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.
-
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.)
-
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.
BUMP - In anticipation of ............................... STAY TUNED .............................................
-
BUMP - In anticipation of ............................... STAY TUNED .............................................
Dear Comrade Storing,
The waiting is killing me!
Hopefully you'll receive the "peer review" of your tinfoil-hat JFKA CT from Vladimir Putin any minute now!
-- 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.
This is a Couch Film snippet showing a car parked alongside the Island on the corner of the Elm St Ext. This car is NOT visible on the Wiegman Film footage of this exact same area. Wiegman filmed this area roughly 30 seconds BEFORE Couch did. I believe this same car was moving down the Elm St Ext when Wiegman filmed this area. Roughly 30 seconds later when this Couch still frame was shot, that car had finished traveling down the Elm St Ext and parked on the corner. (Even though this was a well posted, "NO PARKING At Any Time" zone). I believe that the plan was to immediately make a (R) hand turn onto Elm St as soon as the JFK Motorcade was no longer blocking this cars' pathway to do so. Prior to the JFK Motorcade getting out of way of this car, DPD Officer Smith ran by this car in order to check the bushes that ran down the Elm St Ext, and DPD Motorcycle Officer Baker turned his motorcycle onto Elm St, (directly in front of this car), parked his motorcycle at the curb, and then on foot ran directly in front of this car as he headed for the TSBD. This spooked the 2 Guys inside the car, and they exited the car.
The 2 Guys we see above are the 2 Guys that were seconds earlier inside the car. They have exited the car and are moving down the Elm St Ext. They are distancing themselves from the car as they see DPD Law Enforcement beginning to cluster around the TSBD. I do Not believe these 2 Guys are Lovelady & Shelley. The shorter man is alleged to be Lovelady. Lovelady was a burly/husky man. Lovelady had almost No Neck. The shorter man on this Couch Film snippet has a long, skinny neck. A "pencil neck". This shorter man is NOT Lovelady.
I believe these 2 Guys are distancing themselves from the car due to a recently fired rifle being inside the trunk. That rifle was fired through the bushes that extend down the Elm St Ext. These are the same bushes that we see DPD Officer Smith checking on the Couch/Darnell films. Why else would this car be traveling down the Elm St Ext while the JFK Limo was still on Elm St? Why else would we see this car 15-20 minutes later still parked at the corner? (Hughes film snippet showing the front steps of the TSBD). The 2 Guys above are a shooter and a spotter and that was their getaway car that they were forced to abandon.
-
This is a Couch film snippet showing a car parked alongside the Island on the corner of the Elm Street Extension. This car is not visible in the Wiegman film footage of this exact same area.
Dear Comrade Storing,
You do realize, don't you, that Robert Hughes filmed the TSBD entrance from the left side of the pole?
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
You do realize, don't you, that Robert Hughes filmed the TSBD entrance from the left side of the pole?
-- Tom
I believe a lot of your erroneous conclusions are due to your basing them on inferior JFK Assassination images. There are very good images out there, but they are scant. You gotta do some serious research to unearth them. This includes DVD's like the Nat Geo piece that blew up Hackerott. Don't dance around, spell out whatever you really mean and maybe I can help you.
-
I believe a lot of your erroneous conclusions are due to your basing them on inferior JFK Assassination images. There are very good images out there, but they are scant. You gotta do some serious research to unearth them. This includes DVD's like the Nat Geo piece that blew up Hackerott. Don't dance around, spell out whatever you really mean and maybe I can help you.
Dear Comrade Storing,
Did James tell you he's "throwing in the towel"?
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
You do realize, don't you, that Robert Hughes filmed the TSBD entrance from the left side of the pole?
-- Tom
What are you trying to avoid saying? You're never gonna learn anything if you are afraid of going on the record.
-
What are you trying to avoid saying? You're never gonna learn anything if you are afraid of going on the record.
Dear Comrade Storing,
What are you trying to say?
-- Tom
-
Stop with the "Who's On First?" stuff. I got Hackerott outta mothballs, so I'll exchange serious image observations with him. You wanna play games, you play alone.
-
[...]
