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

For 50 years, people were presenting Frazier's arrow as Lovelady's. There were and probably still are having displays in which CE 369 was shown with a caption: "Lovelady drew an arrow to himself on CE 369." 

But, that got blown out of the water by me, Ralph Cinque. And some apologists, such as David Von Pein, were forced to admit that "most likely" the prominent arrow we see on CE 369 is indeed Frazier's. 

Well, that's a mighty big concession of Ol' Peinhead, but it doesn't go far enough. Now that he knows that that is NOT Lovelady's arrow, it is his responsibility to find Lovelady's arrow. Because Lovelady's arrow definitely has to be there. And it's only one little photograph. It's not as though we're looking for it in the Mojave Desert. It can't be indiscernible. That's impossible. We can make out the head of Frazier's arrow in the black. Surely, some or all of Lovelady's arrow is visible. If it's not, what does that say about Joseph Ball to have Lovelady draw an invisible arrow? But, apparently, it was visible because Ball said:

Joseph Ball: You've got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. 

So, to say that, Ball must have seen the arrow, right? We have to conclude that, right? So, if he could see it, we should be able to see it as well, right? I said: RIGHT?

So, find the fucking arrow. And if you don't find the fucking arrow, then you are fucked. Because I found something that looks like the tail of an arrow, and if that's the only other mark on the photograph, it has to be Lovelady's. That's true by default. That's true by process of elimination- which is a legitimate method of deduction.

So, find the fucking arrow. If you don't, you're screwed.