New discovery concerning CE 369: Lovelady's arrow

[Ralph Cinque]

It's not a dot. It's a line. It's a short line, but it's still a line. It's the tail of the arrow that Lovelady drew. The head of the arrow is in the black, so we can't see it because It was black on black.

And now, Robin Unger, you have just submitted the second proposed alternative: a "slip of the black marker pen as the image was being handed around". It's going up, with your image.

[Ralph Cinque]

Unger, how many times do I have to tell you: THE HEAD OF THE ARROW IS IN THE BLACK. We are seeing just the tail of the arrow on his forearm.

What is so hard to understand about that?

[Ralph Cinque]

Robin, here is what Joseph Ball said after Lovelady drew his arrow:

"You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you."

So, most of Lovelady's arrow was in the black. We just got lucky that he overlapped the flesh-colored forearm a little bit which provided contrast.

[Robin Unger]

There is no arrow across the arm of the so called "black hole"

Edited March 10, 2013 by Robin Unger

[Lindsay Anderson]

All i see in this image is a " Black Dot " on the arm

probably a slip of the black marker pen, as the image was being handed around.

Arrow, what Arrow ?

There is no Arrow to be seen in this poor quality, tiny image ?

SHOW ME THE ARROW

Robin -

I too thought slip of the pen but then I thought dirt contamination to be equally as plausible and went with that.

I doubt this will satisfy Ralph though but I could yet be surprised!

I was amused with his comment to me

"Are you aware that you don't have an unlimited right to proffer "what-ifs?" This isn't Imagination Day at Kindergarten. The plausibility of your suggestion is so low that it really deserves no consideration at all. And I do mean none"

Well Ralph, I do have that right. I have not claimed to have discovered anything so there is no burden of proof attached to my belief that it is a contaminant / penslip or whatever. Neither Robin or I need to offer a credible alternative, Our point is, it could be anything - there is a mark there, so what?

Yes, it could be a pointer to a possible arrow - so go find the arrow Ralph - enlist help here if you need it. The 'find' may be interesting but don't claim it to be anything but a lead, and a tenuous one at that.

As for the logic, which seems to be

1. we are missing an arrow
   
2. I have found a (tiny) line or mark
   
3. it is therefore reasonable, plausible and correct for me to claim I have found the arrow
   
4. this mark is therefore the arrow (until such time as someone can explain away the mark)
   

Are you really trying to promote and defend that?

Edited March 10, 2013 by Lindsay Anderson

[Robin Unger]

Lindsay

It wouldn't have made any difference what theory you postulated.

if it wasn't EXACTLY what ralph wanted to here.

You still would have received the same response from him.

His mind doesn't work like yours and mine, he lives in a fantasy world where Ralph is always right

no matter how preposterous his theory is.

Fetzer lives in the same fantasy world with Ralph, it is a topsy turvy world

where up is down, and down is up

[Greg Burnham]

And the argument of Ralph Cinque, again, becomes evident. He encourages all to "proffer something", anything at all--so long as it is consistent with an arrow. This is a blatant example of Begging the Question. If what one proffers is not consistent with Ralph's predetermined notion, "the missing arrow" then Ralph renders such an opinion to be fanciful thinking and kindergarten grade work. Lindsay need not be treated condescendingly, as if the answers you elicited from him were "obviously" mistaken. Fetzer claimed that even a third grader can see the OBVIOUS proof of alteration in Altgens 6. Now, Cinque claims that anyone who reports seeing something inconsistent with the shape of an arrow is playing Imagination Day at Kindergarten.

The images are extremely small and very grainy. Without overstating that which is possible I find it difficult to imagine that anyone could claim that the tiny "dot or line or mark" is an arrow.

Remember: Without finding Lovelady in the photo, Fetzer and Cinque MUST contend with the problem of explaining away ALL eyewitness' testimony that indicates Lovelady was on the steps (Doorman). For if Lovelady is not Doorman nor is he anybody else on the steps, then all eyewitnesses, including Lovelady himself, were lying.

Cinque's argument is dramatically circular in its desperation:

There is an arrow missing in this photo.

I found something resembling a "tiny mark of some inexplicable nature" in this photo.

I don't know what this mark is and I don't know where the arrow is.

Therefore this mark must be part of the missing arrow.

