How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?

[Dan O'meara]

There are a number of forum members who have certain expertise when it comes to image analysis.
I am completely out of my comfort zone with that sort of thing, so I need a helping hand trying to understand how the image below was created.



The identification of Lovelady in the above image has been described as "conclusive" and "definitive".
Even though the known testimonial evidence relating to this identification, when taken as a whole, completely refutes this identification (as I've been arguing on a different thread).
It has boiled down to so-called researchers simply ignoring the evidence because  how can the "testimonial evidence affect what we can see with our own eyes?"
After all, just look at the level of detail in the shirt. It is clearly Lovelady's shirt because it is so distinctive and we can clearly see the pattern of it.

At some point in the debate on the other thread I posted this crop from the Gerda Dunkel footage:



I was struck by the lack of detail on 'Lovelady's' shirt.
There didn't seem to be even the faintest trace of it.
I knew Kemp had used Photoshop to sharpen the images but when I tried it I got nothing.

So I had a look on the Prayer Man website where other forum members kept pointing me towards to see if I could get a better understanding. In the part about the image Kemp writes:

"For starters, take a look at the Gerda Dunckel gifs below and check Lovelady’s shirt in the very first few frames and also check out the large still I snagged from PBS Breaking The News, click to enlarge, yes that shirt is checkered, compare it to other garments of a lighter colour or the polka dot coat which do not smudge due to  motion and quality loss. Then look at Shelly, with his black suit and his facial and hair features."

I've already posted the Dunkel image and there is no checkered image there so he must be referring to the PBS image posted on the website, from which I got this image (all I did was blow the image up and crop it from the original image):



Now, with all the best will in the world, I'm not seeing the checkered pattern that Kemp is insisting is there.
I can see four pieces of rectangular, what I would call, photographic 'noise' impinging on the right side of' Lovelady' as we look at him and there is a similar effect bleeding over between the two men. But no checkered pattern.
If any of our resident images can make a comment on my assessment of this I would be grateful.

So, we then come to the image that the amazing level of detail on Lovelady's shirt appears to be taken from. As Kemp explains:

This...Scan of a Couch film still at first looks very harsh and doesn’t overall have much information, but it does happen to show a lot regarding our illustrious duo. This print comes from the Richard E. Sprague Collection from the National Archives.




And this is where my complete lack of expertise kicks in.
In the above image we can now clearly see that there is a defined pattern on Lovelady's shirt.
There is a square of a lighter shade around the two men. I don't know if it was like that when Kemp originally got the image or if this is a result of his work on the image. If it is I would really like to see the original image
But here's the thing I'm not getting. To my eye, the Sprague image (from which we get the "definitive" Lovelady) lacks an incredible amount of detail compared to this large crop PBS image:




Note in PBS image, the pattern of the first floor 'windows',the concrete lattice in front of the windows, and then notice the complete lack of it in the Sprague image. Just compare the two images in general and we acn see that the PBS image is a far more detailed, yet the close-up of Lovelady in that image does not have any hint of the incredible shirt pattern in the inferior Sprague image.
Can anyone help me understand this?

LATER EDIT:
If anyone has, or can point me to, the Couch film that has the amazing level of detail please could you post it because every version I've come across so far is not anywhere near close the definition required

[Tom Graves]

There are a number of forum members who have certain expertise when it comes to image analysis.
I am completely out of my comfort zone with that sort of thing, so I need a helping hand trying to understand how the image below was created.



The identification of Lovelady in the above image has been described as "conclusive" and "definitive".
Even though the known testimonial evidence relating to this identification, when taken as a whole, completely refutes this identification (as I've been arguing on a different thread).
It has boiled down to so-called researchers simply ignoring the evidence because  how can the "testimonial evidence affect what we can see with our own eyes?"
After all, just look at the level of detail in the shirt. It is clearly Lovelady's shirt because it is so distinctive and we can clearly see the pattern of it.

At some point in the debate on the other thread I posted this crop from the Gerda Dunkel footage:



I was struck by the lack of detail on 'Lovelady's' shirt.
There didn't seem to be even the faintest trace of it.
I knew Kemp had used Photoshop to sharpen the images but when I tried it I got nothing.

So I had a look on the Prayer Man website where other forum members kept pointing me towards to see if I could get a better understanding. In the part about the image Kemp writes:

"For starters, take a look at the Gerda Dunckel gifs below and check Lovelady’s shirt in the very first few frames and also check out the large still I snagged from PBS Breaking The News, click to enlarge, yes that shirt is checkered, compare it to other garments of a lighter colour or the polka dot coat which do not smudge due to  motion and quality loss. Then look at Shelly, with his black suit and his facial and hair features."

I've already posted the Dunkel image and there is no checkered image there so he must be referring to the PBS image posted on the website, from which I got this image (all I did was blow the image up and crop it from the original image):



Now, with all the best will in the world, I'm not seeing the checkered pattern that Kemp is insisting is there.
I can see four pieces of rectangular, what I would call, photographic 'noise' impinging on the right side of' Lovelady' as we look at him and there is a similar effect bleeding over between the two men. But no checkered pattern.
If any of our resident images can make a comment on my assessment of this I would be grateful.

