Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?  (Read 110457 times)

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5563
Re: How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?
« Reply #455 on: August 09, 2026, 10:28:17 PM »
Don't worry Royell...We have the pro-active Jim DiEugenio who will use his access to the Task Force to convince them the 6th Floor Museum version is the best existing version and needs to be obtained using the Task Force's power...

We've got The Education Forum on it...

And, no, Jim D isn't a skunk who is avoiding it because he knows the 6th Floor Museum copy proves Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton...

   "Task Force"? I am beginning to understand why the Ed Forum collapsed. Just when is this Task Force gonna "Storm The Bastille"? 

Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?
« Reply #456 on: Yesterday at 12:50:37 AM »
Dan:

It is understood amongst credible researchers that Lovelady & Shelley were gotten to lie and push back their departure time from the front steps to 3 minutes after the shots in order to make Victoria Adams look silly and to destroy her witnessing of Oswald not being on the Northwest steps when the official story needed him to be...There's some basic rules of evidence you are violating here...We can see Lovelady & Shelley fast-walking up the extension in Couch/Darnell so therefore visual film evidence trumps testimony and shows that Lovelady & Shelley left the steps around 20 seconds after the shots when they were inspired by Calvery to go up to the Knoll and see for themselves...You are violating the rules of evidence as well as rational thought because we can see Lovelady & Shelley going up the extension in Couch/Darnell and it tells us what the true version is...

Brian,

It is not understood amongst credible researchers that Shelley and Lovelady were made to lie about departure time from the steps.
Your notion that it was done to discredit Adams' testimony is truly ridiculous for a number of very basic, common sense reasons.

Your insistence that couch/Darnell shows Shelley and Lovelady is based on a single, doctored image.
There is no version of Couch or Darnell from which Shelley and Lovelady can be identified. If you believe there is then post it or cite it.
Show some actual evidence to back up your claims. That is all you are being asked to do.
Your credibility as a researcher hangs on the quality of the evidence you provide to support your claims.
You seem to imagine that you can just keep stating a thing and that makes it valid. This is clearly not the case.
Other than the doctored Sprague image, post another image from which we can identify Shelley and Lovelady.

OTHERWISE, JUST ADMIT THAT YOUR OPINION IS BASED SOLELY ON THE SPRAGUE IMAGE.

Quote
The version Bart Kamp used was the Sprague copy...Obviously Sprague used the best enhancement technology of his day which was probably limited to brightness and zoom...One thing is clear though, Sprague used the original celluloid films as his source, as is evidenced by the fact Kamp was able to get the best detail in his enhancements...That best source that Kamp accessed was able to produce the visible details seen on Lovelady & Shelley as well as Lovelady's bald spot...Lovelady's plaid pattern is a geometric match and matches his plaid shirt pattern precisely...That is a dead-lock that makes the sincerity of what you offer suspect...No serious researcher would doubt the men being Lovelady & Shelley at that point...

This thread is about the validity of the single image you base your incorrect opinion on.
ALL EVIDENCE relating to this issue, other than the doctored Sprague image, refutes the identification of Shelley and Lovelady on the extension..
Where does that leave your credibility as a researcher?

The Sprague image is incredibly dubious.
Kamp himself admits that the image contains very little information (it is an incredibly poor image) apart from the incredible detail of Lovelady's shirt and bald patch!!
How is that possible
The Prayer Man cult was founded on the dubious manipulation of photographic images and if you have a look at what Kamp is doing with AI recently...

It is physically impossible for Shelley and Lovelady to have been that far down the extension within 20 seconds if they had an interaction with Gloria on the steps.
To suggest otherwise lacks credibility and requires a heavy dose of gullibility.


Online Brian Doyle

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?
« Reply #457 on: Yesterday at 03:22:47 PM »

  10 years ago Sandy Larsen managed to enhance and enlarge Lovelady on the extension and juxtapose the plaid pattern on his shirt with the plaid pattern seen in other photos of Lovelady that day...When enhanced and enlarged in this manner the white, black, and red stripes and patches in Lovelady's plaid shirt matched identically therefore proving a scientific match beyond doubt and ending the issue...I was banned from The Education Forum at the time so I could not participate in this discovery...The only visible Assassination discussion site I could post on at that time was this one so I posted that Larsen's confirmation that the man was Lovelady served to establish the chronology and time stamp of Couch/Darnell proving that it was at the exact time that Frazier said Sarah Stanton turned to him to tell him what Calvery had shouted (actually it is the time period just following that)...I posted that therefore it was required of Larsen, as a person who thrust himself forward on the subject as an expert, to recognize this and respond that his identification of Lovelady therefore logically led to an identification of the time that Frazier said he was talking to Stanton and that Couch/Darnell and that time were exactly the same...Larsen had also photographically identified Calvery on the steps, doubly confirming this time stamp...

