and a left arm.
>
> Why would Frazier draw an arrow pointing to Lovelady's head? Wouldn't
> witnesses be asked to mark where they see themselves?
I don't know what you're drivin at...... But the question seems genuine.
> > And when I hone in in on the doorway in the above picture, this is what I get:
>
> >http://tinypic.com/r/15887r8/6
>
> > I didn't make it too large and that's because I didn't want to pixellate it excessively. I suggest you leave it the size that it is, but get a magnifying glass and look at it that way because it helps.
>
> > There are certain assumptions that I think we can make about the arrow.
>
> > First, Lovelady took his cue from Frazier. I mentioned already that the angle of his arrow is exactly the same as Frazier's. It is coming in for a landing at the very same angle. So, Lovelady was influenced by what Frazier did. He followed Frazier's example but on a much smaller scale. And I suspect that he followed Frazier about everything, that is, he drew his arrow the same way, with three parts: a center line, a right arm, and a left arm.
>
> Why would Frazier draw an arrow pointing to Lovelady's head? Wouldn't
> witnesses be asked to mark where they see themselves?
It seems to me a person would be asked to point to themselves in a
photo.......because that is the only person in the photo that they could
be 100% sure of.
Ralph Cinque
Mar 9, 2013, 10:28:56 PM3/9/13
to
Good question. But, that's the way it went down: Frazier was asked to draw
an arrow to Lovelady's head.
Now, I want to say again to anyone who opposes that there is only one way
to marshall a defense, and that is to identify what that black line is on
the forearm of Black Hole Man if it is not the tail of the arrow that
Lovelady drew.
http://tinypic.com/r/15887r8/6
Why argue when we can brainstorm it? What is that little black line that
is dissecting his forearm? I say it's the tail of the arrow that Lovelady
drew, but if you have another idea, let's hear it.
But note that I searched the rest of the doorway and could find nothing
else that looked remotely like another arrow. But, the record shows that
there has to be one. And this looks like it.
Now, if you want to fight it, then come up with another arrow and explain
the existence of this one. Good luck with that.
an arrow to Lovelady's head.
Now, I want to say again to anyone who opposes that there is only one way
to marshall a defense, and that is to identify what that black line is on
the forearm of Black Hole Man if it is not the tail of the arrow that
Lovelady drew.
http://tinypic.com/r/15887r8/6
Why argue when we can brainstorm it? What is that little black line that
is dissecting his forearm? I say it's the tail of the arrow that Lovelady
drew, but if you have another idea, let's hear it.
But note that I searched the rest of the doorway and could find nothing
else that looked remotely like another arrow. But, the record shows that
there has to be one. And this looks like it.
Now, if you want to fight it, then come up with another arrow and explain
the existence of this one. Good luck with that.
Ralph Cinque
Mar 9, 2013, 10:29:23 PM3/9/13
to
Here is Richard Hooke's latest display which concerns the black arrow.
http://tinypic.com/r/1zzkewy/6
This is significant. Don't think you can laugh it off. If you don't think
Billy Lovelady drew that little line on the forearm of BH Man, then who or
what did?
We are not exploring outer space but rather a photograph. There can't be
any mysteries, at least no long-term mysteries. Say what you think it is
if not his handiwork.
http://tinypic.com/r/1zzkewy/6
This is significant. Don't think you can laugh it off. If you don't think
Billy Lovelady drew that little line on the forearm of BH Man, then who or
what did?
We are not exploring outer space but rather a photograph. There can't be
any mysteries, at least no long-term mysteries. Say what you think it is
if not his handiwork.
David Von Pein
Mar 9, 2013, 10:29:39 PM3/9/13
to
Oh, come now, Tony.
You know darn well why Wes Frazier was asked to point to Lovelady in
CE369. It's because the WC had already heard the rumor about "Doorway
Man" resembling Oswald, and the WC obviously wanted to put the matter
to rest ON THE RECORD by having Frazier (and Lovelady too) draw arrows
pointing to Lovelady in the picture.
Anyway, Frazier wouldn't have been able to draw any arrow to himself
in CE369, because Frazier was, as he said at the 1986 LHO trial,
"standing back up in the shadows where you can't see me".