Dear Comrade Storing,
It's a pity that the evil, evil MYSTO CAR is probably parked alongside the "island" and therefore hidden behind the gaggle of onlookers in the Weitzman clip (which James Hackerott so expertly pointed out with his Couch-Darnell / Weigman overlays), because if it is, it's just another anomaly in the anomaly-ridden JFKA which "useful idiot" sleuths like you have taken advantage of over the years to create tinfoil-hat anti-CIA, anti-FBI, anti-[fill in the blank] conspiracy theories.
Carry on, Comrade Storing!
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
It's a pity that the evil, evil MYSTO CAR is probably parked alongside the "island" and therefore hidden behind the gaggle of onlookers in the Weitzman clip (which James Hackerott so expertly pointed out with his Couch-Darnell / Weigman overlays), because if it is, it's just another anomaly in the anomaly-ridden JFKA which "useful idiot" sleuths like you have taken advantage of over the years to create tinfoil-hat anti-CIA, anti-FBI, anti-[fill in the blank] conspiracy theories.
Carry on, Comrade Storing!
-- Tom
Wow! It is the images on the "WIEGMAN" fIlm that Hackerott and I are discussing. Not "Weitzman" as you claim above.
At least now you are saying, "...car is PROBABLY parked alongside the island...". This is progress with respect to your evolving image analysis abilities.
The Hackerott "overlay" you mention did Not use the absolute best Wiegman still frame in the visual aid he put together. I believe this reveals much concerning the detail of the Wiegman Film copy that he currently is examining/using. "Unsolved History JFK, Death in Dealey Plaza" DVD is available on Ebay. I highly recommend it primarily for the JFK Assassination Films and still frames this Discovery Channel presentation includes. Wiegman also tells his 11/22/63 story on this presentation.
It is not easy for many JFK Assassination Researchers to accept that a "getaway" car has been on the Couch/Darnell Films for 61+ years. I am hoping that someone with the technical expertise will try to retrieve whatever is on the front license plate of this "getaway" car. There is at least 1 good Darnell still frame showing the entire front license plate on this car. There is a different color extending across the middle of the plate from L-R. Knowing the plate # might open some doors as to who was involved. As I mentioned earlier, this "getaway" car was parked/abandoned for an extended period of time in a, "NO PARKING At Any Time" zone. Maybe that car was issued a DPD ticket containing the License Plate Number?
-
Wow! It is the images on the "WIEGMAN" fIlm that Hackerott and I are discussing. Not "Weitzman" as you claim above.
At least now you are saying, "...car is PROBABLY parked alongside the island...". This is progress with respect to your evolving image analysis abilities.
The Hackerott "overlay" you mention did Not use the absolute best Wiegman still frame in the visual aid he put together. I believe this reveals much concerning the detail of the Wiegman Film copy that he currently is examining/using. "Unsolved History JFK, Death in Dealey Plaza" DVD is available on Ebay. I highly recommend it primarily for the JFK Assassination Films and still frames this Discovery Channel presentation includes. Wiegman also tells his 11/22/63 story on this presentation.
It is not easy for many JFK Assassination Researchers to accept that a "getaway" car has been on the Couch/Darnell Films for 61+ years. I am hoping that someone with the technical expertise will try to retrieve whatever is on the front license plate of this "getaway" car. There is at least 1 good Darnell still frame showing the entire front license plate on this car. There is a different color extending across the middle of the plate from L-R. Knowing the plate # might open some doors as to who was involved. As I mentioned earlier, this "getaway" car was parked/abandoned for an extended period of time in a, "NO PARKING At Any Time" zone. Maybe that car was issued a DPD ticket containing the License Plate Number?
Wowie zowie!!!
Nice catch, Comrade Storing!!!
By the way . . .
Among the women who are standing near the tip of the "island" in Weitzman I mean Wiegman, there's one who's wearing a dark-colored blouse or sweater and a light colored skirt (she's also visible in Couch-Darnell but she's turned to her right to look down towards the triple underpass), and to her immediate left in Weitzman I mean Wiegman there's a woman who's wearing all dark-colored clothes and is leaning forward (they both have their arms crossed).
If you'll look at the area between their lower legs in Weitzman I mean Wiegman at the 01:17 mark, I MIGHT BE WRONG -- but think you can see the tire and the hubcap of the evil, evil MYSTO GETAWAY CAR, which lines up perfectly with where the EVIL, EVIL MYSTO GETAWAY Car's right-front tire would be -- as indicated in James' masterfully aligned overlay of the pertinent Couch-Darnell frame and the Weitzman I mean Wiegman frame.