However, the greater concern is not the missing arrow, which is a mere distraction. The greater concern is the MISSING LOVELADY -- unless he is Doorman.

While I don't think that a kindergarten class nor a 3rd grade class would necessarily see the obvious fallacies committed here, certainly a student of Logic 101 would...unless

their agenda prohibited such enlightenment.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Greg Burnham

[Lindsay Anderson]

Ralph

I am so sorry to have doubted you -

I had not seen this in your earlier post and since you havn't repeated it since, I missed it,

Greg, Robin, James, we all missed this, its case closed re is it / isn't it an arrow, Ralph can see the whole arrow,

There's no arguing with that.

Here is the version of CE 369 posted on the history-matters website. On this one, when I blow it up, I can actually see the whole arrow, which consists of three lines: a tail and two arms. I can see the whole arrow.

So, that is definitely an arrow, and the only one who could have drawn it is Lovelady since Frazier drew the other one. That's clear from the testimony that you posted, David. Ball told Lovelady to draw his arrow in the dark because there was already one in the white.

[Robin Unger]

Yes Greg

Cinque and Fetzer try it on all the time.

Word games

Example:

Cinque claiming to see something in a crappy piss poor image ( that isn't really there such as an arrow )

then he would go on to say

now, if you can't prove that its NOT there.

that means, it MUST be there, and i win

Edited March 10, 2013 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Quote:

Remember: Without finding Lovelady in the photo, Fetzer and Cinque MUST contend with the problem of explaining away ALL eyewitness' testimony that indicates Lovelady was on the steps (Doorman). For if Lovelady is not Doorman nor is he anybody else on the steps, then all eyewitnesses, including Lovelady himself, were lying.

They wan't to put Oswald into the Doorman position, knowing full well that NONE of the witnesses, including Shelley, has EVER said that they saw Oswald standing on the steps

[Greg Burnham]

It is amazing that James Fetzer will hold himself to a completely arbitrary standard when evaluating evidence and hold others to a much more rigid

standard.

For instance, Fetzer places great value in the eyewitness testimony or statements of all those witnesses that reported the limousine stop. But, he places

almost no value in the testimony or statements of all of the eyewitnesses who identified Billy Lovelady as Doorman. Moreover, he ignores the fact that

not a single eyewitness places Oswald on the steps!

This is similar to Special Pleading where he cherry picks which eyewitness testimony to rely upon and which eyewitness testimony to discount or ignore

not based on the credibility of the eyewitness, but rather based solely on the effect such testimony has on his theory.

He argues that in order to believe that the limo did not stop it would mean that all of the eyewitnesses were lying or mistaken. That is a fair argument, IMO.

Yet, when asked: "What of all the eyewitnesses who said Lovelady was Doorman?" -- he dismisses them as if they were all lying or mistaken.

This is not a case of False Equivalency because there is no evidence indicating that the eyewitnesses to the limo stop were any more or less reliable than

the eyewitnesses who said Billy Lovelady was Doorman and was not Oswald.

[Michael Hogan]

It is amazing that James Fetzer will hold himself to a completely arbitrary standard when evaluating evidence and hold others to a much more rigid

standard.

For instance, Fetzer places great value in the eyewitness testimony or statements of all those witnesses that reported the limousine stop. But, he places

almost no value in the testimony or statements of all of the eyewitnesses who identified Billy Lovelady as Doorman. Moreover, he ignores the fact that

not a single eyewitness places Oswald on the steps!

This is similar to Special Pleading where he cherry picks which eyewitness testimony to rely upon and which eyewitness testimony to discount or ignore

not based on the credibility of the eyewitness, but rather based solely on the effect such testimony has on his theory.

He argues that in order to believe that the limo did not stop it would mean that all of the eyewitnesses were lying or mistaken. That is a fair argument, IMO.

Yet, when asked: "What of all the eyewitnesses who said Lovelady was Doorman?" -- he dismisses them as if they were all lying or mistaken.

This is not a case of False Equivalency because there is no evidence indicating that the eyewitnesses to the limo stop were any more or less reliable than

the eyewitnesses who said Billy Lovelady was Doorman and was not Oswald.