David Von Pein
Mar 9, 2013, 10:59:36 PM3/9/13
to
Ralph,
Tell us again why you think Buell Frazier would continue to tell the
lie about Lovelady being in the doorway as late as 1986? Why did he
CONTINUE to tell that lie?
http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/buell-wesley-frazier.html
Tell us again why you think Buell Frazier would continue to tell the
lie about Lovelady being in the doorway as late as 1986? Why did he
CONTINUE to tell that lie?
http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/buell-wesley-frazier.html
Anthony Marsh
Mar 10, 2013, 12:53:22 PM3/10/13
to
I didn't say anything about Frazier drawing any arrow to himself.
Someone else did and I was making fun of him.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 10, 2013, 12:53:28 PM3/10/13
to
On 3/9/2013 10:28 PM, Walt wrote:
> On Mar 9, 7:16 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 3/9/2013 12:15 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The US government provides the Warren Report online for free but with the exhibits removed. See for yourself.
>>
>>> http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/index.html
>>
>>> It's just text. No images. No photographs. No nothing. I think it stinks. All they give us is the lip-flapping.
>>
>>> So, we can't get CE 369 directly from the Warren Report online. And there are not too many online sources of it elsewhere. The main one that you get to when you search for it is the one provided on history-matters.com.
>>
>>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol...
>>
>>> And when I hone in in on the doorway in the above picture, this is what I get:
>>
>>> http://tinypic.com/r/15887r8/6
>>
>>> I didn't make it too large and that's because I didn't want to pixellate it excessively. I suggest you leave it the size that it is, but get a magnifying glass and look at it that way because it helps.
>>
>>> There are certain assumptions that I think we can make about the arrow.
>>
>>> First, Lovelady took his cue from Frazier. I mentioned already that the angle of his arrow is exactly the same as Frazier's. It is coming in for a landing at the very same angle. So, Lovelady was influenced by what Frazier did. He followed Frazier's example but on a much smaller scale. And I suspect that he followed Frazier about everything, that is, he drew his arrow the same way, with three parts: a center line, a right arm, and a left arm.
>>
>> Why would Frazier draw an arrow pointing to Lovelady's head? Wouldn't
>> witnesses be asked to mark where they see themselves?
>
> I don't know what you're drivin at...... But the question seems genuine.
> It seems to me a person would be asked to point to themselves in a
> photo.......because that is the only person in the photo that they could
> be 100% sure of.
>
Silly. If the photo was very poor quality or too dark they might not
> On Mar 9, 7:16 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 3/9/2013 12:15 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The US government provides the Warren Report online for free but with the exhibits removed. See for yourself.
>>
>>> http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/index.html
>>
>>> It's just text. No images. No photographs. No nothing. I think it stinks. All they give us is the lip-flapping.
>>
>>> So, we can't get CE 369 directly from the Warren Report online. And there are not too many online sources of it elsewhere. The main one that you get to when you search for it is the one provided on history-matters.com.
>>
>>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol...
>>
>>> And when I hone in in on the doorway in the above picture, this is what I get:
>>
>>> http://tinypic.com/r/15887r8/6
>>
>>> I didn't make it too large and that's because I didn't want to pixellate it excessively. I suggest you leave it the size that it is, but get a magnifying glass and look at it that way because it helps.
>>
>>> There are certain assumptions that I think we can make about the arrow.
>>
>>> First, Lovelady took his cue from Frazier. I mentioned already that the angle of his arrow is exactly the same as Frazier's. It is coming in for a landing at the very same angle. So, Lovelady was influenced by what Frazier did. He followed Frazier's example but on a much smaller scale. And I suspect that he followed Frazier about everything, that is, he drew his arrow the same way, with three parts: a center line, a right arm, and a left arm.
>>
>> Why would Frazier draw an arrow pointing to Lovelady's head? Wouldn't
>> witnesses be asked to mark where they see themselves?
>
> I don't know what you're drivin at...... But the question seems genuine.
> It seems to me a person would be asked to point to themselves in a
> photo.......because that is the only person in the photo that they could
> be 100% sure of.