Larsen must have been reading because soon after, that post on The Education Forum, that did the excellent skilled photo analysis of Lovelady's plaid pattern in Couch/Darnell, disappeared from the board...I protested but it was ignored...The same Prayer Man hijacker majority that tolerated my wrongful banning from The Education Forum for disproving Prayer Man was the same dishonest membership that tolerated Larsen cheating and taking back what could not be taken back...The true purpose of the moderation on that forum is not enforcing strict academic rules in order to improve rigor...The purpose for Gordon's rogue moderation was to make sure a disliked researcher didn't wade in and hand the Prayer Man people their butts on the Prayer Man issue and show how uncredible the forum was...To add insult to injury, a few years later I saw Larsen post that the man on the steps facing Calvery was Lovelady...The only reason I couldn't make Larsen answer for his amnesia was due to my being censored...The membership didn't even notice and didn't say a word...The reason Larsen called the man on the steps Lovelady was so he could preserve his Prayer Man nonsense and avoid admitting the time...This is the playing field that exists on the JFK internet...One where Andrew Iler, instead of correcting this rogue injustice, posts how to put people on ignore and then locks the thread...

What happens when the 6th Floor Museum copy replicates Larsen's matching of the plaid in Lovelady's shirt?...

Or shows Molina facing Calvery on the steps?...

Photo alteration claims?... 

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5563
Re: How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?
« Reply #458 on: Yesterday at 03:34:07 PM »
  10 years ago Sandy Larsen managed to enhance and enlarge Lovelady on the extension and juxtapose the plaid pattern on his shirt with the plaid pattern seen in other photos of Lovelady that day...When enhanced and enlarged in this manner the white, black, and red stripes and patches in Lovelady's plaid shirt matched identically therefore proving a scientific match beyond doubt and ending the issue...I was banned from The Education Forum at the time so I could not participate in this discovery...The only visible Assassination discussion site I could post on at that time was this one so I posted that Larsen's confirmation that the man was Lovelady served to establish the chronology and time stamp of Couch/Darnell proving that it was at the exact time that Frazier said Sarah Stanton turned to him to tell him what Calvery had shouted (actually it is the time period just following that)...I posted that therefore it was required of Larsen, as a person who thrust himself forward on the subject as an expert, to recognize this and respond that his identification of Lovelady therefore logically led to an identification of the time that Frazier said he was talking to Stanton and that Couch/Darnell and that time were exactly the same...Larsen had also photographically identified Calvery on the steps, doubly confirming this time stamp...

Larsen must have been reading because soon after, that post on The Education Forum, that did the excellent skilled photo analysis of Lovelady's plaid pattern in Couch/Darnell, disappeared from the board...I protested but it was ignored...The same Prayer Man hijacker majority that tolerated my wrongful banning from The Education Forum for disproving Prayer Man was the same dishonest membership that tolerated Larsen cheating and taking back what could not be taken back...The true purpose of the moderation on that forum is not enforcing strict academic rules in order to improve rigor...The purpose for Gordon's rogue moderation was to make sure a disliked researcher didn't wade in and hand the Prayer Man people their butts on the Prayer Man issue and show how uncredible the forum was...To add insult to injury, a few years later I saw Larsen post that the man on the steps facing Calvery was Lovelady...The only reason I couldn't make Larsen answer for his amnesia was due to my being censored...The membership didn't even notice and didn't say a word...The reason Larsen called the man on the steps Lovelady was so he could preserve his Prayer Man nonsense and avoid admitting the time...This is the playing field that exists on the JFK internet...One where Andrew Iler, instead of correcting this rogue injustice, posts how to put people on ignore and then locks the thread...

What happens when the 6th Floor Museum copy replicates Larsen's matching of the plaid in Lovelady's shirt?...

Or shows Molina facing Calvery on the steps?...

Photo alteration claims?...

   ALL of this baloney traces back to the Ed Forum. Now known as "The Nut House". An obviously well earned moniker.

Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?
« Reply #459 on: Today at 12:43:32 AM »
  10 years ago Sandy Larsen managed to enhance and enlarge Lovelady on the extension and juxtapose the plaid pattern on his shirt with the plaid pattern seen in other photos of Lovelady that day...When enhanced and enlarged in this manner the white, black, and red stripes and patches in Lovelady's plaid shirt matched identically therefore proving a scientific match beyond doubt and ending the issue...I was banned from The Education Forum at the time so I could not participate in this discovery...The only visible Assassination discussion site I could post on at that time was this one so I posted that Larsen's confirmation that the man was Lovelady served to establish the chronology and time stamp of Couch/Darnell proving that it was at the exact time that Frazier said Sarah Stanton turned to him to tell him what Calvery had shouted (actually it is the time period just following that)...I posted that therefore it was required of Larsen, as a person who thrust himself forward on the subject as an expert, to recognize this and respond that his identification of Lovelady therefore logically led to an identification of the time that Frazier said he was talking to Stanton and that Couch/Darnell and that time were exactly the same...Larsen had also photographically identified Calvery on the steps, doubly confirming this time stamp...

