David Von Pein: Take down that claim

[Ralph Cinque]

On his website, David Von Pein continues to claim that the one arrow we
can see on CE 369 is Lovelady's even though it is obviously Frazier's, and
Lovelady's arrow is MIA.

This is a mystery, a quagmire, although I believe I have found a solution,
a way out of it. However, regardless of that, (i.e.: whether or not you
agree with me) DVP has no right to categorically claim that the one
visible arrow is Lovelady's. It is a gross fabrication woefully lacking in
intellectual honesty, and I have posted a public appeal about it on my
blog:

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/06/david-von-pein-continues-to-make-bogus.html

[Jason Burke]

The "way out of it," Ralph, is to look at the original photo.

Then kick yourself for making yourself a laughingstock.

[David Von Pein]

I cover the topic of the "two arrows" in my arrow "footnote", which I
provide a link to on the same page that Ralph is so upset about. But I
have not misrepresented or fabricated anything, because Lovelady
definitely DID draw an arrow to the person known as "Doorway Man" in
CE369. And I think I demonstrated that fact beyond all doubt in the June
2012 footnote that I linked to. Here's what I said then (in 2012)....


"FOOTNOTE------

In case some people might not realize this fact, I'll point it out:

Warren Commission Exhibit No. 369 (which is a picture of James Altgens'
photograph showing Doorway Man) was actually marked with TWO different
arrows pointing toward Lovelady (aka Doorway Man).

CE369 was first marked with an arrow by Buell Wesley Frazier on March 11,
1964, at 2 H 242.

And that same exhibit was then marked with another arrow by Billy Lovelady
himself on April 7, 1964 (at 6 H 338).

When looking at the picture of CE369, I cannot see the second arrow that
was drawn in. I see only one dark arrow to the left (west) of Lovelady.
But the testimony is very clear -- TWO arrows were drawn on CE369, the
first one by Wesley Frazier when the exhibit was first introduced into
evidence by the Warren Commission on March 11th; and a second arrow marked
on the same picture by Billy Lovelady on April 7th.

Now, from the testimony, it's a bit unclear as to which witness (Frazier
or Lovelady) drew in the dark arrow that is easily visible in CE369. But
that visible arrow might very well have been drawn by Frazier and not
Lovelady. But I'm not entirely sure of that.

But Joseph Ball's instructions to Lovelady might give a clue. Ball said
this to Lovelady:

"Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are. .... 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." [6 H 338]

So, via the above testimony, it's possible that Lovelady's arrow is "in
the dark" and cannot be easily seen.

I suppose this confusion about who drew the dark arrow pointing to Doorway
Man in CE369 will spark some additional controversy concerning the true
identity of the man in the TSBD doorway, with some conspiracy theorists
possibly wanting to now claim that Billy Lovelady didn't really mark CE369
at all with an arrow in 1964.

But it's quite clear to me from the Warren Commission records that BOTH
Wesley Frazier AND Billy Lovelady drew separate arrows pointing to the
SAME PERSON (Doorway Man) in Commission Exhibit No. 369.

And, of course, as I've pointed out in previous posts, there's also Wesley
Frazier's testimony at the 1986 mock trial in London, where Frazier
identified Doorway Man as Lovelady."

David Von Pein
June 4, 2012

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1137.html

[David Von Pein]

Arrow Addendum.....

From 2013 or 2014.....

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

[Ralph] Cinque is also apparently not capable of figuring out that
Lovelady's arrow in Commission Exhibit No. 369 has to be pointing to the
same person in the Altgens picture that Wes Frazier's arrow is pointing
to. We know this to be a fact because of these words spoken by Joe Ball --
"And one in the white pointing toward you."

Cinque, however, needs to be talked through this stuff like a
kindergartner. But since the arrow drawn by Frazier (the one "in the
white") is "pointing toward you [Billy Lovelady]", then it obviously means
that the figure commonly known as "Doorway Man" IS Billy Nolan Lovelady.
The word "YOU" being the key word that Cinque tries to ignore.

