Thursday, June 16, 2016

This is Part III and the final installment of my re-look at CE 369. It was WC Attorney Joseph Ball's idea to make CE 369. He's the one who decided to have Frazier draw an arrow on the Altgens photo and then have Lovelady do likewise on the same photo a month later. And, he had neither one initial their arrows. It's hard to believe that a lawyer would be that shoddy in his approach to the work.

But, what was his approach? His approach, his entire mindset, was to railroad Oswald. He NEVER for one second had an open mind about Oswald's innocence or guilt. Oswald was GUILTY before the interviews got started. And Ball's whole and singular purpose in the conducting his interviews was to railroad Oswald, to make sure he came across as guilty. Unlike a real trial, there was no judge and no opposing counsel watching Ball's every move. Ball never had to worry about an "Objection, Your Honor" being heard. It was really just fascist, totalitarian show trial of the most disgusting kind.

But, what about the idea that the one visible apparent arrow on CE 369 is really two?

It is every bit as disgusting, and the ones who make the claim are truly the intellectual heirs of Joseph Ball. I spelled out in Part II why it is a ridiculous claim. Now, I want to discuss the implications of it. For instance, it's obvious that they resorted to that tact because they had no other. And frankly, I think they made a mistake. I think they should have gone with the idea that Lovelady's arrow is in the black somewhere pointing to Doorman, but we can't see it because it was drawn black and black, and the resolution of these online images isn't great enough, that if could look at CE 369 directly that we'd see it. The reason it is a better argument is because they know very well that I am never going to be looking directly at CE 369. At least that's just words, just lip-flapping. But to take what is obviously one consistent, uniform, fluidly-drawn rendering and decide that there were two different hands involved is like saying that a portion of the Sistine Chapel was painted by somebody other than Michaelangelo. 

And, in the process of going with that ridiculous argument, they tacitly admitted that there is no other arrow in the black pointing to Doorman. They know full-well that there isn't. And these are people who probably do have or could have access to CE 369. They're not even interested in inspecting it. And instead they make an argument that they would not have made in a million years without me first having made my claim of finding the tail of Lovelady's arrow elsewhere.

Pink O'Blazney referred to that mark on BH Man's forearm as a "spot". That is not a spot. It's what you call a "mark."  How many images of the Altgens photo do we have? How many of them have "spots"? And if it were just a "spot" why did it happen to occur there? Coincidence? Because: OIC Chairman Larry Rivera and I both concluded that Black Hole Man was Lovelady, and that was before I found the mark. In fact, that is why I went looking for Lovelady's arrow in connection with Black Hole Man. 

Black Hole Man was definitely somebody of note because they blackened out his face. When have you ever seen a photo like that before, in which a man's entire face was reduced to blackness just from having his hands atop his head? It's impossible.

The hands can't possibly produce that much shadow, and even if they could, it wouldn't amount to blackness. The fact is that they blackened out Black Hole Man's face. And the reason they did it is because he is Lovelady, and they were going to claim that Doorman was Lovelady. You can't have two Loveladys in the same photo.  

So, it really makes a lot of sense that the mark on BH Man's forearm is the tail of Lovelady's arrow. Again: that is why I looked for it there. It occurred to me before looking that maybe Lovelady was still trying to be honest at that time, and that he drew his arrow to his actual image in the picture. 

And there is something that is absolutely unequivocal: At no time did either Ball or Lovelady state that he was Doorman. And surely Ball would have stated it- if he could. He'd have stated that Lovelady was confirming what Frazier and Arce both said- that Doorman was Lovelady. Ball would have articulated that confirmation- if he could. When I say "articulated" I mean put in words that Lovelady seconded, or I should say thirded, the claims of Frazier and Arce. 

"Let the record show that Mr. Lovelady has drawn his arrow to the same figure that Mr. Frazier did. And it is also the same figure that Mr. Arce indicated: the white man on the steps above the colored women whose face is the only one we see in the doorway."

Joseph Ball was a lawyer, and as a lawyer, he would have said something like that if he could have. But, he couldn't because Lovelady did NOT draw his arrow to the same figure as Frazier. 

In fact, he would have gotten Lovelady to articulate it.

"Mr. Lovelady, you have, in fact, drawn your arrow to the same figure that Mr. Frazier did to indicate yourself in the picture. Isn't that true?"

And then, presumably, in this alternate universe, Lovelady would have said yes. Then, Ball would have added:

"And that figure is the white man on the steps standing above the colored women in the picture whose face we see in the photo, the man commonly referred to as the Man in the Doorway. Isn't that true?"

But, Joseph Ball couldn't go down that road because Lovelady didn't deliver. If Ball had gotten what he wanted, he would have milked it. He'd have played it for all it was worth. He'd have wrung out all the value that it had. Instead, he just quickly changed the subject. He wanted to get the hell out of there. 

Four years have passed since I made this discovery of Lovelady's arrow in CE 369, and in that time, my conviction about it has only grown stronger. And nobody has offered any grounds for doubt. Most naysayers take the 5th on this and just resort to general put-downs of me. The far-fetched claim that the one visible arrow is really two arrows- Frazier's and Lovelady's combined- is the only counter-claim to appear so far, and all it reveals is desperation. Frantic desperation on their part- because their boat is sinking. 

Show me one other instance in the History of Man in which a thing like this has happened, that a man, for no particular reason, blended his arrow into that of another man, who just happened to draw a partial arrow in the first place.

Why would Lovelady want to do such a thing? Don't people have a natural tendency to want to distinguish their work from others? 

The mark I found on Black Hole Man's forearm remains the only candidate- the only game in town- as the manifestation of Lovelady's arrow on CE 369. And what it means is that as late as April 1964, Lovelady was NOT claiming to be Doorman. And the truth is that even after that- after they undoubtedly threatened him- he never more than tepidly made the claim. He did not like talking about it. He must have made it clear to Brooten and Groden in 1976 that he did NOT want to go to Washington to testify about it. He must have pleaded with Brooten. And the result was that Brooten quit his job as lead counsel of the HSCA to represent Lovelady: to be Lovelady's lawyer. Now, when has that ever happened before in the history of jurisprudence? 

No comments:

Post a Comment

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