If I knew that flooding CE 369 with light would remove some ink, why did I do it? That's what Robin Unger wants to know. I did it in the hope that it would bring out the shape and contour and design of the head of Frazier's arrow, which it did.
So, that's why I did it, and it wasn't a bad idea. It's awfully hard to see a drawing that is black on black, and this helped a lot.
However, it is important to realize that the modified version doesn't actually exist. If you go to the National Archives and examine the actual physical CE 369, it is going to look like the above. In fact, it's going to be smaller than the above, since the above was enlarged.
But, the above has all the features of a single arrow, namely a long vector line and then two short diagonal arm lines. You could call it a vector line with a vee at the end of it.
There are 3 lines to a drawn arrow. An arrow is not a wedge, which consists of only 2 lines.
An arrow is drawn by first drawing the vector line, and then the arm lines are added. And as I said yesterday, since it involves lifting the writing instrument, the possibility of a sliver of space exists, and it does happen, but it means nothing.
Here are drawn arrows on Google, and they all consist of the vector line and the two diagonals.
Some are drawn one-dimensionally, while others are drawn two-dimensionally, but it's the same idea. I think we can be 1000% certain that Frazier and Lovelady drew theirs one-dimensionally. There is no reason to think otherwise. There was no need to get fancy.
But now, I shall ask Robin Unger a question, and it is a very simple and straightforward question:
Do you, or do you not, endorse bpete's claim about two merged arrows?