So, Ralph, do you think that Lovelady was acknowledging in his Warren
Commission session that he was in TWO different places at the same time in
the CE369 photo? I guess you must think that Lovelady was saying that very
thing, because you seem to think that Billy drew an arrow to someone OTHER
than Doorway Man, even though Lovelady HEARS Ball say "pointing toward
you" when referring to the arrow that is "in the white".

Hint for Ralph -- there can be only ONE "you" [i.e., Lovelady] in CE369.
And it couldn't be more obvious who the "you" is in the Altgens
photograph.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/10/doorway-man-part-2.html

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Raff* brightened his picture a couple of years ago, showing the 2 arrows
quite well. Thanks for that, Ralph. Lovelady was drawing his arrows
(without tails) just where the testimony said. Good job spotting that.
So there's no 'pointe' in going any further, is there, little man?

[mainframetech]

Ralph, It's his own blog. He can put the stupidest thing he ever heard
in it if he likes. All it will do is show him up as being of the same
quality as the things he posts. But he has the right to say the sky is
green, or any color he wants.

I suggest you defend to the death his right to post anything he
chooses.

Chris

[Ralph Cinque]

No, Von Pein. You are NOT thinking correctly about this, and you are
apparently incapable of distinguishing cold hard facts from speculations
and wishful thinking.

The testimonies tell us that there were definitely two arrows drawn on the
photo, but, as you admit yourself, only one can be seen. So, whose is it?

It is Frazier's. It is definitely Frazier's. That's because it is drawn
mostly in the white, as Frazier's was. Furthermore, there is no way that
an arrow drawn in the white with a black instrument would not be visible.
Therefore, the arrow drawn in the dark- black on black- must be the one
that isn't seen, and that was Lovelady's arrow.

So, the visible arrow is definitely Frazier's, yet you refer to it as
Lovelady's on your webpage. You wrote: "When Lovelady drew that arrow to
himself...." That arrow. It's referring to the visible arrow. That is
wrong, and it is not OK, notwithstanding your footnote. You are not
entitled to state something that is factually wrong and then make excuses
for it on another page. What if the reader doesn't click through to the
other page? Then they are going to be mislead for sure. But, you don't
care.

So, that arrow can't be Lovelady's. If you want to assume that Lovelady's
arrow has to be there, somewhere, in the dark, pointing to Doorman, you
can, but you can't state it as a fact. The claim is based on nothing more
than a subjective interpretation of one short statement of Joseph Ball:

"You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing towards you."

You think it necessarily means that the two arrows were drawn to the same
figure, but this was a crafty lawyer we're talking about. It could just as
easily and more likely mean that you've got an arrow in the dark and one
in the white pointing towards you, as per the opinion of two individuals.

The arrows are like votes, and the picture displays two votes. The votes
didn't have to be for the same person.

Ball's statement was VAGUE and deliberately vague. And then he quickly
changed the subject. So, what does that tell you? Lovelady drawing his
arrow to Doorman would have been such a gold mine, such a boon, such a
mighty victory for Ball, that he would never have responded vaguely about
it. He would sung about it to the high heavens. But, the reaction he gave
evinces an attitude that he didn't get what he wanted.

And what is also very apparent is that Ball FEARED that he was not going
to get what he wanted. With Frazier, Ball first pointed to Doorman and
asked him directly and out loud, who is this guy? That was before any
arrow was drawn. So, why didn't he do the same with Lovelady?

I suspect that Ball was warned ahead of time that Lovelady was resisting,
not being a team player. So, the arrow-drawing was Ball's way of playing
it safe. It was non-verbal. He wanted to see it before anything was said.
And then when he saw it, he responded vaguely- deliberately arcane and
mysterious- and then quickly changed the subject.