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=4acfbdfe9e621853&sxsrf=AE3TifPQscII5B33689WN5ASLy4V67ymfw:1761253738909&udm=7&fbs=AIIjpHxU7SXXniUZfeShr2fp4giZ1Y6MJ25_tmWITc7uy4KIeoJTKjrFjVxydQWqI2NcOhYPURIv2wPgv_w_sE_0Sc6QogS5TvEDp7UpbJYBVowPixqwW1m3RxusXeC54mlaBukI-u11T8A4p_RoeB8Zd5XkUrSSuQd1RmntXpoeT5OCau1r5sZxcabp8_wMX507cRuTxRAAlmoUaYXhQYLDPQWL9DB5tQ&q=%22wiegman+film%22+jfk&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYgd67nbuQAxUDiO4BHbLSG9QQtKgLegQIFxAB&biw=1592&bih=744&dpr=1#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:63d72787,vid:u3xR0WBPo8I,st:0
-
The women you are referencing are standing on the Wrong Side of the Traffic Light Pole. The "getaway" car was parked with its' front bumper roughly even with the Traffic Light Pole. The car stretched BACK toward the railroad yard. If you are basing your claims on the above posted copy of the Wiegman Film, you need to shop around for a higher definition copy. This might explain your observational issues.
-
The women you are referencing are standing on the Wrong Side of the Traffic Light Pole. The "getaway" car was parked with its' front bumper roughly even with the Traffic Light Pole. The car stretched BACK toward the railroad yard. If you are basing your claims on the above posted copy of the Wiegman Film, you need to shop around for a higher definition copy. This might explain your observational issues.
Dear Comrade Storing,
Are you saying that the car Officer Baker is running in front of in the Couch clip isn't your MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR?
If not, where, then, is your MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR parked in the Couch clip?
Next to the "island," but behind the car Officer Baker is running in front of?
Next to the "island," but in front of the car that Officer Baker is running in front of?
Where-oh-where is your MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR in the Couch clip, Comrade Storing?
-- Tom
-
All you have to do is examine the opening 40 seconds of the Darnell Film that the Sixth Floor Museum posted on You Tube. It's rumored to be a 1st generation copy. The car is very easy to see on this copy of the Darnell Film. The fact you are asking me for the location of the car tells me you have Failed to do your research.
-
All you have to do is examine the opening 40 seconds of the Darnell Film that the Sixth Floor Museum posted on You Tube. It's rumored to be a 1st generation copy. The car is very easy to see on this copy of the Darnell Film.
So, the car that Officer Baker's running in front of in the Couch clip IS your MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR.
Good!
Thanks for answering my question!
. . . . . . . .
EDIT: Oops, it looks as though I was wrong about the tire and hubcap on Storing's MYSTO "AVBANDONED" GETAWAY CAR in the Wiegman clip. I thought those two women I referred to were standing on the "island," but now I realize they were standing in the street near it, so the camera's perspective of the area visible between their lower legs isn't high enough to show a tire on a car parked next to the "island," much less its hubcap.
-
So, the car that Officer Baker's running in front of in the Couch clip IS your MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR.
Good!
Thanks for answering my question!
. . . . . . . .
EDIT: Oops, it looks as though I was wrong about the tire and hubcap on Storing's MYSTO "AVBANDONED" GETAWAY CAR in the Wiegman clip. I thought those two women I referred to were standing on the "island," but now I realize they were standing in the street near it, so the camera's perspective of the area visible between their lower legs isn't high enough to show a tire on a car parked next to the "island," much less its hubcap.
Thanks for the admission above. All I ask is that you view: (1) A GOOD copy of the Wiegman Film showing the Island, and (2) The Darnell Film posted on You Tube by the Sixth Floor Museum. The Wiegman Film does NOT show the parked CAR we see Officer Baker running past on the Darnell Film. The Wiegman Filming of the Island was done about 25 seconds before the Darnell Film shows the same Island, the parked CAR, Officer Baker running past the car.
