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

Duncan MacRae (who goes by bpete) is claiming that there are two distinct arrow points in this:

He is trying to get away with using an altered version in which some of the ink was removed, but that is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the finished product as we see it in the above photograph. 

Is there any chance that Frazier and Lovelady piled their arrows on top of each other? And what are the chances, what is the real likelihood, that someone who is asked to draw an "arrow" would draw it without a center line? 

Think of the object that an "arrow" is. It is practically all the center line. There is tapering, a sharpening at the tip, but the essence of the arrow is the line. 

> is not an arrow, and it is not the symbol for an arrow. It is the "greater than" sign: where whatever is on the left of it is greater than what is on the right of it. 

Let's stop the nonsense, MacRae. THIS is what we have. THIS is what has existed for 50 years. THIS is what the whole world has been going by:

And what did the whole world gather from that for half a century? That it is one arrow. Not until a few days ago did you conclude that it's actually two arrows, which means that, even you were fooled until a few days ago. 

In the context of how it actually looked, there is NO QUESTION that it appears as just one arrow. Frazier went first, so according to you, he did this:

Explain something, MacRae: Why, if Frazier was going to draw a wedge, did he make the arms so uneven? Why is one arm more than twice as long as the other? Isn't it easy enough to draw a wedge with equal arms? Does anyone have trouble drawing a symmetrical v? If he was just going to draw a v, why wouldn't he just make it a symmetrical v? Why make one arm so much longer? Why didn't he do this?

Look at them side by side:

What are the chances that Frazier would have drawn a wedge rather than an arrow after being told to draw an arrow, and then what are the chances that in drawing that wedge he would draw it with unequal arms? The unlikelihood of both those things have to be multiplied together. 

It comes down to what right you think a person has to assume what he wants to believe and expect others to believe it. bpete has no such right. 

This is what he claims for Lovelady:

 bpete assigns a wedge for Lovelady too, but again, the halves of the wedge are unequal in length. Ball instructed Lovelady to draw his arrow in the dark, so wouldn't he have stopped with this?

Again, let's pair them up:

Again, what right does bpete have to assume that it all went down the way he envisions, and what right does he have to expect others to believe his crap when all we really have is this:

Isn't it far more likely that that long center line is the center line of Frazier's arrow and that the shorter diagonal lines comprise the head of it? Isn't that exactly what how the entire freaking colossal world interpreted it until 2 days ago? Is there any reason to change that perception because of what bpete conjured up from a highly altered photo which had ink removed? 

Just what you see above is the reality. Just what you see above is what Joseph Ball entered into evidence as CE 369. What possible reason would Joseph Ball have had to hide that it's two arrows? Two arrows pointing to Doorman for Lovelady was exactly what he wanted. Look how he reinforced the testimony with Danny Arce.

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. 

That is a lot of reinforcing just to make one point. It's obvious that Ball wanted to leave no doubt that Arce was verbally pointing to Doorman as Billy Lovelady. So, when both Frazier and Lovelady drew arrows to Doorman as Lovelady, wouldn't Ball have been just as diligent in distinguishing what they stipulated, in clarifying, reinforcing, etc. So, why would he have allowed two arrows to pass as this?

And make no mistake; that is what bpete is claiming. The other version doesn't actually exist. It's just a digital alteration that has no bearing on the real CE 369, the actual photo. According to bpete, the above is what Joseph Ball, a lawyer, submitted into evidence as two arrows drawn by Buell Frazier and Billy Lovelady. 

Now, in contrast is the arrow I found which does NOT depend on using some altered, flooded version of CE 369. We can see it in the raw, unaltered, uncropped photo:

Look at that; we can see it in the raw. It's small, but that doesn't matter. When a doctor examines an x-ray, the size of the lesion he sees has no bearing on its significance. Without doing a thing, without even cropping it, we can see that there is a distinct crisp mark on that forearm. And guess what, MacRae? It still has to be explained. It doesn't disappear just because of your fanciful delusion about finding two asymmetrical wedges crowded together. That mark on BH Man's forearm still has all the signs of being a deliberate mark added to the photo. It's not a smudge. It's not a scratch. It's not an accidental swipe. That's all nonsense. We're seeing the center line of Lovelady's arrow, and it's drawn at the same angle as Frazier's. 

You can't make it go away, MacRae. 

But, what I'm noticing is that so far NOBODY on the forum has actually come out and endorsed your claim. Even O'Blase' is talking circles around it. He seems to be endorsing it, but sheepishyly. And as I told you, O'Blase was a given because HE IS YOUR BROWN-NOSER. 

So, what about the others, MacRae? If this discovery of yours is so good, why aren't they lining up to endorse it? And frankly, I can't be impressed any more. The freaking thing has had 49 views.

It's too late now. They should have come forward before now. They should have come forward right away. They didn't. 

But, don't worry, I'll keep hitting it. I want to make it the poster boy of Duncan MacRae's JFK assassination research, right up there with your jagged-tooth t-shirt on Doorman. That was a good one. You've got a child's imagination, and a child's intellect- save for the really smart kids. Don't compare yourself to them.