How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?

[Tom Graves]

The bald spot doesn't appear on any other images along with the checkered pattern.
No bald spot, no checkered pattern.

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

[Royell Storing]

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.

   You put the possible shirt pattern aside, that shirt does drape the upper body on that photo just as it does with Lovelady. And those are Lovelady's slouching shoulders too. Just think of how we see Lovelady when he is sitting down inside Police HQ and Oswald is led past him. ALL of this points right at Lovelady. There is nothing visually ruling him out. Nothing. 

[Dan O'meara]

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?

[Dan O'meara]

   You put the possible shirt pattern aside, that shirt does drape the upper body on that photo just as it does with Lovelady. And those are Lovelady's slouching shoulders too. Just think of how we see Lovelady when he is sitting down inside Police HQ and Oswald is led past him. ALL of this points right at Lovelady. There is nothing visually ruling him out. Nothing.

You misunderstand, Royell.
I'm not saying, and I have never said, that Lovelady can be ruled out by simply looking at the image above.
What I'm saying is that you cannot look at this image and make a positive identification of Lovelady from it.
The image is simply not good enough to make a positive ID of anyone.
Furthermore, this crop of 'Lovelady' comes from the best quality Couch image available and it does not show a checkered pattern or a bald spot.
The mystery is this - how could Kamp generate a more detailed image of Lovelady's shirt and bald spot from an inferior image? Particularly when the 'Lovelady' from the superior image has none of this fine detail.

[Tom Graves]

This crop of 'Lovelady' comes from the best quality Couch image available, and it does not show a checkered pattern or a bald spot.

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

Perhaps it does come from the best quality Couch image available, but you did over-enlarge it a bit, didn't you.

Regardless, at least two blurry white stripes are visible in Lovelady's shirt in your version.

-- Tom

[Dan O'meara]

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

Perhaps it does come from the best quality Couch image available, but you did over-enlarge it a bit, didn't you.

Regardless, at least two blurry white stripes are visible in Lovelady's shirt in your version.

-- Tom

 
Did I over-enlarge it, lil' thomas?
Is it too big for you, Diddums?
Would you prefer a smaller one?

What an idiotic thing to post 

And I'm glad you agree that there's no checkered pattern or bald spot visible in the best quality Couch image.
Can you still identify Lovelady from the image, lil' thomas?
Now that there's no checkered pattern or bald spot?
Are you going to abandon the identification like you did with Ochus?
Good lad.

[Tom Graves]

[...]

Dear Dan "I Was A Bad Boy So They Made Me Stood in the Corner" O'meara,

Do you think JFKA conspiracy theorist Bart Kamp (with an "a") painted that bald spot on Lovelady's head and those stripes on his shirt?

-- Tom 

[Dan O'meara]

Dear Dan "I Was A Bad Boy So They Made Me Stood in the Corner" O'meara,

Do you think JFKA conspiracy theorist Bart Kamp (with an "a") painted that bald spot on Lovelady's head and those stripes on his shirt?

-- Tom

You might be onto something, lil' thomas.
That would certainly explain how he managed to create the extraordinary level of detail in his Lovelady image, considering there isn't the slightest hint of a bald spot or checkered pattern in far superior images.
But, before you throw Bart under the bus, it would be good to get the opinion of someone more knowledgeable when it comes to image enhancement.