bpete is still claiming that, unbeknownst to everybody, there are two arrows there. And he says that "there is no connection of ink between the two. None." Oh really? Let's look at it up closer:
It's a bit of stretch, I'd say, to say that they're disconnected.
Note that bpete wants to use the altered, manipulated version that was FLOODED WITH LIGHT. But, flooding it with light has the effect of removing some ink. So, why does he want to use an altered, manipulated version? It's because he's a fucking punk and God-damn fucking Kennedy-killer, that's why.
Why did I create it in the first place? I created it in the hope that it would improve the visibility of the black on black, so that we could better see the SHAPE and the DESIGN of what Frazier drew. And it worked in that respect: we can see the the left arm of Frazier's arrow is vertical and almost parallel with the white column, while the right arm is pretty-much L-shaped.
bpete is trying to claim that there is an interruption at the head of the arrow, but really it is just a little bolus of haze. And as you can see there are similar boluses of haze throughout the image. Should we assume that there were interruptions in the big hair of the black woman? I ask because the boluses on her look similar to the bolus on the arrow.
And bpete has done this kind of shit before, and I mean this very kind of shit. We were on Education Forum, him in his Duncan MacRae persona, and we were going at it over Doorman's t-shirt, and in order to show that it really was not vee-ish at all, MacRae blew it up until the margin was jagged and tooth-like and then submitted it. He actually did that. I could do it too, but since it wouldn't be his exact work, I won't. But, I don't mind describing what he did: by the time he was finished, he had the margin of Doorman's t-shirt looking like a staircase. And I take it as more evidence that bpete is Duncan MacRae; it's just like him to do this shit.
In the final analysis, we have to go back to the untouched image. After all, that's what was rendered. That's what was proffered. That's what went into the official record. And this is what it is:
It would have been AWFUL if Joseph Ball had submitted that knowing that it consisted of two arrows. Why would he have done that? For goodness sake, he wanted it to be two arrows pointing at Doorman. It's what he was aiming for. It was what he was hoping for. Think of how much more impressive it would have been if there were two visible, distinct, and distinguishable arrows pointing to Doorman as Lovelady. Now consider how easy it would have been for Ball to have accomplished that. Why would he have hid it? Why would he have let the world see it as just one arrow? And for 50 years the world has seen it as just one arrow. Until Duncan MacRae came up with this brilliant idea, nobody gave two arrows the slightest thought or consideration. It sailed right over the heads of everybody in the world. Didn't Joseph Ball realize that it was going to sail over the heads of everybody in the world? So, why didn't he do something about it?
What are you going to do now, MacRae? After all, this is a big discovery. You've got a major coup going here. You've just broken the case. The discovery of Lovelady's arrow after 50 years? 50 fucking years! That's half a century, Man! It took half a century for somebody to see it, and that somebody was YOU. How proud you must be.
But, you've got to act on it, Man. You need to contact the National Archives. How about the Newseum? They could make it into an exhibit. Then you should contact Vincent Bugliosi because he could add it to next edition of Reclaiming History. The same for Gerald Posner with Case Closed. How about Tink Thompson in 6 seconds? You've got links to him on your bpete site. This is too big to leave within the realm of the little war that's raging between Ralph Cinque and Duncan MacRae. You need to get the word out- to the historians and to the world.
But don't worry, I started a thread about it on McAdams' forum. I'm eager to see how many people step up to endorse what you claim to have found. Aren't you? And I don't mean, O'Blase'. That little shit is just a wise-cracker of me and a brown-noser of you. And I won't be the least bit surprised if Robin Unger endorses your new find too. Maybe Joseph Backes will go for it as well. Hell, it doesn't bother him that you have Oswald "locking and loading" on the 6th floor, so why should he be reticent about this? But just between you and me, getting those guys to endorse you is like getting Larry and Curly to endorse Moe.
How far do you think it is going to go, MacRae? You think it's going to change the way CE 369 is reported and discussed and understood? Psst. I've got news for you: you found nothing, and nothing is going to come of it.