Tuesday, June 28, 2016

David Von Pein 

From 2013 or 2014.....


[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

Ralph Cinque:

No, David. 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?     

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.