>
even be able to see himself. But why wouldn't someone be able to
recognize best friend or a spouse.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 10, 2013, 12:54:03 PM3/10/13
to
On 3/9/2013 8:01 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> First of all Cinque I've been here a very long time
>
> 2nd. I don't work for you, so your tone is not appreciated.
>
> 3rd. I actually wasted my time already with you on a different part of
> the Altgens picture, wherein I showed that you are all wet.
>
> 4. The idea that that is Oswald in the doorway is complete and utter
> lunacy.
>
> John F.
>
Can you explain why you are being so polite to him?
> First of all Cinque I've been here a very long time
>
> 2nd. I don't work for you, so your tone is not appreciated.
>
> 3rd. I actually wasted my time already with you on a different part of
> the Altgens picture, wherein I showed that you are all wet.
>
> 4. The idea that that is Oswald in the doorway is complete and utter
> lunacy.
>
> John F.
>
Glenn V.
Mar 10, 2013, 12:54:09 PM3/10/13
to
In the real world you've changed nothing, found nothing, proved nothing and convinced nobody.
Ralph Cinque
Mar 10, 2013, 12:54:40 PM3/10/13
to
David, what are you saying? If he would lie at the time of the assassination, then he obviously would have to continue lying or face grave consequences. Once a person commits to a lie, they usually have to continue telling it, don't they? What's the alternative? To admit that you committed perjury? To admit that you aided and abetted those who murdered the President of the United States? The big question is: why did he lie at the time of the assassination?
Consider that on 11/22/63, Frazier was with Oswald starting at 7 AM that morning riding to work, and then he spent the whole morning with Oswald; side by side filling orders on the 1st floor.
If you look at Doorway Man, 80% of him is clothing. Frazier had to observe Oswald's loose-fitting, sprawled open, outer shirt that was unbuttoned (the buttons were missing) over a flimsy, stretched white t-shirt, in other words, Doorman's exact outfit. When did Lovelady ever look like that?
Doorman also looks thin, and his face looks gaunt. Oswald weighed 131 while Lovelady weighed 175. What impression do you get of Doorman? Doesn't he look thin rather than stocky? So, it was Oswald's clothing, Oswald's slender frame, and Oswald's gaunt look.
Whatever small facial features resembled Lovelady were nothing compared to the big and overriding elements of Doorman that matched to Oswald, particularly the clothes he wore.
So, forget about 1986. Why did Buell Frazier lie on March 11, 1964 when he drew that arrow?
He also lied about his whereabouts in the doorway. Did you read the artice about Frazier by Larry Rivera? That he was back in the shadows was a lie. It doesn't even make sense. I've been there. I've stood in that doorway. I know what it's like. Standing that far back in the shadows crimps your whole visual field. It narrows it tremendously. He was there to watch the parade, wasn he not? So, why would he stand way back in the darkness when he could be up front in the light where he could see everything? It's a narrow doorway, and if you stand that far back in the shadows, you'd be unable to see down Elm St. You'd be limiting your field of vision to a very narrow swath. Why would he do that? There was plenty of room up front, plenty of empty space on those stairs. He would have come forward- and he did.
Don't worry; we are going to have more to say about Buell Frazier. We're not done with him. His words and actions are now in the spotlight in light of what we have discovered about Lovelady, who, at the time, was trying to tell the truth.
And what you need to do, David, is to stop being presumptuous about people's honesty and innocence. And I am referring to Buell Frazier, Joseph Ball, and many others. The conspiracy to hide and cover up the assassination was much wider and broader than the conspiracy to commit the assassination.
Consider that on 11/22/63, Frazier was with Oswald starting at 7 AM that morning riding to work, and then he spent the whole morning with Oswald; side by side filling orders on the 1st floor.
If you look at Doorway Man, 80% of him is clothing. Frazier had to observe Oswald's loose-fitting, sprawled open, outer shirt that was unbuttoned (the buttons were missing) over a flimsy, stretched white t-shirt, in other words, Doorman's exact outfit. When did Lovelady ever look like that?
Doorman also looks thin, and his face looks gaunt. Oswald weighed 131 while Lovelady weighed 175. What impression do you get of Doorman? Doesn't he look thin rather than stocky? So, it was Oswald's clothing, Oswald's slender frame, and Oswald's gaunt look.
