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

You're wrong, bpete. And the FBI was right when they reported that Lovelady said he was wearing a red and white striped shirt and blue jeans on the day of the assassination. 

Then bpete says that there is "ample evidence" Lovelady wore a plaid shirt. But, the only "evidence" for that are blatantly fraudulent movies that were modified after the assassination, and in some cases years after, or even decades after, and all used impostors who neither looked like Lovelady nor like each other. It's a fucking circus. 

And as Harold Weisberg told us way back in 1966, Doorman's shirt is neither striped nor plaid. That's how hapless and hopeless their case is. And yet, here it is 2014, and we still have to listen to mean, mealy-mouthed little fucks like bpete lie disgustingly.  

The fucking moron is unable to see the landslide difference in the way Joseph Ball handled Danny Arce than how he handled Billy Lovelady- ON THE SAME DAY! Hey, bpete! Ball didn't ask Arce to draw any fucking arrows. He just pointed to Doorman and asked him who he was. Why didn't he do the same with Lovelady?

Ball asked Lovelady if he was in the picture. Lovelady said yes, but he could have added that, "Yes, I'm the guy in the doorway who people think resembles Oswald." Or something like it. 

And get this: the idiot bpete assumes that Lovelady was oblivious to why Ball brought up the Altgens photo, as if the Doorman controversy was unknown to him, as if he had no clue as to where Ball was going with it. 

Memo to bpete: The moment Ball took out the Altgens photo and asked Lovelady if he was in it, Billy knew instantly that the question of Doorman's identity was on the table- you dumb fuck. 

If someone asks you whether you are in a photograph, it's only natural and normal to point out who you are- if the answer is yes. You see, it's what you call a "leading question" because you know there is more to it than that. NOBODY would just want to just know if you were in it, as a point of fact. The implied full question is:

"Are you in this picture, and if so, which figure are you?"

All of that is implied, bpete, you dumb fuck. And in a natural, normal conversation, this is how it would go down:

Tom: Are you in this picture?
Sally: Yes, I sure am; that's me; right there. (pointing)

And even in a federal commission interview that's how it would go down.  There is no reason to think otherwise. So yes, the whole damn exchange was very weird, and don't try to deny it. 

There is simply no excuse for why Joseph Ball was direct with Danny Arce, asking him directly who Doorman was but indirect with Billy Lovelady, asking him if he was in the picture and then proceeding to arrow-drawing. It's bull shit! Even with Fraizer, Ball had him announce it verbally before they moved on to arrow-drawing. But on April 7, it was the same question asked of two men just an hour apart but handled in very different ways. 

And even after Lovelady drew his arrow, note that Ball never articulated the results for the court reporter. Ball never said anything like: 

"Let the record show that Mr. Lovelady drew an arrow to the same figure that Wesley Frazier drew an arrow to, specifically, the man on the left side as we view the picture wearing the unbuttoned long-sleeved shirt and white t-shirt."

And why didn't Ball have both Frazier and Lovelady initial their arrows? It's very weird that he didn't. Why the hell wouldn't he? 

And why did Ball instruct Lovelady to draw his arrow in the dark when the writing instrument was black? We're talking about black on black. Why did Joseph Ball have Billy Lovelady draw an arrow black on black? Isn't the whole purpose of drawing an arrow for the sake of it being seen?

So yes, I have a problem- a big problem- with Ball's method because he used a different method with Arce than he did with Lovelady just an hour later. And if you, bpete, have a problem with my having a problem with it, then here's spit in your eye and fuck you!

Duncan MacRae (bpete) is every bit as stupid as Joseph Backes:

Who is kidding who here, MacRae? Are you playing games with yourself or are you just plain stupid? What Joseph Ball wanted to know was whether Lovelady claimed to be Doorman. I'll say it again: What Joseph Ball wanted to know was whether Lovelady claimed to be Doorman. So, why not ask him directly? 

Ball: This guy standing next to the wall (he points) whose face is the only face we see, who is wearing an unbuttoned, sprawled-open outer shirt over an exposed white t-shirt, who is he? 

Why the hell couldn't Ball have simply asked Lovelady that? It is what he wanted to know, and there is no doubt about that. So, why not go for the jugular? Why not cut to the chase? Why not get to the bottom line? 

Furthermore, that is exactly what Joseph Ball just an hour earlier with Danny Arce, you dumb fuck! Why the change? If it was reaonable for Arce then why not for Lovelady?

What is your excuse? I want a fucking reason as to why he handled each of them so differently concerning the exact same matter.  

Then bpete tries to say that the arrow I found is just a "spot" on the photograph. And note that this particular version of CE 369 was lifted from bpete's site. I just cropped it and enlarged it. 

How do you know it's just a "spot"? And what is it a spot of? That is nothing but an arbitrary speculation on bpete's part. Notice that the mark is angled exactly like Frazier's. 

An accidental smudge or spot or speck would not be as neat as that. And it would also likely not be as small and contained as that. That has all the look of a discreet, deliberate mark, and unless there is explicit evidence to the contrary, we should assume that is what it is.

What the fuck? He has never proven that it's a "spot". And talk about being a liar, how can there be two arrows pointing to Doorman if we don't see two arrows pointing to Doorman? There is only one arrow pointing to Doorman. Explain that, bpete:

     bpete wants to know why Lovelady's arrow to Black Hole Man got lighter when I lightened the picture. Actually, he asked why it disappeared, but that was shit-faced lie from the shit-faced mother-fucker. It got lighter, but it didn't disappear. 

It's because I flooded the picture with light, bpete. Lovelady not only drew his arrow small, he drew it with a light hand. Frazier pressed harder. 

And now for the grand finale, bpete posted this:

I hope bpete is not suggesting that Lovelady drew his arrow over Frazier's, that there are two arrows over there on the left side. God help him if he's trying to claim that. But, I presume he simply means that we can see the head of Frazier's arrow, but we can't see the head of the arrow I attribute to Lovelady. 

It's true that we can only see the tail of Lovelady's arrow and not the head. But remember that Lovelady was instructed by Joseph Ball to draw his arrow in the dark. I'm saying that we just got lucky that the tail of it overlapped Black Hole Man's flesh-colored forearm. Lovelady wasn't pressing very hard either, but I am sure that if his arrowhead showed in the black space of Black Hole Man's arm enclosure, which is where it was, that Joseph Ball-or someone else- smeared it out with the same marker. But, there was nothing they could do about the part that overlapped the forearm. Maybe they thought nobody would notice. Well, they were wrong.