Larsen must have been reading because soon after, that post on The Education Forum, that did the excellent skilled photo analysis of Lovelady's plaid pattern in Couch/Darnell, disappeared from the board...I protested but it was ignored...The same Prayer Man hijacker majority that tolerated my wrongful banning from The Education Forum for disproving Prayer Man was the same dishonest membership that tolerated Larsen cheating and taking back what could not be taken back...The true purpose of the moderation on that forum is not enforcing strict academic rules in order to improve rigor...The purpose for Gordon's rogue moderation was to make sure a disliked researcher didn't wade in and hand the Prayer Man people their butts on the Prayer Man issue and show how uncredible the forum was...To add insult to injury, a few years later I saw Larsen post that the man on the steps facing Calvery was Lovelady...The only reason I couldn't make Larsen answer for his amnesia was due to my being censored...The membership didn't even notice and didn't say a word...The reason Larsen called the man on the steps Lovelady was so he could preserve his Prayer Man nonsense and avoid admitting the time...This is the playing field that exists on the JFK internet...One where Andrew Iler, instead of correcting this rogue injustice, posts how to put people on ignore and then locks the thread...

What happens when the 6th Floor Museum copy replicates Larsen's matching of the plaid in Lovelady's shirt?...

Or shows Molina facing Calvery on the steps?...

Photo alteration claims?...

I'm sorry Brian, but you clearly live in some kind of dream world where you believe you can just spin your yarns and that's enough...everyone else has to fall in line.
PROVIDE EVIDENCE.
Provide the image you are referring to.
Cite the thread you are talking about.
Provide a link to this thread.
Do something!
Do something that demonstrates you are a credible researcher and not just some dreamer talking nonsense.

I will gladly accept any genuine evidence that is contrary to what I currently believe because that brings me closer to truly understanding.
Please provide some kind of evidence.
Your recollections are not evidence.
For all I know, you could be talking complete sh!t.
How can I know otherwise if you don't actually provide any evidence.

Start with this very simple question - what was the origin of the image Sandy Larsen enhanced?
And provide some kind of link to this thread.


Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5563
Re: How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?
« Reply #460 on: Today at 05:48:59 AM »
I'm sorry Brian, but you clearly live in some kind of dream world where you believe you can just spin your yarns and that's enough...everyone else has to fall in line.
PROVIDE EVIDENCE.
Provide the image you are referring to.
Cite the thread you are talking about.
Provide a link to this thread.
Do something!
Do something that demonstrates you are a credible researcher and not just some dreamer talking nonsense.

I will gladly accept any genuine evidence that is contrary to what I currently believe because that brings me closer to truly understanding.
Please provide some kind of evidence.
Your recollections are not evidence.
For all I know, you could be talking complete sh!t.
How can I know otherwise if you don't actually provide any evidence.

Start with this very simple question - what was the origin of the image Sandy Larsen enhanced?
And provide some kind of link to this thread.

   He thinks this is the Ed Forum. The "Nut House" had an extremely low bar. Just claim something and then glom a recognizable name to the discussion. Total  BS:

Online Mark A. Oblazney

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
Re: How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?
« Reply #461 on: Today at 06:06:14 AM »
I'm sorry Brian, but you clearly live in some kind of dream world where you believe you can just spin your yarns and that's enough...everyone else has to fall in line.
PROVIDE EVIDENCE.
Provide the image you are referring to.
Cite the thread you are talking about.
Provide a link to this thread.
Do something!
Do something that demonstrates you are a credible researcher and not just some dreamer talking nonsense.

I will gladly accept any genuine evidence that is contrary to what I currently believe because that brings me closer to truly understanding.
Please provide some kind of evidence.
Your recollections are not evidence.
For all I know, you could be talking complete sh!t.
How can I know otherwise if you don't actually provide any evidence.

Start with this very simple question - what was the origin of the image Sandy Larsen enhanced?
And provide some kind of link to this thread.
hey, Dan………. let me give you a little advice on how to read Mssr. Doyle’s uh, posts…..  pick a paragraph…….. any paragraph (chortle)……… then stare at the middle of said paragraph (the larger the better), then lo and behold all these words start jumping out at you, à la Bill Burroughs cut-out technique. try it sometime, ‘‘tis like reading strange poetry…….. yes, very strange poems, you see.  but that’s just me.