So, we then come to the image that the amazing level of detail on Lovelady's shirt appears to be taken from. As Kemp explains:

This...Scan of a Couch film still at first looks very harsh and doesn’t overall have much information, but it does happen to show a lot regarding our illustrious duo. This print comes from the Richard E. Sprague Collection from the National Archives.




And this is where my complete lack of expertise kicks in.
In the above image we can now clearly see that there is a defined pattern on Lovelady's shirt.
There is a square of a lighter shade around the two men. I don't know if it was like that when Kemp originally got the image or if this is a result of his work on the image. If it is I would really like to see the original image
But here's the thing I'm not getting. To my eye, the Sprague image (from which we get the "definitive" Lovelady) lacks an incredible amount of detail compared to this large crop PBS image:




Note in PBS image, the pattern of the first floor 'windows',the concrete lattice in front of the windows, and then notice the complete lack of it in the Sprague image. Just compare the two images in general and we acn see that the PBS image is a far more detailed, yet the close-up of Lovelady in that image does not have any hint of the incredible shirt pattern in the inferior Sprague image.
Can anyone help me understand this?

LATER EDIT:
If anyone has, or can point me to, the Couch film that has the amazing level of detail please could you post it because every version I've come across so far is not anywhere near close the definition required

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

His name isn't Kemp.

It's Kamp.

Bart Kamp.

-- Tom

PS While you're at it, you should try to find out how Kamp created "Lovelady's" bald spot.

[Royell Storing]

 Personally, I do believe I see traces of white running across the PBS pictured shirt. Like a checkered pattern would have. Same goes for that woman wearing the jacket with the scarf in the bottom (R) of the same image. If she is actually wearing a checkered pattern coat of some sort, I think that verifies what I think I can see on the alleged Lovelady shirt. Does anyone definitely know what that woman on the bottom (R) was wearing? 

[Dan O'meara]

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

His name isn't Kemp.

It's Kamp.

Bart Kamp.

-- Tom

PS While you're at it, you should try to find out how Kamp created "Lovelady's" bald spot.

My bad, lil' thomas. I'll get it changed.
Hopefully, when someone with a bit of expertise chips in I'll understand even the bald spot, as that doesn't appear on any other images along with the checkered pattern.
No bald spot, no checkered pattern.
These are such fine details I just can't get my head round how it was done.

[Dan O'meara]

Personally, I do believe I see traces of white running across the PBS pictured shirt. Like a checkered pattern would have. Same goes for that woman wearing the jacket with the scarf in the bottom (R) of the same image. If she is actually wearing a checkered pattern coat of some sort, I think that verifies what I think I can see on the alleged Lovelady shirt. Does anyone definitely know what that woman on the bottom (R) was wearing?

Not convinced I'm seeing the pattern in PBS, just 'noise'
Would be good to get the opinion of someone with a bit of expertise as I'm a bit over "it looks like that to me"

[Dan O'meara]

Royell steered me to a Couch clip which is the best quality I've come across:



I cropped and blew up the two men:



There is a hint of something on the shirt in this image that may be a pattern but I wouldn't have an idea how to get it to stand out.
Maybe someone who knows what they're doing can have a go.

[Dan O'meara]

I've tried as much as I can, blindly messing about with sharpening, contrast, etc., to bring out the pattern in the shirt but to no avail:



The more I look at it, the more mystified I am by the Sprague picture that Kamp used to create his 'Lovelady' image.
Compared to the image I cropped from the incredibly high quality Crouch footage that Royell steered me too, the Sprague image is totally inferior.
Yet, out of nowhere, there is this unbelievable amount of detail in the Sprague image - but only in Lovelady's shirt!
This level of detail is not to be seen anywhere in the larger image.
What am I missing?

[Lance Payette]

Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep ...

CTers are so entertaining when they go completely off the deep end. If Michael would weigh in on this issue, my life would be complete. It almost makes me sorry to be trapped in this prison of rational thought.

The checkered pattern is also obvious on the PBS image, which Bart and his minions presumably didn't fake with the Photoshop Checkered Shirt program. To nail down the provenance of the questioned images once and for all, Bart himself explained that they are from an "R*KC scan of a Couch print" from the Richard E. Sprague Collection at the National Archives. Bart first posted them nearly ten years ago.

Bart, who does have a way with words, observed:

"I am going to put an end to this debate whether Lovelady and Shelly stayed on the steps ,,, to which certain people subscribe to for some obscure reason, there is just plenty to refute this rubbish assertion.

"Obscure," indeed, which is presumably why so many people, including me, are unable to fathom the point of Dan's endless thread on the "ramifications" of all this.

Next step in the evolution: There were two identical shirts, one on HARVEY and one on LEE. At least that I can understand.