Although Jim Fetzer is quick to lecture others about logic and reasoning, he seems oblivious to the confirmation biases that pervade his posts.

http://en.wikipedia....nfirmation_bias

Edited March 11, 2013 by Michael Hogan

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I have explained this many times. The government has had 50 years to stack the deck, which continues to this day. Finding statements and photographs that SUPPORT THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT is completely unsurprising. The problem is not one of confirmation. If you are willing to accept whatever the government claims, then no doubt many of my arguments might look to you as though I were employing "an arbitrary standard". If you understood the difference between verification and falsification, you would not make that claim. WHEN WE FIND STATEMENTS FROM GOVERNMENT SOURCES THAT CONTRADICT THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN ACCOUNT, those are known as "statements contrary to interest" and have special probative value on the theory that the source would not impeach itself were it not true. It is an important legal concept, which you really ought to understand if you want to make any serious contributions here. But I can see that is not the case, because, while you love to talk about "Occam's Razor", you interpret that as meaning the simplest explanation is preferable to more complex. BUT THAT IS ONLY WHEN THEY CAN BOTH EXPLAIN THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, WHICH IS CERTAINLY NOT THE CASE HERE. I am sorry, Greg, but you have missed the boat again, BIG TIME! And you really need to try to come to grips with the EVIDENCE.

Thanks to Pat Speer, post #38, on the "CE 369 Lovelady's Arrow" thread, for posting some interesting information, which all by itself refutes certain claims you have made in the past, such as suggesting that, when Lee told Fritz he was "out with Bill Shelley in front", which you have suggested has to have happened AFTER THE SHOOTING rather than DURING THE SHOOTING. But it cannot have happened AFTER THE SHOOTING, because he and BIlly took off toward the railroad tracks immediately after. And here is BIlly himself explaining that he was three inches shorter and 15-20 pounds heavier, which means that he cannot have been Doorman, whose height and build--not to mention shirt and tee-shirt--were the same as Oswald's. The more proof we discover, the more in denial you become. It would be embarrassing if it were the first time, but I have long since come to the realization that you have lost your way. Incidentally, which was the bullxxxx: When you claimed you could not see the missing shoulder, that Black Tie Main was in front of and also behind Doorman at the same time, and that one figure (whom we believe to have been BIll Shelley) has his face obscured? or your recent dalliance into imposing features in one of the murkiest areas of the photograph, which you claim to be justified on the basis of "Occam's Razor"? Of course, I acknowledge its probably both!

From Billy Lovelady:

Mr. Lovelady said the F.B.I. had taken pictures of him from various angles and that he had been shown a three-by-four foot blowup of the doorway picture and asked if he was in it. 'I immediately pointed to myself in the doorway,' Mr. Lovelady said. He said he was about 15 to 20 pounds heavier than Oswald and about three inches shorter. Asked whether there was any resemblance to Oswald, he replied, 'I’m fatter in the face.'''It was me in the doorway,' he said. 'If anyone doesn’t believe it, they will just have to take my word.'

That being the case, he cannot have been Doorman,

who looks like Lee Oswald but unlike Billy Lovelady.

Billy was 3" shorter and weight 15-20 pounds more.

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT DISPROOF OF THE IDEA

THAT BILLY WAS DOORMAN FROM BILLY HIMSELF.

And Billy also confirms that he was in the doorway!

From Bill Shelley:

At the time President Kennedy was shot, I was standing at this same place. Billy N. Lovelady who works under my supervision at the Texas School Book Depository was seated on the entrance steps just in front of me. I recall that Wesley Frazier, Mrs. Sarah Stanton, and Mrs, Carolyn Arnold, all employees of the Texas School Book Depository, were also standing in this entrance way near me at the time Pres. Kennedy was shot.

But if Billy had been seated, Billy could not have

been Doorman. And Shelley says he was seated.

Shelley, I am quite sure, was involved in setting

up Oswald, but this passage is a problem for the

brain trust here who wants to use him to bolster

their absurd theory of Billy having been Doorman.

More from Bill Shelley:

Sounded like a miniature cannon or baby giant firecracker, wasn’t real loud…Sounded like it came from the west…officers started running down to the lumber yards and Billy and I walked down that way. We walked on down to the first railroad track there on the dead-end street and stood there and watched them searching cars down there in the parking lots for a little while and then we came in through our parking lot at the west end…in the side door into the shipping room…

Since Bill and Billy headed down toward the

tracks and past the grassy knoll, it cannot be

the case that, when Lee told Fritz he was "out

with Bill Shelley in front", he meant AFTER THE

SHOOTING, because Shelly was no longer there.

