Saturday, June 25, 2016

I have to laugh. This is 2016, and people think that arguments that didn't work in 2012 are going to work if only they are repeated.

And, it's sad that some people aren't smart enough to see the really telling, revealing things about Lovelady's testimony. 

What really stands out is that AT NO TIME DID HE EVER SAY HE WAS DOORMAN. They had the photo right there. He could have said something like "I'm the guy in the open shirt next to the column." He never connected himself to the Man in the Doorway. 

Why would Joseph Ball have been looking at this and said, "You've got an arrow in the white and one in the dark pointing at you."??

Nobody would do that. Nobody looking at that would say that that is two arrows, one drawn in the white and the other drawn in the dark. How is that a reasonable way to describe what we're seeing? 

And Ball never said there were two arrows pointing to the same figure in the photograph. And believe me, if he had that, he would have named the figure. He would have described the figure. He would have articulated out loud that both Frazier and Lovelady drew an arrow to Doorway Man. HE DIDN'T DO THAT. He just said that there were two arrows pointing to Billy Lovelady. And then he quickly changed the subject. 

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. Where were you when the picture was taken?

If Ball knew he had two arrows pointing to Doorman, he would have sung it to the high heavens. Instead he just asked Lovelady where he was when the picture was taken. And Lovelady just said "on your top level." He didn't say anything about being left or right. Just "on your top level". And that was in direct reference to looking at the Altgens photo. It was an Altgens reference. 

Earlier, Lovelady referred to "standing on the right as you are going down the steps." But, we know that Doorman was not on the right. He was in the center of the doorway, as you can see in the Wiegman film. 

 Why would anyone describe that as being "on the right as you go down the stairs"? Ridiculous. And the very idea that Lovelady heaped his arrow onto Frazier's, causing two arrows to appear as one- and as it has been taken for nigh half a century- is preposterous on the face of it.

That is NOT two arrows, and no one except an immature, perennial adolescent would make such a claim. And notice that nobody of note has supported his ridiculous theory, that that's two arrows on the left. It hasn't been written into the official story. It hasn't been written in any book. It hasn't gone anywhere. That's because it is a ridiculous theory that not even supporters of the official theory want to endorse. Has John McAdams endorsed it?  Has Max Holland? Has any other big shot? Just think: Max Holland, the guy who claims that the first bullet bounced off the traffic light, came apart in mid-air, where the jacket came off, and then the "core" of it sailed alone down the length of Dealey Plaza for its destiny with James Tague- not even he, after proposing that ridiculous theory, is willing to support this one.

I'm glad we're back on this because it's important. And let's look at the history of CE 369, in which plenty of people helped themselves to the assumption that the one big arrow was Lovelady's arrow. 
Fortunately, there is less of that since I came along. And if anybody ever tries it again, they are going to hear from me; I guarantee. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

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