Dear danny BOY o'meara,
Are you denying that real-deal Lovelady had a bald spot and was wearing a "checkered" / "plaid" shirt that day?
-- Tom
Really?

I'm pointing out the undeniable fact that the images I've posted of Lovelady (The PBS and Royell) have no checkered pattern and no bald patch. IN THESE IMAGES THERE IS NO CHECKERED PATTERN AND NO BALD PATCH.
The real Lovelady was obviously wearing a shirt with a checkered pattern and had a bald patch. These are the two things you've been using to identify Lovelady in the image Bart Kamp created.
But in the best available images independent of Kamp (and images of a far superior quality) THERE IS NO CHECKERED PATTERN AND NO BALD PATCH.
Do I need to draw you a diagram?
F*ck it...I'll draw you a diagram.
This is the image Kamp used to get his image of Lovelady from:

Look at the poor quality of this image in general. How washed out it is and how there is a lack of fine detail.
In contrast, here is an image from the Couch footage Royell pointed me to:

Look at how superior this image is in quality, look at how much more detail is present in this image.
One would have thought that the more detailed picture of Lovelady would come from the superior image.
BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
The picture of Lovelady that has the very fine detail (of the distinctive check pattern of his shirt) comes from the inferior image.
How can that be?
Surely even you can understand the point that is being made.
Try not to troll your way out of this for once.
Try and actually engage.
The composite below consist of the two 'Loveladys' taken directly from the images above.
The KAMP image, although of an inferior quality to the ROYELL image, shows a wealth of detail not present in the superior image.
How can this be?
