The testimonies make it clear that there were two arrows drawn on CE 369, however, we only see one. That's a problem, but the existence of the problem doesn't give David Von Pein the right to assign the one arrow to Lovelady. In fact, it very clearly was NOT Lovelady's but Frazier's. That's because Joseph Ball instructed Lovelady to draw his arrow in the dark.
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.
However, all but the tip of this arrow is in the white.
If there was an arrow more thoroughly in the white than that, imagine how visible it would be. Obviously, if there is a hidden arrow somewhere, it's the one that's in the dark, not the one that's in the white.
Mr. BALL - We have a picture taken on the day, and it shows the President's car going by.
Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't, because I was back up in this more or less black area here.
Mr. BALL - I see.
Mr. FRAZIER - Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me.
That statement by Frazier was, and is, false. Doorman was standing on the top level. If Frazier was behind him, he wasn't any higher up because there were no more steps. There wasn't even much room. The landing is much deeper today than it was in 1963.
Mr. BALL - Do you recognize this fellow? (he points to Doorman)
Mr. FRAZIER - That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BALL - Billy?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right
Mr. BALL - Let's take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - In front of you to the right over to the wall?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Is this a Commission exhibit?
We will make this a Commission Exhibit No. 369.
They are obviously talking about an arrow that was drawn to Doorman. Ball described Doorman as being "to the right over to the wall" but that is not where he was. He was standing in the center. It only looks like he is next to the wall in the Altgens photo because of the parallax effect of Altgens' angle.
But, it can't be doubted that they were talking about an arrow that was drawn to Doorman. So, it must be this arrow:
How could it not be? If that's not Frazier's arrow, then where is Frazier's arrow in the white? How could an arrow drawn black on white not be readily visible? That must be it.
So, that has to be Frazier's arrow. Where, therefore, is Lovelady's arrow, drawn black on black in the dark?
I propose that it is in the dark enclosure of Black Hole Man's arms, drawn very small, with just the tail of it overlapping the forearm of Black Hole Man.
Now, it stands to reason, in this hypothesis, that if that's what happened, then Ball would have covered it up. He would never have admitted it. Joseph Ball was certainly determined to implicate Oswald in JFK's murder. It's not as though he was indifferent to it and open to exonerating Oswald- if that's where the evidence lead. Not a chance.
What we know for sure is that there is a very discreet, distinct, short line on the forearm of Black Hole Man, and it is not reasonable to call it an artifact or accident. How could it have gotten there? Show me any other photo with such an accident. We have all been looking at photos our entire lives. Are we used to seeing such accidents? Is it a common occurrence? Of course not.
But, let's put it all aside. I'll assume there are people who are unwilling to accept my hypothesis. It still does not give David Von Pein the right to claim that the one visible arrow is Lovelady's. He should just say that it is mired in mystery because the testimonies refer to two arrows, but we only see one, and it fits the description of Frazier's. Therefore, the location of Lovelady's arrow remains a mystery.
DVP has no right to use CE 369 as evidence of Lovelady claiming to be Doorman. No one has the right to, but DVP takes the liberty of turning it into a verbal statement.
That is an outrage. It is a wholesale misrepresentation of the known facts. It is cunning. It is manipulative. It is devious. And even though he kind-of backs away from it with a disclaimer, the disclaimer is buried on another page which has to be waded through. HERE takes you to a discussion on McAdams' forum.
And by the way, DVP unwittingly pointed out that Frazier said something entirely different at the Clay Shaw trial. There, he said that Lovelady was at the BOTTOM of the steps.
"Right down in front of me at the bottom of the steps my foreman
Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady were standing there." -- Buell Wesley
What??? Bill Shelley, like Frazier, claimed to be "back in the shadows" at the top, so if Frazier is right that Shelley was at the bottom, then Shelley lied. And if Lovelady was also at the bottom, then he couldn't possibly be Doorman who was on the top landing. Frazier qualified it again in 2013 stating that at first Lovelady was at the top, but then, on his encouragement, he went to the bottom so that he could see better.
It doesn't make sense because Lovelady could see better from the top. I know that from being there myself. Frazier is just pulling stuff from his hindquarters, rewriting the story over and over at will to get out of jams as he gets into them.
But, the point is that regardless of what anybody believes, DVP has no right to claim this:
There, he claims outright that Lovelady drew "that arrow to himself in CE 369." It is a wholly unwarranted, unjustified, and indefensible claim. And, if he has any allegiance whatsoever to honest research and reporting, he needs to get rid of it.