Lee had been there with Billy Lovelady standing

beside him. Then Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley

immediately took off toward the railroad tracks.

It is amazing that James Fetzer will hold himself to a completely arbitrary standard when evaluating evidence and hold others to a much more rigid

standard.

For instance, Fetzer places great value in the eyewitness testimony or statements of all those witnesses that reported the limousine stop. But, he places

almost no value in the testimony or statements of all of the eyewitnesses who identified Billy Lovelady as Doorman. Moreover, he ignores the fact that

not a single eyewitness places Oswald on the steps!

This is similar to Special Pleading where he cherry picks which eyewitness testimony to rely upon and which eyewitness testimony to discount or ignore

not based on the credibility of the eyewitness, but rather based solely on the effect such testimony has on his theory.

He argues that in order to believe that the limo did not stop it would mean that all of the eyewitnesses were lying or mistaken. That is a fair argument, IMO.

Yet, when asked: "What of all the eyewitnesses who said Lovelady was Doorman?" -- he dismisses them as if they were all lying or mistaken.

This is not a case of False Equivalency because there is no evidence indicating that the eyewitnesses to the limo stop were any more or less reliable than

the eyewitnesses who said Billy Lovelady was Doorman and was not Oswald.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lindsay,

But if he was wearing the red-and-white, vertically striped short-sleeved

shirt he showed to the FBI, which they confirmed he had identified as the

shirt he had been wearing, and which he also confirmed to Jones Harris,

THEN HE CANNOT HAVE BEEN DOORMAN, because the shirt that he

(Doorman) was wearing was not red-and-white, vertically striped, or

short sleeved. So we know that Billy was not Doorman. And if he was

not Doorman--having gone to such considerable lengths to establish the

shirt he had been wearing at the time--then anyone who was attributing

that view to him was doing so falsely or else--and there is no other way

to explain this--he had been pressured to claim he was Doorman after

all. More than 100 witnesses in the JFK case died mysterious deaths.

It would hardly be surprising if Billy had not wanted to add to that list.

And since we now know that he was 3" shorter and 15-20 lbs heavier

than Oswald, he has AGAIN disqualified himself from being Doorman,

who was a physical match for Oswald but not for someone who was

3" shorter and 15-20 lbs heavier. So I hope you will factor all of this in

your reasoning. BILLY LOVELADY CANNOT HAVE BEEN DOORMAN.

The agents writing the report did not want to disappoint their boss, who

had the reputation of dealing harshly with those who did. They had been

directed to provide proof that Lovelady was Doorman. They could not do

that, given what Billy had told them and the photographs they had taken.

So they faked it and hoped that Director Hoover would not punish them.

Lindsay,

Why do you suggest Lovelady had confirmed THAT HE WAS DOORMAN?

The shirt he took to the FBI and was photographed wearing was a short-

sleeved, red-and-white vertically striped shirt, which looked NOTHING LIKE

THE SHIRT DOORMAN WAS WEARING. The point of Ralph's short piece

is to explain that the arrow that has been attributed to Lovelady in the past

was actually drawn by Frazier, where Ralph has found the arrow that Billy

actually drew. It was a "bait and switch". Did you simply misstate your view?

Jim

No, I didn't mistake my view, I looked again at the FBI letter.

You confirmed on the earlier thread that Lovelady would not have been playing games with the shirt -

I don't think he would play games identifying himself to the FBI as the individual on the far left side of the doorway (if that was not him) either.

Edited March 11, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Robin Unger]

Jim

Please post any firm evidence you have that Lovelady was asked to wear a specific shirt when he met with the FBI.

Please post any firm evidence you have that Lovelady was aware that the FBI were going to insist on taking his photo while at that meeting.

And i am talking about official Evidence, ( Documents )

not some version passed on 3rd hand by an assassination researcher, who says that he spoke to Lovelady, and Lovelady told him this and that, ( that's not proof )

If you can't do that then your whole Lovelady red and white stripe, short sleeve shirt scenario is meaningless.

and shows that you are just clutching at straws.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE

Edited March 11, 2013 by Robin Unger