JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Dan O'meara on September 28, 2025, 04:56:19 AM
-
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/50yCK1V1/shelleyloveladyelm.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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:
(https://i.postimg.cc/wMQ2KzcZ/Shelley-Lovelady-Dunkelclose.png) (https://postimages.org/) (https://postimages.org/)
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):
(https://i.postimg.cc/KY2vK8GC/Lovelady-Kemp1.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/JzWQPSR5/Lovelady-Kemp2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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:
(https://i.postimg.cc/zvzyySNN/Lovelady-Kemp3.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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
-
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/50yCK1V1/shelleyloveladyelm.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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:
(https://i.postimg.cc/wMQ2KzcZ/Shelley-Lovelady-Dunkelclose.png) (https://postimages.org/) (https://postimages.org/)
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):
(https://i.postimg.cc/KY2vK8GC/Lovelady-Kemp1.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/JzWQPSR5/Lovelady-Kemp2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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:
(https://i.postimg.cc/zvzyySNN/Lovelady-Kemp3.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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"
(https://i.postimg.cc/WbbVhpDM/Lovelady-PBSSprague.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Royell steered me to a Couch clip which is the best quality I've come across:
(https://i.postimg.cc/mDC9zN5v/Couch-Royell.png) (https://postimages.org/)
I cropped and blew up the two men:
(https://i.postimg.cc/65mQK4HZ/Lovelady-Royell2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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.
-
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:
(https://i.postimg.cc/26KZdGvm/Lovelady-Royellextreme.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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?
-
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.
-
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 steered me to a Couch clip which is the best quality I've come across:
(https://i.postimg.cc/mDC9zN5v/Couch-Royell.png) (https://postimages.org/)
I cropped and blew up the two men:
(https://i.postimg.cc/65mQK4HZ/Lovelady-Royell2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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.
-
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:
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTD6GGhq/Lovelady-Kemp2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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:
(https://i.postimg.cc/TPLNtZDq/Couch-Royell.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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?
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjc6Qc8h/KAMPr-OYELL.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/65mQK4HZ/Lovelady-Royell2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/65mQK4HZ/Lovelady-Royell2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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
-
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
:D :D
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.
-
[...]
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
-
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.
-
Royell steered me to a Couch clip which is the best quality I've come across:
(https://i.postimg.cc/mDC9zN5v/Couch-Royell.png) (https://postimages.org/)
I cropped and blew up the two men:
(https://i.postimg.cc/65mQK4HZ/Lovelady-Royell2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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.
My only reservation is the Neck. If I was asked to describe Lovelady, I would lead off with his being somewhat on the "burly" side. This pictured guy has a skinny neck. And that skinny neck in relation to the pointed chin also does not remind me of Lovelady.
-
There isn't the slightest hint of a bald spot or checkered pattern in far-superior images of Lovelady.
Dear Dan "I Was A Bad Boy So They Made Me Stood In The Corner" O'meara,
When you say "far superior images" what "images" are you referring to?
Martin's and Hughes' film footages which show Lovelady as he's smoking on the TSBD steps about 30 minutes after the final shot?
The film footage showing him as he's sitting and watching the police bring Oswald past him a couple of hours after the final shot?
-- Tom
-
Dear Dan "I Was A Bad Boy So They Made Me Stood In The Corner" O'meara,
When you say "far superior images" what "images" are you referring to?
Martin's and Hughes' film footages which show Lovelady as he's smoking on the TSBD steps about 30 minutes after the final shot?
The film footage showing him as he's sitting and watching the police bring Oswald past him a couple of hours after the final shot?
-- Tom
What images am I referring to?
Are you joking?
I've got a feeling that you're not joking, which is quite disturbing.
Read REPLY#10
-
What images am I referring to?
Are you joking?
I've got a feeling that you're not joking, which is quite disturbing.
Read REPLY#10
Dear danny BOY o'meara,
I totally understand your inability to articulate what you're "thinking."
-- Tom
-
Dear danny BOY o'meara,
I totally understand your inability to articulate what you're "thinking."
-- Tom
Are you high?
-
My only reservation is the Neck. If I was asked to describe Lovelady, I would lead off with his being somewhat on the "burly" side. This pictured guy has a skinny neck. And that skinny neck in relation to the pointed chin also does not remind me of Lovelady.
(https://i.postimg.cc/65mQK4HZ/Lovelady-Royell2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
It is not possible to make an identification of either man based solely on this image.
This is, by far, the highest quality image we have from the Couch footage and it reveals there is no checkered pattern on the shirt and no bald spot. These are the two factors people have been using to make the Lovelady identification and they are not present.
It appears Tommy the Troll's suggestion - that Kamp faked his Lovelady image - might have something to it.