Whatever small facial features resembled Lovelady were nothing compared to the big and overriding elements of Doorman that matched to Oswald, particularly the clothes he wore.
So, forget about 1986. Why did Buell Frazier lie on March 11, 1964 when he drew that arrow?
He also lied about his whereabouts in the doorway. Did you read the artice about Frazier by Larry Rivera? That he was back in the shadows was a lie. It doesn't even make sense. I've been there. I've stood in that doorway. I know what it's like. Standing that far back in the shadows crimps your whole visual field. It narrows it tremendously. He was there to watch the parade, wasn he not? So, why would he stand way back in the darkness when he could be up front in the light where he could see everything? It's a narrow doorway, and if you stand that far back in the shadows, you'd be unable to see down Elm St. You'd be limiting your field of vision to a very narrow swath. Why would he do that? There was plenty of room up front, plenty of empty space on those stairs. He would have come forward- and he did.
Don't worry; we are going to have more to say about Buell Frazier. We're not done with him. His words and actions are now in the spotlight in light of what we have discovered about Lovelady, who, at the time, was trying to tell the truth.
And what you need to do, David, is to stop being presumptuous about people's honesty and innocence. And I am referring to Buell Frazier, Joseph Ball, and many others. The conspiracy to hide and cover up the assassination was much wider and broader than the conspiracy to commit the assassination.
John Fiorentino
Mar 10, 2013, 10:18:27 PM3/10/13
to
David:
Please don't make the mistake I did and waste your time with Cinque.
It's all smoke and mirrors.
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fa2e8a7b-2a2d-49ae...@p5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Please don't make the mistake I did and waste your time with Cinque.
It's all smoke and mirrors.
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fa2e8a7b-2a2d-49ae...@p5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Mar 10, 2013, 10:20:58 PM3/10/13
to
his friend Oswald.
John Fiorentino
Mar 10, 2013, 10:35:08 PM3/10/13
to
Funny one Tony - Really!
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:513c2c6a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:513c2c6a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
timstter
Mar 10, 2013, 10:42:51 PM3/10/13
to
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
Anthony Marsh
Mar 10, 2013, 10:52:57 PM3/10/13
to
On 3/10/2013 12:54 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> David, what are you saying? If he would lie at the time of the assassination, then he obviously would have to continue lying or face grave consequences. Once a person commits to a lie, they usually have to continue telling it, don't they? What's the alternative? To admit that you committed perjury? To admit that you aided and abetted those who murdered the President of the United States? The big question is: why did he lie at the time of the assassination?
>
But when and where did he commit perjury?
> David, what are you saying? If he would lie at the time of the assassination, then he obviously would have to continue lying or face grave consequences. Once a person commits to a lie, they usually have to continue telling it, don't they? What's the alternative? To admit that you committed perjury? To admit that you aided and abetted those who murdered the President of the United States? The big question is: why did he lie at the time of the assassination?
>
Name even one person who was tried and convicted for perjury in this
case. Lots of people lied.
David Von Pein
Mar 10, 2013, 10:58:08 PM3/10/13
to
TONY MARSH SAID:
I didn't say anything about Frazier drawing any arrow to himself.
Someone else did and I was making fun of him.
Oh. OK. I didn't realize.
Never mind then.
Sorry, Tony.
David Von Pein
Mar 10, 2013, 11:03:05 PM3/10/13
to
So, Ralph, you don't think that ANY of the so-called "liars" in this
case (Buell Frazier being one of them) would have EVER felt compelled
to tell the truth about what they know? Is that correct?
They ALL remained steadfastly devoted to their LIES until the day they
died (or until today, if they're still alive). Is that right?
Wow! Those people who forced those lies out of people like Frazier
were sure good at their job, weren't they? Not a single one ever
cracked and admitted the truth. Right, Ralph?
Amazing.
Ralph Cinque
Mar 11, 2013, 11:02:50 AM3/11/13
to
E. Howard Hunt cracked and admitted the truth on his deathbed. Robert
Vinson wasn't a perpetrator, but he was an unwitting participant. He did
not wait until his deathbed, but he did wait over 20 years to come forward
with his story of having rode an AF cargo plane from Dallas to New Mexico
with the other Oswald. The book is called "Flight from Dallas".