-
Thanks for the admission above. All I ask is that you view: (1) A GOOD copy of the Wiegman Film showing the Island, and (2) The Darnell Film posted on You Tube by the Sixth Floor Museum. The Wiegman Film does NOT show the parked CAR we see Officer Baker running past on the Darnell Film. The Wiegman Filming of the Island was done about 25 seconds before the Darnell Film shows the same Island, the parked CAR, Officer Baker running past the car.
Dear Comrade Storing,
Your MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR is probably hidden behind that gaggle of women in the Wiegman clip.
-- Tom
-
"Probably"? We see NO CAR parked alongside the Island on the Wiegman Film. The Wiegman Film does show the spectators standing atop the Island. We can see between these spectators, yet we see NO CAR parked alongside the Island behind them. We can even see the street surface behind these spectators. But, we see NO CAR. It's not there yet.
-
We can even see the street surface behind these spectators. But we see no car.
Dear Comrade Storing,
When you overlay the frame from Couch-Darnell which best shows the car with its analog from Wiegman (as James has done), can you see the surface of the street between the ladies who are standing in the street near the tip of the "island"?
If not, isn't it possible that they're blocking your view of what you think in Couch-Darnell is The Abandoned Getaway Car?
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
When you overlay the frame from Couch which best shows the car with its analog from Wiegman (as James has done), can you see the surface of the street between the ladies who are standing in the street near the tip of the "island"?
If not, isn't it possible that they're blocking your view of what you think in Darnell is The Abandoned Getaway Car?
-- Tom
I continue urging you to use the Traffic Light Pole as a landmark. The Front Bumper of the car is is close to even with that Traffic Light Pole. The Traffic Light Pole is standing atop the Island. The ladies you are referencing are STANDING ON THE STREET to the viewer's (R) of that Traffic Light Pole. The car would not be behind these ladies, "standing in the street near the tip of the Island". The TIP of the Island is to the (R) of the Traffic Light Pole.
-
I continue urging you to use the Traffic Light Pole as a landmark. The Front Bumper of the car is is close to even with that Traffic Light Pole. The Traffic Light Pole is standing atop the Island. The ladies you are referencing are STANDING ON THE STREET to the viewer's (R) of that Traffic Light Pole. The car would not be behind these ladies, "standing in the street near the tip of the Island". The TIP of the Island is to the (R) of the Traffic Light Pole.
Dear Comrade Storing,
Look at your beloved Traffic Light Pole and the "No Parking Pole" to the right of it in James' nicely aligned overlay montage and ask yourself if they seem to be the same distance apart in both the Couch-Darnell frame and in the Wiegman frame.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=4597.40
Answer: Yes, they do. Close enough for government work, anyway. (Pardon the pun.)
Now, look at your MYSTO "ABANDONDED" GETAWAY CAR in the Couch-Darnell part of James' nicely aligned overlay montage and figure out where it should be in the Wiegman part of James' nicely aligned overlay montage in relation to the "No Parking Pole" IF IT (YOUR MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR) WERE ALREADY THERE.
Wanna know why you can't see it in the Wiegman portion of James' nicely aligned overlay montage?
BECAUSE IT'S HIDDEN BY ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE STANDING EITHER IN THE STREET NEAR THE ISLAND OR ON THE ISLAND.
D'OH!
-- Tom
-
The car should be visible stretching behind the Fedora Man on the Wiegman Film. The Fedora Man is standing to the viewer's (L) of the Signal Light Pole. You want the car to be positioned on the tip of the Island. It was not parked there. The Darnell Film shows Officer Baker running across/over the Island. The Traffic Light Pole and the FRONT BUMPER of the car are on his LEFT. Both the Traffic Light Pole and the Car are not on the tip of the Island. All you need to do is view a good copy of the Wiegman Film and the Darnell Film posted on You Tube by the Sixth Floor Museum. This is reality on 11/22/63. Stop screwing around with homemade over lays and lego car visual aids.
-
Both the traffic light pole and the car are not on the tip of the Island.
Dear Comrade Storing,
I've rewritten your "sentence" because your writing sucks so hard.
Here it is:
"Neither the traffic light pole nor the car are on the tip of the 'island.'"
Regardless, I've never claimed that your MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR in Couch-Darnell is parked ON the tip of the "island."
LOL!
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
I've rewritten your "sentence" because your writing sucks so hard.
