How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?

[Brian Doyle]

You can see the plaid pattern in Sprague...You can't in the other image...

You are asking diversionary questions...

The original will show the plaid pattern exactly as Larsen showed it...

[Dan O'meara]

You can see the plaid pattern in Sprague...You can't in the other image...

You are asking diversionary questions...

The original will show the plaid pattern exactly as Larsen showed it...

You can see the plaid pattern in Sprague...You can't in the other image...

 
So, just in case I'm not understanding your reply...
...when I ask, how can there be more detail in the washed out and less detail in the clearer image, your reply is that we can see the detail in the washed out image and we can't see the detail in the clearer image...
You are clearly struggling to understand what is happening here.
It is impossible for the washed out image that has far less detail to show more detail than the clear image that has more detail.
The only way this is possible is for the washed out image to be manipulated/doctored/faked.
It's the only way.
Do you understand this very simple principle?

[Brian Doyle]

What you are saying isn't accurate...

The Sprague copy shows the plaid pattern better...

You are conspicuously avoiding discussing the fact that the scanned original would really show Lovelady's plaid pattern...

[Mark A. Oblazney]

It’s a shame a stereoscopic camera wasn’t used here, that would solve everything.  I still say it’s Harvey and Lee discussing where to have a bite to eat later on.

[Brian Doyle]

Once you clear out the time-wasting noise and faux debate and recognize that the men are Lovelady & Shelley then you can orient the timing of Couch/Darnell and match it to Frazier's statements that he was facing Sarah Stanton at that moment as seen in Darnell...

Internet JFK researchers are a bunch of nuts and egotists who are more interested in avoiding the evidence than responsibly recognizing it...

[Royell Storing]

Once you clear out the time-wasting noise and faux debate and recognize that the men are Lovelady & Shelley then you can orient the timing of Couch/Darnell and match it to Frazier's statements that he was facing Sarah Stanton at that moment as seen in Darnell...

Internet JFK researchers are a bunch of nuts and egotists who are more interested in avoiding the evidence than responsibly recognizing it...

    The variable here that is Never addressed, would be DPD Officer Smith also being filmed well down the Elm St Extension at the same time that these 2 Guys were filmed. Officer Smith was positioned on Houston St, had to be told about shots being fired through the bushes on the Elm St Extension, at which point Smith then ran around the corner and started checking the bushes along the Elm St Extension. The timestamp of :20 seconds after the kill that is attached to those 2 Guys and Officer Smith is just not physically possible for Officer Smith. 

[Dan O'meara]

Once you clear out the time-wasting noise and faux debate and recognize that the men are Lovelady & Shelley then you can orient the timing of Couch/Darnell and match it to Frazier's statements that he was facing Sarah Stanton at that moment as seen in Darnell...

Internet JFK researchers are a bunch of nuts and egotists who are more interested in avoiding the evidence than responsibly recognizing it...

There has been no kind of debate, let alone a "faux debate".
You were asked as simple question and gave an answer that defied any kind of logic or reason.
And it was really a rhetorical question because anyone with any kind of credibility would have instantly conceded that there can't be more detail in the image that has less detail.
But not you.
How can there be any kind of debate, faux or otherwise, with such a person?