So many people have been suckered in by that image even though it is humanly impossible for it to be Lovelady and Shelley walking along along the Elm St ext. in the time this image was taken, if you accept their WC testimonies. The only way Nutters like Mr Frodo and old man Payette can uphold this seriously flawed identification is by acknowledging that Shelley and Lovelady lied through their teeth during their WC testimonies.
Both of these Nutters have tied themselves up in knots trying to make it work and have come out looking like fools.
The old man has argued that Shelley and Lovelady met Gloria on the steps before they were pictured in Darnell AND HAS SIMULTANEOUSLY ARGUED that Shelley and Lovelady left the steps before Gloria got there!!
And Pinko has fabricated a scenario where Lovelady and Shelley immediately race from the steps and meet Gloria on the "little, old island".
Talk about prisoners of rational thought ::)
-
It appears that Kamp faked his Lovelady image.
Dear danny BOY o'meara,
Gee, I wonder what kind of paintbrush Bart used to create that bald spot on "Lovelady's" head and those stripes in his shirt?
http://www.prayer-man.com/tsbd/billy-nolan-lovelady/
What's your best guess, danny BOY?
-- Tom
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/65mQK4HZ/Lovelady-Royell2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
It is not possible to make an identification of either man based solely on this image.
This is, by far, the highest quality image we have from the Couch footage and it reveals there is no checkered pattern on the shirt and no bald spot. These are the two factors people have been using to make the Lovelady identification and they are not present.
It appears Tommy the Troll's suggestion - that Kamp faked his Lovelady image - might have something to it.
So many people have been suckered in by that image even though it is humanly impossible for it to be Lovelady and Shelley walking along along the Elm St ext. in the time this image was taken, if you accept their WC testimonies. The only way Nutters like Mr Frodo and old man Payette can uphold this seriously flawed identification is by acknowledging that Shelley and Lovelady lied through their teeth during their WC testimonies.
Both of these Nutters have tied themselves up in knots trying to make it work and have come out looking like fools.
The old man has argued that Shelley and Lovelady met Gloria on the steps before they were pictured in Darnell AND HAS SIMULTANEOUSLY ARGUED that Shelley and Lovelady left the steps before Gloria got there!!
And Pinko has fabricated a scenario where Lovelady and Shelley immediately race from the steps and meet Gloria on the "little, old island".
Talk about prisoners of rational thought ::)
There also was the claim that Calvery ran up to DPD Officer Smith and told him about shots being fired through the bushes BEFORE veering over to then yammer at Lovelady and Shelley.
Getting back to Lovelady and Shelley going down the Elm St Ext, I do believe the Couch Film is more likely than not supplying evidence of this being Lovelady/Shelley. If I was on a jury, I wouldn't convict Lovelady and Shelley using this Couch Film to ID them. But I do find it difficult to believe that: (1) Immediately after the Kill Shot, (2) 2 random guys that just happen to resemble Lovelady and Shelley, (3) Decided to meander down the Elm St Ext. That's just too big a stretch for me to buy into.
-
I have asked Bart Kamp if he would care to comment on Dan's claim of fakery. If he would, I'll pass it along. When riffraff CTers like Dan start accusing CT luminaries like Bart of fakery, we have reached some sort of nadir of lunacy.
I did not get this from Bart, but I independently learned that the enhancement was done in 2011 by renowned photo researcher Gerda Dunckel, whom I'm guessing probably didn't fake it. I believe she may have started a thread here on the subject that can no longer be retrieved. I know nothing about Gerda, but 95% of the references to her use the term "renowned."
Since Dan is once again in the process of making a fool of himself, perhaps someone would like to call him "renowned" and make him feel better? You don't have to be nasty and say what he's renowned for. :D :D :D
(https://zodiackilleridentified.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/gerda-1-e1651059184941.jpg)
-
I have asked Bart Kamp if he would care to comment on Dan's claim of fakery. If he would, I'll pass it along. When riffraff CTers like Dan start accusing CT luminaries like Bart of fakery, we have reached some sort of nadir of lunacy.
I did not get this from Bart, but I independently learned that the enhancement was done in 2011 by renowned photo researcher Gerda Dunckel, whom I'm guessing probably didn't fake it. I believe she may have started a thread here on the subject that can no longer be retrieved. I know nothing about Gerda, but 95% of the references to her use the term "renowned."
Since Dan is once again in the process of making a fool of himself, perhaps someone would like to call him "renowned" and make him feel better? You don't have to be nasty and say what he's renowned for. :D :D :D
(https://zodiackilleridentified.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/gerda-1-e1651059184941.jpg)
Once again, you're talking utter nonsense.
The image you posted is NOT a Gerda Dunkel image.
You have been corrected on this issue THREE TIMES now.