And yet, you want to treat it like money in the bank? You think you have
the right to take his deliberately arcane statement and interpret it the
way you want and think that others are obliged to accept your
interpretation?

Ball's statement only said that the two arrows were pointing to YOU, not
that they were pointing to Doorman. Neither Ball nor Lovelady made any
reference to Doorman. How weird is that? Ball did refer to Doorman with
Frazier and Arce but not with Lovelady.

So, the bottom line is that Lovelady's arrow is missing. Not that it isn't
there but that we can't see it. And the arrow we can see is Frazier's,
definitely Frazier's.

That's the bottom line, and it's what an honest broker will admit to. And
after admitting it, if you want to say that you think Lovelady's arrow is
there somewhere in the dark, pointing to Doorman, but we just can't see it
in these digital renderings because he didn't press hard enough or some
other reason, that's your prerogative. But, as it stands right now, on
your webpage you are calling Frazier's arrow Lovelady's arrow, and that
isn't right.

And remember: Frazier is still alive. So, how come this question hasn't
been put to him? If I had access to him, don't you think I'd ask him? You
know I would. Would you?

[Anthony Marsh]

He's not allowed to see the original photo. Neither are you.

[Anthony Marsh]

Point of order. Just because he quotes kooks saying stupid things does
not mean he believes them himself. He says enough stupid things himself.

> I suggest you defend to the death his right to post anything he
> chooses.
>

We do the same for you.

> Chris
>

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Yes, Mr. Henry. Same for Trump, Stone, Baker, Fetzer, and the other
asshats. Their demographic has been nailed.

They're like dealers……. come into my crack house and buy
my product. You'll like it.

[David Emerling]

On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 8:46:47 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

> Ralph, It's his own blog. He can put the stupidest thing he > ever heard
> in it if he likes. All it will do is show him up as being of the same
> quality as the things he posts. But he has the right to say the sky is
> green, or any color he wants.

David Von Pein has one of the most comprehensive collections of Kennedy
information I have ever seen - especially in the area of videos and
photographs. His material rivals John McAdams's collection of quality
material on the subject. They are both excellent.

Photos and videos speak for themselves. Most of what Von Pein writes (on
his blog) he does in the context of being CHALLENGED; so, one can read the
opinion of the conspiracy theorist with whom he is debating. People can
judge for themselves who is making the more compelling argument. I think
that's fair - don't you?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[David Von Pein]

FWIW....

For clarification, I've added some further explanation about the "two
arrows" in the "footnote" on my "Doorway Man Part 1" webpage.

Thank you, Ralph, for pointing out that such clarification was, indeed,
required on that page.

[Alex Foyle]

On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 2:18:18 AM UTC+2, Ralph Cinque wrote:

> No, Von Pein. You are NOT thinking correctly about this, and you are
> apparently incapable of distinguishing cold hard facts from speculations
> and wishful thinking.

Oh the irony ...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/29/2016 1:09 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 8:46:47 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
>> Ralph, It's his own blog. He can put the stupidest thing he > ever heard
>> in it if he likes. All it will do is show him up as being of the same
>> quality as the things he posts. But he has the right to say the sky is
>> green, or any color he wants.
>
> David Von Pein has one of the most comprehensive collections of Kennedy
> information I have ever seen - especially in the area of videos and
> photographs. His material rivals John McAdams's collection of quality
> material on the subject. They are both excellent.
>

Yeah, we know that you WC defenders need to stick together because there
are so few of you left.

> Photos and videos speak for themselves. Most of what Von Pein writes (on
> his blog) he does in the context of being CHALLENGED; so, one can read the
> opinion of the conspiracy theorist with whom he is debating. People can
> judge for themselves who is making the more compelling argument. I think
> that's fair - don't you?
>

Do I think DVP is fair? No.
Do I think YOU are fair? NO.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Ralph Cinque]

David, I read what you wrote, and it was good of you to back off the claim
the way you did. It's definitely a step in the right direction. However,
you offered no explanation as to why Lovelady's arrow in CE 369 isn't
visible. What do you think we would find if we looked at it directly?
Surely, there would have to be a hint of it somewhere, don't you think?