Alright, time to rock n roll. We'll start with this image.
http://tinypic.com/r/c3sp2/6
Notice first that the black of Frazier's arrow tip is partially visible.
You can see some of his black drawing within the black. For instance, look
at the lower arm of the arrow head. I can see the impression of that black
arm within that black space. I'll describe it for you. It's coming down at
about a 45 degree angle from the tip, and when it reaches the margin of
the white space, it changes direction to just about straight horizontal.
So, we can see some black on black.
Now, with that thought in mind, examine the black space above and to the
right of Doorman looking for Lovelady's arrow.
Think about it yourself. You be the artist. Say you were presented that
photo with Frazier's arrow, and it was your intention to draw another
arrow which also pointed to Doorman. Where would you draw it?
I can tell you where at least 90% of people would draw it. They would draw
it at the same angle that Frazier did, but coming from the other side.
Like this:
http://tinypic.com/r/20k387o/6
I took the liberty of drawing it in grey instead of black just to make it
easy. But, you get the idea. That's where most people would draw it, under
the circumstances.
Did I say 90%? Screw 90%! Make it 95%! Maybe even higher. Where the heck
else are you going to draw that arrow? Are you going to crowd it over next
to Frazier's? Of course not. Are you going to draw it horizontally from
right to left? No, you're not. It's not even comfortable to do that. Try
it yourself. It strains the wrist to draw a horizontal line from right to
left. You are going to draw it diagonally down from right to left, just as
I did using grey.
Alright, so now you know where Lovelady would have drawn his arrow if he
wanted to point to Doorman. Then look at that very area and see if you see
the slightest hint of an arrow.
http://tinypic.com/r/c3sp2/6
Get a magnifying glass. And periodically glance at the tip of Frazier's
arrow to remind yourself of what you are looking for.
But, there is NO arrow there. We know very well that there is no arrow
there. Every single person who looks at it with an honest mind will come
to the same conclusion that there is no arrow there.
Now, the absence of an arrow there does in fact increase the probability
that the element we are seeing on Black Hole Man is Lovelady's arrow.
Realize that logical deduction does include "process of elimination" as a
valid method.
If you know that a pretty woman is waiting for you in 1 of 10 rooms, and
you check 9 of them and do not find her, then you can be certain that when
you open that 10th door that she is going to be there.
In fact, there is no way mathematically that she could not be there. The
only basis by which she couldn't be there is if you were misinformed. But,
is that an issue in this case? Does anybody doubt the testimony? Are there
any grounds to think that the account of Joseph Ball telling Lovelady to
draw an arrow in the black and then commenting that "You have an arrow in
the white and an arrow in the black, etc." that that was bull? I don't
think we have any grounds to go there mentally. And the people who are
fighting me are certainly not questioning the veracity of Joseph Ball. So,
they have no grounds to go there. Therefore the absence of a Lovelady
arrow in the vicinity of Doorman makes what we see on Black Hole Man the
"process of elimination" winner.
Finally, look again at the mark on Black Hole Man because I think there is
the suggestion of an arrow head there. Again, a magnifying glass helps.
http://tinypic.com/r/c3sp2/6
We are looking for two diagonal arms, one upper and one lower. It seems to
me that the upper one is piercing the white area ever so slightly.
Furthermore, it looks like someone may have traced along the inside margin
of his forearm with a felt pen. Do you notice that it is distinctly darker
black below the curve of his wrist and his hands? Compare it to the arms
of the arrow that Frazier drew. You get that same impression of a darker,
shinier black. Now compare it to the black along the margin on the inside
of Doorman's t-shirt. There, you don't see what I'm talking about; there
is no darker, shiner black. It's just a dull black. Notice that there is a
sudden narrowing of his forearm. I realize that it's normal for a man's
forearm to be thick towards the elbow and narrow towards the wrist, but it
does seem like there is a sudden break there. I am very open to the
possibility that they did some doctoring with a felt pen in the black
space to hide the head of Lovelady's arrow.