According to Kamp - "Terry Martin visits the National Archives in Washington for me and finds a huge Couch film print in Richard E Sprague’s collection."
This is a copy of the Sprague print at the Prayer Man website:
(https://i.postimg.cc/JzWQPSR5/Lovelady-Kemp2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Look at this image.
Look at how unbelievably poor it is.
It's washed out and lacks all fine detail - except for Lovelady's shirt!
In contrast, look at this far superior Couch image from "4 Days in November":
(https://i.postimg.cc/mDC9zN5v/Couch-Royell.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Compare it to the Sprague image.
Look at how more superior this image is. Look at how much more detail is in this image.
Yet there is no hint whatsoever of the checkered pattern in this image or the 'bald spot'.
(https://i.postimg.cc/65mQK4HZ/Lovelady-Royell2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
I wish I knew more about image enhancement because I can't figure out how this far superior image shows none of the fine detail we see in the shirt in the inferior Sprague image.
How can this be?
How does that work?
Any idea's old-timer?
And, by the way, how are you getting along with your timeline?
-
I will let Bart answer if he chooses to do so. At least two sources credit the image to Gerda Dunckel. The image I posted here is NOT from the Prayer Man site, and the site where I did find it credits it to Dunckel. Indeed, it is not from Greg Parker's old site either, but that site credited Gerda and linked to an old thread here. Perhaps someone further enhanced an image Gerda had previously enhanced. I know that she was "renowned" for having identified Lovelady and Shelley in the Couch film. I really don't care. You are simply a CT blathering blowhard who must resort to claims of "fakery" - even by CTers far more respected than you can ever hope to be - in order to preserve your nutcase arguments. You have ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS to be accusing anyone of fakery. Claims of fakery are the last refuge of CT nutcases, as we see again and again.
From a 2012 thread at Greg Parker's old site: "Thanks to some superb film work by researcher Gerda Dunckel (Couch film/Lovelady and Shelley?), we now know that S & L left the front steps several seconds before Baker even arrived there. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6724.24.html."
Even more: Bart then posted the images seen at the Prayer Man site on the same thread on Greg's forum in 2016, calling them (as at PM) an "R*KC scan." He said, "I applied various ways of sharpening to the inserts." Hence, the PM enhancements are by Bart. The issue of fakery was not raised because, presumably, Dan was not yet born in 2016 or at least his mommy wouldn't let him play with the laptop. ::)
Whatever.
-
I will let Bart answer if he chooses to do so. At least two sources credit the image to Gerda Dunckel. The image I posted here is NOT from the Prayer Man site, and the site where I did find it credits it to Dunckel. Indeed, it is not from Greg Parker's old site either, but that site credited Gerda and linked to an old thread here. Perhaps someone further enhanced an image Gerda had previously enhanced. I know that she was "renowned" for having identified Lovelady and Shelley in the Couch film. I really don't care. You are simply a CT blathering blowhard who must resort to claims of "fakery" - even by CTers far more respected than you can ever hope to be - in order to preserve your nutcase arguments. You have ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS to be accusing anyone of fakery. Claims of fakery are the last refuge of CT nutcases, as we see again and again.
From a 2012 thread at Greg Parker's old site: "Thanks to some superb film work by researcher Gerda Dunckel (Couch film/Lovelady and Shelley?), we now know that S & L left the front steps several seconds before Baker even arrived there. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6724.24.html."
Even more: Bart then posted the images seen at the Prayer Man site on the same thread on Greg's forum in 2016, calling them (as at PM) an "R*KC scan." He said, "I applied various ways of sharpening to the inserts." Hence, the PM enhancements are by Bart. The issue of fakery was not raised because, presumably, Dan was not yet born in 2016 or at least his mommy wouldn't let him play with the laptop. ::)
Whatever.
You're just a dithering old fool who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Firstly, I haven't accused anyone of faking anything. You are to stop peddling this lie IMMEDIATELY.
Secondly, for the FOURTH time - the image Kamp 'sharpened' to create the image of 'Lovelady' (that you beleive is "conclusive") comes from the Sprague print. It does not come from Gerda, R*KC scans or anywhere else.
The image Kamp used does not come from any extant version of the Couch footage I can find or any scan of it.
It is a single print that I would very much like to see the original of.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about, as you've ably demonstrated time and time again.
Cite where you got the image from you claim is from Gerda Dunkel.
And don't forget about the timeline you're supposed to be working on. Do you think you're just going to slither out of that?
It's time you started backing your claims up.
Explain to the forum how Shelley and Lovelady could be filmed by Couch walking along the extension 25 seconds after the assassination.
Remember, you've already accepted that Shelley and Lovelady were on the front steps when Gloria ran up to them.