But, what you wrote about the Fritz Notes and "out with Bill Shelley in
front" is woefully lacking in rationality. You say it must have referred
to AFTER the assassination, as when Oswald was leaving for home. And you
base that on the order of the statements, assuming that they must be
chronological. But, it was based on a conversation, and since when are
conversations always chronological?

But, there is a worse problem than that. We know for absolute certain that
Shelley wasn't out in front when Oswald left for home. Shelley left the
entrance soon after the shots with Lovelady to join the throng that
descended on the railway area. Then, they re-entered the TSBD building
through the back door. Neither reported going out front again until it was
time to leave for City Hall.

So, Oswald definitely didn't see Shelley out front when he left for home.
Shelley wasn't there at that time. So, why would Oswald claim it? He would
have known that they were going to ask Shelley about it, and that Shelley
would deny it (as he did). So, what would be the point of lying about it?
People tells lies which they think they can get away with. They don't tell
lies for which they are certain to be exposed.

And why would Oswald have to provide a witness for where he was AFTER the
assassination? He wasn't accused of committing any crime when he left for
home. And there's no doubt that he did it, so there was no need to provide
a witness to it. "Out with Bill Shelley in front" was definitely a
reference to DURING the motorcade, and Oswald correctly identified someone
who was, in fact, in the doorway. And, he was, in effect, saying "go ask
Shelley."

And I realize that they did go ask Shelley, and Shelley denied that Oswald
was there, but the question: who was lying? You think it's a foregone
conclusion that Oswald lied, but I say Shelley lied. Again: how could
Oswald know that Shelley was there during the motorcade unless he saw him
there? And that means he, Oswald, must have been there himself.

And, look at it from Fritz' point of view. What mattered to him? What did
he need to know? Not who Oswald saw when he left for home, but who he saw
during the time of the motorcade. Oswald didn't need an alibi for his
departure. He needed an alibi for the assassination. That's what Fritz
wanted to know and what he wrote down.

And look what Fritz told the WC about what Oswald told him, that he was
eating lunch with other employees during the shooting. That was
ridiculous, and Oswald never said it. He was too smart to say it. Why
would he say it knowing that the employees would deny it? So, why would
Fritz claim that Oswald claimed it? BECAUSE OSWALD WAS DEAD! And look what
happened. Joseph Ball didn't even ask Fritz to name the two employees. You
would think Ball would have said, "Who were those guys? I need to talk to
them." But no; Fritz didn't say, and Ball didn't ask.

David, you are like the little Dutch boy holding his finger in the hole in
the dike. That is just a legend, and it wouldn't work in real life.
Neither is what you're doing. Oswald was innocent. The truth of that is
going to flow everywhere, and there is no way for you to stop it.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Ronald Reagan: take down that wall !

[David Von Pein]

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

"Out with Bill Shelley in front" was definitely a reference to DURING the

motorcade.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Not a chance, Ralph. Oswald's reference to Shelley was unquestionably
referring to a point in time AFTER the assassination, not during it. And
the corroboration for that fact can be found in James Bookhout's FBI
report [WR; p.619].

We already hashed this out last year, archived here (FWIW):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1052.html

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

David, you are like the little Dutch boy holding his finger in the hole in
the dike. That is just a legend, and it wouldn't work in real life.
Neither is what you're doing. Oswald was innocent. The truth of that is
going to flow everywhere, and there is no way for you to stop it.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If you want to continue to believe that Oswald was innocent, that's your
choice. But "the truth", IMO, lies within the evidence connected to the
murders of both JFK and Officer Tippit. And that evidence will forever
continue to indicate (and, IMO, *prove*) the guilt of Lee Harvey
Oswald....

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/everything-oswald-did-says-guilt.html

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com