Look at one more thing: What is that little blip there circled in red?
http://tinypic.com/r/2lcwoky/6
Is that from the irregularity of the felt pen as they swung it around that
curve? If not, what is it? It can't be a shadow. From what? Another speck
perhaps?
But regardless, even if that last bit turned out to be innocent, we are
definitely looking at the arrow that Lovelady drew. It has to be it.
Process of elimination alone makes it a certainty.
Vinson wasn't a perpetrator, but he was an unwitting participant. He did
not wait until his deathbed, but he did wait over 20 years to come forward
with his story of having rode an AF cargo plane from Dallas to New Mexico
with the other Oswald. The book is called "Flight from Dallas".
Alright, time to rock n roll. We'll start with this image.
http://tinypic.com/r/c3sp2/6
Notice first that the black of Frazier's arrow tip is partially visible.
You can see some of his black drawing within the black. For instance, look
at the lower arm of the arrow head. I can see the impression of that black
arm within that black space. I'll describe it for you. It's coming down at
about a 45 degree angle from the tip, and when it reaches the margin of
the white space, it changes direction to just about straight horizontal.
So, we can see some black on black.
Now, with that thought in mind, examine the black space above and to the
right of Doorman looking for Lovelady's arrow.
Think about it yourself. You be the artist. Say you were presented that
photo with Frazier's arrow, and it was your intention to draw another
arrow which also pointed to Doorman. Where would you draw it?
I can tell you where at least 90% of people would draw it. They would draw
it at the same angle that Frazier did, but coming from the other side.
Like this:
http://tinypic.com/r/20k387o/6
I took the liberty of drawing it in grey instead of black just to make it
easy. But, you get the idea. That's where most people would draw it, under
the circumstances.
Did I say 90%? Screw 90%! Make it 95%! Maybe even higher. Where the heck
else are you going to draw that arrow? Are you going to crowd it over next
to Frazier's? Of course not. Are you going to draw it horizontally from
right to left? No, you're not. It's not even comfortable to do that. Try
it yourself. It strains the wrist to draw a horizontal line from right to
left. You are going to draw it diagonally down from right to left, just as
I did using grey.
Alright, so now you know where Lovelady would have drawn his arrow if he
wanted to point to Doorman. Then look at that very area and see if you see
the slightest hint of an arrow.
http://tinypic.com/r/c3sp2/6
Get a magnifying glass. And periodically glance at the tip of Frazier's
arrow to remind yourself of what you are looking for.
But, there is NO arrow there. We know very well that there is no arrow
there. Every single person who looks at it with an honest mind will come
to the same conclusion that there is no arrow there.
Now, the absence of an arrow there does in fact increase the probability
that the element we are seeing on Black Hole Man is Lovelady's arrow.
Realize that logical deduction does include "process of elimination" as a
valid method.
If you know that a pretty woman is waiting for you in 1 of 10 rooms, and
you check 9 of them and do not find her, then you can be certain that when
you open that 10th door that she is going to be there.
In fact, there is no way mathematically that she could not be there. The
only basis by which she couldn't be there is if you were misinformed. But,
is that an issue in this case? Does anybody doubt the testimony? Are there
any grounds to think that the account of Joseph Ball telling Lovelady to
draw an arrow in the black and then commenting that "You have an arrow in
the white and an arrow in the black, etc." that that was bull? I don't
think we have any grounds to go there mentally. And the people who are
fighting me are certainly not questioning the veracity of Joseph Ball. So,
they have no grounds to go there. Therefore the absence of a Lovelady
arrow in the vicinity of Doorman makes what we see on Black Hole Man the
"process of elimination" winner.
Finally, look again at the mark on Black Hole Man because I think there is
the suggestion of an arrow head there. Again, a magnifying glass helps.
http://tinypic.com/r/c3sp2/6
We are looking for two diagonal arms, one upper and one lower. It seems to
me that the upper one is piercing the white area ever so slightly.
