Thursday, June 16, 2016

This is Part II of my series on CE 369. First, a little history: Until my work of 2012, people like David Von Pein assumed that the one obvious arrow on CE 369 was Lovelady's. 

Let's note that the most distinctive thing about that arrow is the line. In fact, if you just had the line, the diagonal line, and nothing else, it would be enough to indicate what it's pointing to. I've seen arrows made like that, as just a line. Being "linear" is a distinctive element of being an arrow. It's even in the definition.

a linear figure having a wedge-shaped end, as one used on a map or architectural drawing, to indicate direction or placement.

That's from 

Look at it again:

Nobody suggested that that is two arrows. And that's because nobody had a need to suggest that that is two arrows, to make it into two arrows.

Now, let's go in closer:

It's still clearly just one arrow. And if it were true that it's two arrows; (it's not), it would mean that a deliberate attempt to mislead was made. Why would anyone do that if the whole purpose of the investigation was to clarify, illuminate, and explain? So, why would you engage in such a devious trick? And why would Joseph Ball look at that, what we see above, and say, "So, you have one arrow in the white and one in the dark pointing to you."  He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. 

So, the idea that that is two arrows came forward ONLY because of me. If I hadn't come forward with my idea, then this idea- of that being two arrows- would surely have never registered with anybody. Nobody's mind would ever have gone there. 

I'm going to post it again:

Just the other day, Pink O'Blazney described what we see above as two "kravat-style arrows." Kravat? I wonder where he got that from. Kravat is actually another term for necktie. And, it is also a variant for the more commonly used "cravat" which is a measuring unit for gold and other precious metals. If you do a search on Google images for kravat, this is what you get:

And by the way, if you do a search on Google images for arrow, this is what you get:

I also did a search for "drawn arrow" to distinguish it from bow and arrows.

So, you see the linear component of the arrow in both cases. But, I know what Pink is talking about. He's talking about an angled v that you sometimes see used as an indicator. It's not common. But, look at it again:

There is definitely a line there that somebody drew. You can't call it a "kravat" or anything else. It's a line, as per an arrow. And notice the complete conformity and consistency of the whole figure. If that's the handiwork of two different men, then it means that they had identical writing instruments, with identical tips, and drew with the same pressure, the same density, and it certainly appears to be the same handwriting. And that's why prior to 2012, nobody ever thought it was anything but one figure drawn by one man; it was somebody's arrow. 

Now, let's look at the testimony:

Mr. BALL - I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you on that picture?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are.
Mr. LOVELADY - Where I thought the shots are?
Mr. BALL - No; you in the picture.
Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, here (indicating).
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? 

It's a little baffling as to why Lovelady was confused. He was told to draw an arrow to himself, and nobody said anything about where the shots came from. So, why would he bring that up? But, Ball clarified by saying, "No; you in the picture."

So then, Lovelady got the idea. Then it says, "Oh, here. (indicating)" What does that mean? I presume it means that at first, even though he was told to draw an arrow that Lovelady just pointed at himself. So, Ball instructed him again to draw an arrow and to do it in the dark. Now, if Lovelady indicated Doorman as himself, and Ball told him to draw his arrow in the dark, where would he have drawn it?

Wouldn't he have drawn it on the other side? There was all that room there. And it was dark. Isn't that where you would put it if you were told to draw an arrow in the dark to yourself if you meant to indicate Doorman?

Now, I did it in grey only because if I had done it in black, you wouldn't see it at all.

But, after the drawing was done, what did Ball do next? He changed the subject. 

Where were you when the picture was taken?  

Why did Ball need to ask him that? They're looking at the photo, right? It was plain as day that Doorman was standing in the doorway. Isn't that obvious? Isn't that how the expression "the man in the doorway" was derived? And so is the guy next to him, whom I call Black Hole Man because his face is like a black hole in space. With Danny Arce, Ball had described Doorman as a white man, standing on the steps, and the only male face that's visible. 

Mr. BALL. Just 1 minute, I want to show you a picture. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 369. I show you this picture. See this man in this picture?
Mr. ARCE. Yeah.
Mr. BALL. Recognize him?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, that's Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BALL. Just to identify it clearly, the man on the steps---well, you see the man on the steps, do you not?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. He is a white man, isn't he?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And you see his picture just above the picture of two colored people, is that correct; would you describe it like that?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. I am not going to mark this purposely because other witnesses have to see it.
Mr. ARCE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did you say that is Billy Lovelady?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, that is Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BALL. Now, there is only one face that is clearly shown within the entrance-way of the Texas School Book Depository Building, isn't there?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And only one face of a person who is standing on the steps of the Depository Building entrance?
Mr. ARCE. Yeah.
Mr. BALL. And that one man you see there---
Mr. ARCE. Yes, that's Billy Lovelady. 

So, with Arce, Ball knew that the figure was standing on the steps of the entrance-way of the Book Depository. That's in plain English. So why with Lovelady did Ball have to ask him: 

Where were you when the picture was taken?  

That was just Ball scrambling. He was looking for a way to segue to something else; to change the subject; to get out of the jam that he was in. 

Look at it again:

So, why upon seeing that would Ball say:

You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you.

Again: He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't.

I'll point out that if you lighten the above crop (severely) you can create a false gap in the arrow because some of the black gets lifted out. But, what in tarnation does that have to do with the price of pork? 

There will be at least one more installment in this series. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

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