Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

What an idiot. I admitted that enlarging photos distorts them. And yet I enlarge them. So, does that mean I am seeking distortion?

No. Sometimes we're between a rock and a hard spot where the image is too small to see anything. So, we have to enlarge it. But, we should keep in mind that we are also distorting it. In the early stages of enlargement, it may be very little, perhaps trivial. But, as you keep going, keep enlarging, it gets to where it's a lot, where you can see it pixellating. So, you've got to know when to quit enlarging and settle for what you have. 

Now, what we are dealing with here are: multiple hypotheses. And when you have multiple hypotheses, you presumably go with the MOST PLAUSIBLE one. The one claiming that the arrow on the left is really two arrows is totally IMPLAUSIBLE because it entails a totally implausible behavior on the part of Ball and Lovelady: to hide his arrow amidst Frazier's.

They would not have done that. There isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that they would have done that. It was like gold for them to show two separate arrows. So, it can and will be dismissed- by the rationally minded.

So, that's out. What's left? You can argue that Lovelady drew his arrow in the dark to Doorman, and we just can't see it because it was drawn black on black. And maybe he didn't press too hard. 

Frankly, I think that's the best argument for the other side to go with. That's their move.  It's their best move. The idiot just can't see it.

But, my argument is VERY strong. And that's because of the unlikeliness of that mark on the forearm occurring accidentally. Remember, it's the only copy of the Altgens photo with it, and there are lots and lots of copies. You've got all the copies published in the newspapers, in magazines, in books, and on websites. To dismiss it as an artifact that just happened to happen to CE 369 is totally unwarranted and unjustified. 

If we go any bigger than that we're dealing with too much distortion to make any definitive statements. I found it intriguing that there looks like what might be a triangular arrowhead, and so I mentioned it. But, it's not part of the definitive claim. The definitive claim entails the mark on the forearm only, the unlikelihood of its accidental rendering, and the likelihood that it is associated with Lovelady's handiwork, since it is the only other handiwork on the photo. The two-arrows-in-one hypothesis is not even worth considering, and the idea of Lovelady's arrow being there but not visible at all- the problem with it is that it's not based on anything concrete. 

I would be interested in going to Maryland to look directly at CE 369, were it possible, except that I know very well that I could never trust what they showed me. 

My hypothesis is the only one that is based on a concrete construct, that does not depend on distorting the image and does not assume bizarre, inexplicable, and untenable behaviors on the part of Ball and Lovelady.