Furthermore, it looks like someone may have traced along the inside margin
of his forearm with a felt pen. Do you notice that it is distinctly darker
black below the curve of his wrist and his hands? Compare it to the arms
of the arrow that Frazier drew. You get that same impression of a darker,
shinier black. Now compare it to the black along the margin on the inside
of Doorman's t-shirt. There, you don't see what I'm talking about; there
is no darker, shiner black. It's just a dull black. Notice that there is a
sudden narrowing of his forearm. I realize that it's normal for a man's
forearm to be thick towards the elbow and narrow towards the wrist, but it
does seem like there is a sudden break there. I am very open to the
possibility that they did some doctoring with a felt pen in the black
space to hide the head of Lovelady's arrow.
Look at one more thing: What is that little blip there circled in red?
http://tinypic.com/r/2lcwoky/6
Is that from the irregularity of the felt pen as they swung it around that
curve? If not, what is it? It can't be a shadow. From what? Another speck
perhaps?
But regardless, even if that last bit turned out to be innocent, we are
definitely looking at the arrow that Lovelady drew. It has to be it.
Process of elimination alone makes it a certainty.
Walt
Mar 11, 2013, 3:47:31 PM3/11/13
to
If any of the witnesses had managed to gather the courage to buck the
authorities, and wanted to refute what the authorities claimed they had
said, how would they go about it? Using Helen Markham as an example of a
witness who was willing to talk to reporters ....She was discredited very
quickly as being a total lunatic... and they called her and scared the
hell out of her and told her that she shouldn't talk to reporters if she
wanted to stay out of jail.
There were several witnesses who weren't smart enough to keep their mouths
shut simply because they enjoyed telling of their exprience during that
weekend. Bill Whaley was a not too bright Cab Driver who enjoyed BSing
with his friends and couldn't keep his mouth shut about how LBJ's SBRC
were so damned dumb that they couldn't figger out that he had picked up
his passenger before there was any shots fired in dealey plaza. He was
killed.........
James Worrel.....was just a kid who like Whaley wasn't too smart..... and
couldn't keep his mouth shut....he was killed....
Ralph Cinque
Mar 12, 2013, 2:10:43 PM3/12/13
to
There are a lot of people who haven't responded to this, and it tells a lot about them. It reveals that they don't care about the truth, that they are here to defend the official story even though they know that it is a lie.
I just got off the phone with Richard where he said that what Joseph Ball did was "a slick lawyer trick," and indeed it was.
http://tinypic.com/r/353bkf8/6
Why would you ask someone to draw a black arrow in a black space? It reminds me of the painting of black cat in a coal mine at midnight, and I'm sure you get the joke.
There are only two possibilties: either Ball saw where Lovelady was going with his pen to draw his arrow, and he diverted him to the black area to hide it, OR Ball didn't know what Lovelady was going to do, so to play it safe, he had him draw it in the black.
One thing is for sure: if Lovelady hadn't been a little bit sloppy there, that is, if he hadn't exceeded the black and overrun the forearm a little bit, we would not be talking about this today. There is so little visible in the black, it would amount to nothing if it was all we had. Even if I suspected something, I would not have said anything because it would have been too little to go on. It's that tiny little straight black line dissecting the flesh-toned forearm that means everything.
Then, upon seeing the arrow Lovelady drew, Ball had the nerve to say:
I just got off the phone with Richard where he said that what Joseph Ball did was "a slick lawyer trick," and indeed it was.
http://tinypic.com/r/353bkf8/6
Why would you ask someone to draw a black arrow in a black space? It reminds me of the painting of black cat in a coal mine at midnight, and I'm sure you get the joke.
There are only two possibilties: either Ball saw where Lovelady was going with his pen to draw his arrow, and he diverted him to the black area to hide it, OR Ball didn't know what Lovelady was going to do, so to play it safe, he had him draw it in the black.
One thing is for sure: if Lovelady hadn't been a little bit sloppy there, that is, if he hadn't exceeded the black and overrun the forearm a little bit, we would not be talking about this today. There is so little visible in the black, it would amount to nothing if it was all we had. Even if I suspected something, I would not have said anything because it would have been too little to go on. It's that tiny little straight black line dissecting the flesh-toned forearm that means everything.
Then, upon seeing the arrow Lovelady drew, Ball had the nerve to say:
"You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the picture was taken?"
