Mother of God! It's true! The evil idiot! bpete is actually trying to get away with this! Realizing that finding Lovelady's arrow was a necessity, he has decided that he can get two for the price of one. He thinks he can get away with claiming that Lovelady drew his arrow right on top of Frazier's.
When, in the history of people and photographs, has anyone ever done that? What possible reason would anyone have to do that? And if he had done it, why would Joseph Ball respond by saying that you have an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing to you? How could that possibly be an apt description?
And how many times have I told this dumb fuck that he can't draw in the area of examination? He can point to it; he can write about it; but he can't defile it. Look at it undefiled:
Everybody knows that, in it's most rudimentary form, an arrow has got three parts: a base, a left arm, and a right arm. bpete has decided that Frazier drew his with just a base and a left arm.
And this is what Lovelady drew, according to bpete:
But, the image he's working with is a manipulated image- manipulated by me. I flooded it with light. The purpose of my doing that was to bring out the black on black. But that's not how CE 369 looks. Rather, it looks like this:
For 50 years, until yesterday, everybody who ever looked at that saw it as one arrow. But yesterday, bpete decided that there are two arrows there. But, let's look at it up-close but without manipulating it; just cropping it.
There really is no disconnect. It's one arrow, but it was drawn in two pen-strokes. Frazier drew the sideways 7. Then, he lifted the pen off the paper and made a separate mark for the right arm. That's all that it is. That's the only reason why, when flooded with light, it looks a little disconnected. But, that's ONLY when you flood it with light, as I did. To the naked eye in its natural state, there is no disconnect at all. It's just one arrow drawn in two strokes.
If we were going to take it as two arrows, it would mean that not only did Joseph Ball not identify and distinguish the two arrows drawn by two different men, showing whose was whose, but he deliberately let one arrow be completely subsumed and obscured by the other, such that everybody who looked at it, for 50 years, until yesterday, save for the brilliance of bpete, took it as one arrow.
If Joseph Ball got the result he wanted, which was two arrows indicating Lovelady which both pointed to Doorman, wouldn't he want to make it visible? Wasn't Lovelady confirming Frazier's arrow noteworthy? Wouldn't Ball want to share it with the High Heavens? Wouldn't Ball want it to show? To jump off the page and into your eyes? Let's go in closer yet:
How can anyone in his right mind take that to be two arrows? How can anyone in his right mind think that in a government investigation, commissioned to shed light on the facts, to illuminate, that such an obscuring and confusing would be allowed? Why would Lovelady do it that way, and why would Joseph Ball let it pass? And why would Joseph Ball describe the above as "an arrow in the dark and one in the white"?
Ball: You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you.
How is that an apt description of the above? Why would anyone describe the above like that?
What's clear is that this is just a sick fuck way of looking at it by a man who is paid to be a modern-day Kennedy-killer.
No, bpete. You didn't have a stroke of genius yesterday. You didn't see something that nobody else saw in 50 years. You just lied again, as you have lied so many times. You are just a sick fuck paid mercenary Kennedy-killer who, whore that you are, will say anything to serve and protect the murderers of John F. Kennedy.
Did you clear this with your superiors before you went with it? If so, then they are as hapless as you are.
And this time you have really outdone yourself. This is so stupid, so asinine, so foolish and inane, that you have exposed not just your evilness, but your utter stupidity.
God damn you, you filthy, blood-soaked Kennedy-killer. Ptui!