Here it is:
"Neither the traffic light pole nor the car are on the tip of the 'island.'"
Regardless, I've never claimed that your MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR in Couch-Darnell is parked ON the tip of the "island."
LOL!
-- Tom
You would be better off doing your own research vs swearing by something that was "created" out of thin air. If you look closely at that overlay, it extends BEYOND the tip of the Island. That is Not where the car was parked. You basically have bought into a woman being sawed in half. An illusion. The Wiegman and Couch/Darnell Films are the Real Deal. Buy into what you see on them.
-
You would be better off doing your own research vs swearing by something that was "created" out of thin air. If you look closely at that overlay, it extends beyond the tip of the Island. That is not where the car was parked. You basically have bought into a woman being sawed in half. An illusion. The Wiegman and Couch/Darnell Films are the Real Deal. Buy into what you see on them.
Dear Comrade Storing,
I have no idea which woman you're talking about.
Regardless, do you believe that the montage that James created by overlaying the Couch-Darnell frame that best shows the front part of the MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR with a frame from Wiegman that puts all of the non-human elements (e.g., the "Freeway Signs Pole," the "Signal Light Pole," and the HUGE GATES, etc., etc.) in the same place as they are in the corresponding Couch-Darnell frame was improperly done, or that said montage can't be used to figure out where your MYSTO "ABANDONDED" GETAWAY CAR might be "hiding" behind the throng of people in Wiegman?
Scroll down to look at James' montage for the first time. (LOL)
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4597.40.html
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
I have no idea which woman you're talking about.
Regardless, do you believe that the montage that James created by overlaying the Couch-Darnell frame that best shows the front part of the MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR with a frame from Wiegman that puts all of the non-human elements (e.g., the "Freeway Signs Pole," the "Signal Light Pole," and the HUGE GATES, etc., etc.) in the same place as they are in the corresponding Couch-Darnell frame was improperly done, or that said montage can't be used to figure out where your MYSTO "ABANDONDED" GETAWAY CAR might be "hiding" behind the throng of people in Wiegman?
Scroll down to look at James' montage for the first time. (LOL)
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4597.40.html
-- Tom
Please explain the pointed object laying across the Island on the Wiegman still frame. You gotta problem here. A Big, Big Problem on a Wiegman still frame you are swearing by. I am waiting for your explanation.
-
Please explain the pointed object laying across the Island on the Wiegman still frame. You gotta problem here. A Big, Big Problem on a Wiegman still frame you are swearing by. I am waiting for your explanation.
Oh, you mean the fin of the car that was in front of Wiegman's car as it appeared in the cropped-and-pasted, ten-frames-earlier frame that James pasted into the main frame to give us an expanded view of the scene?
What about it?
In order to show us a wider "landscape" view of the scene, James melded the frame from approx. 01:16 to the frame from approx. 01:28 in the "JFK - Wiegman Film Enhanced One Frame Per Second Part One" clip that's available to view on the Internet.
There are ten frames in that interval. (Count the "jumps.")
Question:
How many frames per second did Wiegman's camera shoot?
Answer:
I don't know.
Do you?
Does it really matter?
Note how the shoulder of the woman standing "next to" Fedora Man is correctly spliced together from the two frames, as is the pole that they're standing "next to"?
What's your problem, Comrade Storing?
Scroll down to James' fine overlay montage and take your second look at it.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4597.40.html
-
Oh, you mean a previous-frame "ghost image" of the fin of the car that was in front of Wiegman's car?
What about it?
In order to show us a wider "landscape" view of the scene, James melded the frame from approx. 01:16 to the frame from approx. 01:28 in the "JFK - Wiegman Film Enhanced One Frame Per Second Part One" clip that's available to view on the Internet.
There are ten frames in that interval.
Question:
How many frames per second did Wiegman's camera shoot?
Answer:
I don't know.
Do you?
Does it really matter?
Note how the shoulder of the man standing next to "Fedora Man" is correctly spliced together from the two frames, as is the pole that they're standing "next to"?
What's your problem, Comrade Storing?
Scroll down to James' fine overlay montage:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4597.40.html
How can you claim anything based on a still frame that you NOW admit includes at least 1 "Ghost Image"? In addition to that, you admit that same still frame has also been subjected to "splicing". That Wiegman still frame has flat out been Sliced-And-Diced. This is why I encourage you to stick with the Film(s) and still frame(s) "as is". I'm not even going to go into the "Lego Car" stuff. That is comical.
