How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?

[Royell Storing]

Dear Comrade Storing,

It's too bad that the longitudinal axis of your MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR (and the parallel "island") weren't perfectly perpendicular (or should I say parallel?) to the lenses of Couch's, Darnell's and Wiegman's cameras, but it wasn't, and therefore, the front part of the car appears to be well to right of the traffic light pole in Couch and Darnell. The important thing is that James' spliced-together Wiegman frame lines up well with the pertinent frames from Couch and Darnell (i.e., Couch, Darnell, and Wiegman shot the scene from almost identical positions in the Elm Street / Houston Street intersection, and therefore objects in Couch and Darnell can be compared location-wise, with objects in Wiegman to see whether or not they moved from where they were about twenty seconds earlier in Wiegman, and if so, how much and in which direction.

I contend that if the gaggle of about ten shoulder-to-shoulder people had remained in place for about twenty seconds after the final shot, we wouldn't be able to see any part of your MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAAY CAR in any part of Couch-Darnell.

-- Tom

     The ONLY Film that matters in this discussion is the Wiegman Film. Specifically, the Wiegman Film snippet showing Fedora Man. What the Darnell/Couch film shows of the car is Not Important. We see this same car on the Hughes Film and the Martin Film. Same Car, Same Spot. The Darnell/Couch Films are not the sole source for verifying this car was parked alongside the Island. What DOES MATTER is the Wiegman Film NOT SHOWING any trace of this car on the (L) of Fedora Man. A 17.5' X 4'  automobile. And why is that? This car was NOT THERE Yet! 

[Tom Graves]

What the Darnell/Couch film shows of the car is unimportant.

Dear Comrade Storing,

Question:

Do the Coutch and Darnell films accurately capture the location of THE HUGE GATES in relation to other non-movable objects or features in the field of view?

Answer:

Yes, of course.

Question:

If your MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR were a permanent, non-movable feature in the Darnell film (like the edge of the building where THE HUGE GATES start), wouldn't it be hidden behind the gaggle of people in the Wiegman film?

-- Tom

[Royell Storing]

Dear Comrade Storing,

It's too bad that the longitudinal axis of your MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR (and the parallel "island") weren't perfectly perpendicular (or should I say parallel?) to the lenses of Couch's, Darnell's and Wiegman's cameras, but it wasn't, and therefore, the front part of the car appears to be well to right of the traffic light pole in Couch and Darnell. The important thing is that James' spliced-together Wiegman frame lines up well with the pertinent frames from Couch and Darnell (i.e., Couch, Darnell, and Wiegman shot the scene from almost identical positions in the Elm Street / Houston Street intersection, and therefore objects in Couch and Darnell can be compared location-wise, with objects in Wiegman to see whether or not they moved from where they were about twenty seconds earlier in Wiegman, and if so, how much and in which direction.

I contend that if the gaggle of about ten shoulder-to-shoulder people had remained in place for about twenty seconds after the final shot, we wouldn't be able to see any part of your MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAAY CAR in any part of Couch-Darnell.

-- Tom

        This car is roughly 17.5' X 4' and you're telling me that somehow this entire car has somehow completely disappeared from the Wiegman Film? That is David Copperfield and his disappearing elephant worthy.
        With respect to, "..... people had remained in place for about twenty seconds....", I ask you to review the Towner Film vs the Wiegman Film with respect to individuals movement on/around the Island. And this includes Fedora Man. I continue urging you to actually DO THE RESEARCH and review the JFK Assassination Films/Images. It is obvious that your JFK Assassination Image foundation is currently lacking. Please get off of your duff and do the legit research work and catch up. ALL of this is available on You Tube. Stop screwing around with Lego Car visual aids, overlays, and "shadow dancing" guess work. Try actually examining good copies of the JFK assassination films. 

[Tom Graves]

With respect to, "..... people had remained in place for about twenty seconds....", I ask you to review the Towner Film vs the Wiegman Film with respect to individuals movement on/around the Island. And this includes Fedora Man. I continue urging you to actually DO THE RESEARCH and review the JFK Assassination Films/Images. It is obvious that your JFK Assassination Image foundation is currently lacking. Please get off of your duff and do the legit research work and catch up. ALL of this is available on You Tube. Stop screwing around with Lego Car visual aids, overlays, and "shadow dancing" guess work. Try actually examining good copies of the JFK assassination films.

Dear Comrade Storing,

Why did you leave out my word, "If"?

Are you dishonest, or just stupid?

Here's my complete sentence. I've done a little editing in a (probably futile) attempt to help you understand:

"I contend that if the gaggle of about ten shoulder-to-shoulder people [that we see in Wiegman] had remained in place for about twenty [more] seconds after the final shot, we wouldn't be able to see any part of your MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR in any part of Couch-Darnell [, either]"

-- Tom

PS "Royell Storing -- the Fox News of JFKA researchers."

[Dan O'meara]

I quote Bart:

"The bald patch is a total giveaway.

I used 4 different sharpening techniques in photoshop."

Whatever, carry on.

(It is kind of a total giveaway.)