Walt
Mar 12, 2013, 9:12:33 PM3/12/13
to
On Mar 10, 9:52 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 3/10/2013 12:54 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>
> > David, what are you saying? If he would lie at the time of the assassination, then he obviously would have to continue lying or face grave consequences. Once a person commits to a lie, they usually have to continue telling it, don't they?
Once a person commits to a lie, they usually have to continue telling
it, don't they?
Only a fool would continue to lie when he knows that his questioner
> On 3/10/2013 12:54 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>
> > David, what are you saying? If he would lie at the time of the assassination, then he obviously would have to continue lying or face grave consequences. Once a person commits to a lie, they usually have to continue telling it, don't they?
Once a person commits to a lie, they usually have to continue telling
it, don't they?
knows the truth......
The point being ..... Lee Oswald was cornered with reality when the cops
told him that he could NOT have rode the bus from downtown Dallas out to
Oakcliff because that bus had been held up in traffic and therefore he had
been transported to the roominghouse by some other means. Lee didn't want
to reveal that he had associates ( in the Rambler) who were involved in
helping him pull off the hoax of PRETENDING to have shot at JFK......so he
said he hadn't told the truth, he had got off the bus and caught a City
Cab to take him to his rooming house and then on to the Texas Theater.
Ralph Cinque
Mar 12, 2013, 10:01:30 PM3/12/13
to
It was "Lee" in the Rambler, not "Harvey". Just ask John Armstrong. And if
you don't mind, Walt: could we stick with the subject of the disovery of
Lovelady's missing arrow in CE 369? Because that is what this thread,
which I started, is about.
you don't mind, Walt: could we stick with the subject of the disovery of
Lovelady's missing arrow in CE 369? Because that is what this thread,
which I started, is about.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 13, 2013, 9:04:56 PM3/13/13
to
On 3/12/2013 9:12 PM, Walt wrote:
> On Mar 10, 9:52 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 3/10/2013 12:54 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>
>>> David, what are you saying? If he would lie at the time of the assassination, then he obviously would have to continue lying or face grave consequences. Once a person commits to a lie, they usually have to continue telling it, don't they?
>
>
> Once a person commits to a lie, they usually have to continue telling
> it, don't they?
>
> Only a fool would continue to lie when he knows that his questioner
> knows the truth......
>
> The point being ..... Lee Oswald was cornered with reality when the cops
> told him that he could NOT have rode the bus from downtown Dallas out to
> Oakcliff because that bus had been held up in traffic and therefore he had
> been transported to the roominghouse by some other means. Lee didn't want
> to reveal that he had associates ( in the Rambler) who were involved in
> helping him pull off the hoax of PRETENDING to have shot at JFK......so he
> said he hadn't told the truth, he had got off the bus and caught a City
> Cab to take him to his rooming house and then on to the Texas Theater.
>
Your story is getting more elaborate day after day. You really need to
> On Mar 10, 9:52 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 3/10/2013 12:54 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>
>>> David, what are you saying? If he would lie at the time of the assassination, then he obviously would have to continue lying or face grave consequences. Once a person commits to a lie, they usually have to continue telling it, don't they?
>
>
> Once a person commits to a lie, they usually have to continue telling
> it, don't they?
>
> Only a fool would continue to lie when he knows that his questioner
> knows the truth......
>
> The point being ..... Lee Oswald was cornered with reality when the cops
> told him that he could NOT have rode the bus from downtown Dallas out to
> Oakcliff because that bus had been held up in traffic and therefore he had
> been transported to the roominghouse by some other means. Lee didn't want
> to reveal that he had associates ( in the Rambler) who were involved in
> helping him pull off the hoax of PRETENDING to have shot at JFK......so he
> said he hadn't told the truth, he had got off the bus and caught a City
> Cab to take him to his rooming house and then on to the Texas Theater.
>
write it all down first instead of making it up as you go.
> What's the alternative? To admit that you committed perjury? To admit
> that you aided and abetted those who murdered the President of the United
> States? The big question is: why did he lie at the time of the
> assassination?
>
You mean his lie when he said to a secretary, "Your hair looks lovely
today"?
0 new messages