-
How can you claim anything based on a still frame that you NOW admit includes at least 1 "Ghost Image"? In addition to that, you admit that same still frame has also been subjected to "splicing". That Wiegman still frame has flat out been Sliced-And-Diced. This is why I encourage you to stick with the Film(s) and still frame(s) "as is". I'm not even going to go into the "Lego Car" stuff. That is comical.
Dear Comrade Storing,
Read it again and you'll realize that I deleted the phrase "ghost image" before you posted.
Why?
Because the fin isn't really a ghost image but an integral part of a frame that was taken about half-a-second earlier than the main frame and which was cropped by James and melded by him to said larger, half-a-second-later frame in order to give us an expanded view of the scene, and specifically of the area where your MYSTO ABANDONED GETAWAY CAR is probably hidden by the gaggle of people who are standing either on the "island" or in the street near it.
Do you have a problem with that?
Do you think that gaggle of people reassembled itself during that half-second?
Even if it did, what would it matter?
If anything, they HELPED you by hiding your MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR so you can jump up and down and yell, Look! The MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR hasn't gotten there quite yet!!!"
LOL!
-- Tom
-
Your admitted "deletion" of admitting to a "ghost image", is right in line with your deletion of "you lost me" with respect to Hackerott's shadow work. As Joe Louis used to say, "You can run, but you can't hide". You are running now. You're lack of knowledge will continue to expose you over and over. Just do the research. You will not have to "hide your tracks" with these repeated deletions if you do the work and arm yourself with Knowledge.
-
Your admitted "deletion" of admitting to a "ghost image", is right in line with your deletion of "you lost me" with respect to Hackerott's shadow work. As Joe Louis used to say, "You can run, but you can't hide". You are running now. You're lack of knowledge will continue to expose you over and over. Just do the research. You will not have to "hide your tracks" with these repeated deletions if you do the work and arm yourself with Knowledge.
Dear Comrade Storing,
I hadn't thought it all the way through and I misspoke.
Now deal with it.
If that gaggle of people somehow reassembled itself during that half-second, then for reasons I explained in my previous post, you and the entire tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorist alternate-world universe should be very grateful that it did.
Because as it stands right now, it looks as though you and The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with "Xxxx") will be sharing the next Nobel Prize for your respective out-of-this-world accomplishments.
COMRADE ROYELL STORING AND HIS KGB-APPOINTED PEER REVIEWERS HAVE SOLVED THE JFK ASSASSINATION!!!!!!
(sarcasm)
-- Tom
-
Sure, people make mistakes. But they do Not try to sweep them under the rug/Delete Them. This is what you are repeatedly doing and it reflects poorly on every claim you make.
-
Sure, people make mistakes. But they do Not try to sweep them under the rug/Delete Them. This is what you are repeatedly doing and it reflects poorly on every claim you make.
Dear Comrade Storing,
Did I sweep my misstatement "under the rug," or did I correct it with a thorough explanation in my next post?
It seems as though you're the one who's stirring up dust clouds because you can't deal with said explanation.
Bottom line: Why do you distrust James' overlay montage?
Do you think it was deviously manipulated by him to make it only seem as though there were about ten motorcade watchers standing on a certain part of the "island" and near it in those two half-second-apart Wiegman frames so that people like me could say, "Storing's MYSTO 'ABANDONED' GETAWAY CAR is probably out of view behind them"?
Stop weeping sweeping and answer the question, Comrade Storing.
-- Tom
-
I did an arduous review over the weekend. There is no question. What I believe is a "getaway" car is not parked alongside the Island on the Wiegman Film.
-
I did an arduous review over the weekend. There is no question. What I believe is a "getaway" car is not parked alongside the Island on the Wiegman Film.
Dear Comrade Storing,
Do you think James Hackerott improperly spliced-together the two half-second-apart Wiegman frames and/or improperly aligned the finished product with the infamous Couch-Darnell frame (which shows the front part of the car that Officer Baker ran in front of) in his overlay montage?