I see that, whilst I was on holiday, we lost a deluded blowhard. I'd say "Good Riddance" but he'll be back as he likes to 'retire' every now and then just to see who'll miss him.

"The bald patch is a total giveaway."

Why is this such an idiotic thing to post?
The point of this thread is to question the validity of the image that Bart Kamp 'sharpened', that appears to show Shelley and Lovelady on the Elm St Ext. about 25 seconds after the shooting. It is an image taken from "a huge Couch film print in Richard E Sprague’s collection".
The image appears to show the distinctive chequered pattern of Lovelady's shirt and his distinctive bald patch.



The issue is this - there is no other image, taken from any version of the Couch footage, that shows this level of detail regarding Lovelady's shirt and bald patch.
It might then be assumed that Kamp's Lovelady image was taken from the best version of the Couch film and that is why it's got so much detail.
But this is not the case.
In fact, the opposite is true - Kamp's Lovelady image comes from one of the worst versions of Couch. The image it is taken from is completely washed out and has no fine detail in it - apart from Lovelady's shirt and bald patch!!



Look at how poor this image is. Look at how washed out it is.
There are many versions of the Couch footage on the internet, all of varying quality and most of a superior quality to this 'Sprague print' version.
The best quality version I've come across is from "Four Days In November". Look at how superior this image is when compared to the Sprague print. Look at how clear it is and how much detail is contained in this image.



However, when I focus on the two individuals in question, and in particular 'Lovelady', we see no sign of a chequered pattern or a bald patch:



This leads me to conclude that the image 'sharpened' by Kamp has been manipulated in such a way as to create the chequered pattern and bald patch. These features are not present on any extant version of the Couch footage I can find.
Whether deliberately or inadvertently, the Sprague image is fake. The original version of Couch does not show a chequered pattern OR a bald patch. These features have been added to the Sprague print and to that print alone.

All of this was pointed out to the Deluded One and all he could muster was - "The bald patch is a total giveaway."
How can it be that no other version of the Couch footage has the chequered pattern or the bald patch? -  "The bald patch is a total giveaway."
How can one of the worst copies of the Couch footage produce an image with such fine detail? -  "The bald patch is a total giveaway."
How can Kamp's 'fake' image be used to identify Shelley and Lovelady? -  "The bald patch is a total giveaway."

[Tom Graves]

[...]

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

You and Comrade Storing are on the same side, now, because he no longer wants the two guys who are walking/running towards the Elm Street Extension about 25 seconds after the final shot in Couch-Darnell to be William Shelley and Billy Lovelady, but . . . gasp . . . THE GETAWAY-CAR-ABANDONING, missing-everything "SNIPER IN THE BUSHES" and his SPOTTER!!!

LOL!

-- Tom

[Royell Storing]

I see that, whilst I was on holiday, we lost a deluded blowhard. I'd say "Good Riddance" but he'll be back as he likes to 'retire' every now and then just to see who'll miss him.

"The bald patch is a total giveaway."

Why is this such an idiotic thing to post?
The point of this thread is to question the validity of the image that Bart Kamp 'sharpened', that appears to show Shelley and Lovelady on the Elm St Ext. about 25 seconds after the shooting. It is an image taken from "a huge Couch film print in Richard E Sprague’s collection".
The image appears to show the distinctive chequered pattern of Lovelady's shirt and his distinctive bald patch.



The issue is this - there is no other image, taken from any version of the Couch footage, that shows this level of detail regarding Lovelady's shirt and bald patch.
It might then be assumed that Kamp's Lovelady image was taken from the best version of the Couch film and that is why it's got so much detail.
But this is not the case.
In fact, the opposite is true - Kamp's Lovelady image comes from one of the worst versions of Couch. The image it is taken from is completely washed out and has no fine detail in it - apart from Lovelady's shirt and bald patch!!



Look at how poor this image is. Look at how washed out it is.
There are many versions of the Couch footage on the internet, all of varying quality and most of a superior quality to this 'Sprague print' version.
The best quality version I've come across is from "Four Days In November". Look at how superior this image is when compared to the Sprague print. Look at how clear it is and how much detail is contained in this image.



However, when I focus on the two individuals in question, and in particular 'Lovelady', we see no sign of a chequered pattern or a bald patch:



This leads me to conclude that the image 'sharpened' by Kamp has been manipulated in such a way as to create the chequered pattern and bald patch. These features are not present on any extant version of the Couch footage I can find.
Whether deliberately or inadvertently, the Sprague image is fake. The original version of Couch does not show a chequered pattern OR a bald patch. These features have been added to the Sprague print and to that print alone.

All of this was pointed out to the Deluded One and all he could muster was - "The bald patch is a total giveaway."
How can it be that no other version of the Couch footage has the chequered pattern or the bald patch? -  "The bald patch is a total giveaway."
How can one of the worst copies of the Couch footage produce an image with such fine detail? -  "The bald patch is a total giveaway."
How can Kamp's 'fake' image be used to identify Shelley and Lovelady? -  "The bald patch is a total giveaway."

   DAN - Good to have you back. Having an adult at the table making acute observations followed by educated opinions is always welcome.