If so, why then does the woman standing to the right of "Fedora Man" in the Wiegman frames have a whole body, why is the pole to the right of her a straight vertical line (and why is it the exact same distance, photographically speaking, from the right side of the HUGE GATES' dark entrance), and why do the architectural features of the TSBD so closely align in the two frames?
If not, why can't you realize that the densely packed group of people mostly to the right of that woman (but also including her and "Fedora Man" and maybe someone else to the left of her) is probably hiding your MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR from Wiegman's camera's view?
Have you even looked at the overlay montage by James Hackerott, yet?
Here it is.
Just scroll down to it.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4597.40.html
Hint: Use your computer's mouse to place the digital "arrow" on the car that Officer Baker's running in front of in Couch-Darnell and leave it there as James' overlay montage morphs from the Couch-Darnell into the corresponding Wiegman frame that James incorporated in it just for you.
Look! The digital "arrow" is now exactly where the right terminus of that "gaggle" is!
In other words, that "gaggle of people" is perfectly situated to obscure the MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR from Wiegman's camera's view!!!
And . . . gasp . . . the "gaggle" has so many people in it that it extends far enough to the left to hide the whole enchilada!!!
-- Tom
-
You know that gaggle does not extend 18 feet to the (L) of the Signal Light Pole. 18' Left and close to 5' high? Suppose I claimed there was a shooter firing from inside a car that was obscured by that gaggle? That would get laughed off this Forum. Your 18' X 5' disappearing space act is Cinque worthy. Prove me wrong or just say "Uncle" if this is all you got.
-
You know that gaggle does not extend 18 feet to the (L) of the Signal Light Pole. 18' Left and close to 5' high? Suppose I claimed there was a shooter firing from inside a car that was obscured by that gaggle? That would get laughed off this Forum. Your 18' X 5' disappearing space act is Cinque worthy. Prove me wrong or just say "Uncle" if this is all you got.
Dear Comrade Storing,
What are you basing your estimation of the length of the car on?
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
What are you basing your estimation of the length of the car on?
-- Tom
I asked you to "prove me wrong" and you instead go Perry Mason. This shows you have No Evidence. Just say "Uncle" and I'll lay it out for you. Until then, YOU need to prove me wrong. This is why I continue to ask you to put in the time and familiarize yourself with the pertinent assassination films and the Elm St Ext in general. You currently are badly lacking in these areas. Your currently claiming there is a complete "Black Out" area that is 17' X 5' is a laughable. Prove me wrong.
-
I asked you to "prove me wrong" and you instead go Perry Mason. This shows you have no evidence. Just say "Uncle" and I'll lay it out for you. Until then, you need to prove me wrong. Your current claim that there is a complete "Black Out" area that is 17' X 5' is laughable.
Dear Comrade Storing,
From left ("Fedora Man" on the island) to right (Woman-All-In-Black on the street -- to the right of whom might be a part of the car), there are about ten people in that "gaggle."
The people who comprise it are more than five feet tall, and each of them is about two-feet wide.
Ten times two equals twenty.
-- Tom
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4597.40.html
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
From left ("Fedora Man" on the island) to right (Woman-All-In-Black on the street), there are about ten people in that "gaggle."
The people who comprise it are more than five feet tall, and each of them is about two-feet wide.
Ten times two equals twenty.
-- Tom
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4597.40.html
"About" 10 people? Laughable. The gaggle is Not standing shoulder to shoulder across the Island. They are Not all on the correct (L) side of the Signal Light Pole. I don't wanna be insulting, but your wasting my time with this babble. This is where you are at. Prove me wrong.
-
The gaggle isn't standing shoulder-to-shoulder across the Island.
I didn't say that it was.
Part of "the gaggle" is standing on the "island," and the other part of "the gaggle" is standing in the curved line of spectators that stretches from the sidewalk in front of the TSBD to the "island."
They aren't all on the correct (L) side of the Signal Light Pole.
What in the world do you mean by "the correct side"?
In the Couch-Darnell part of James' overlay montage, the front of the car is on the right side of the "Signal Light Pole," from the perspective of Couch and Darnell.
You CAN see, can't you, that the right edge of the shoulder-to-shoulder "gaggle" starts at that exact spot, and that the nine or ten person "gaggle" extends all the way to "Fedora Man" up on the "island"?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4597.40.html
-- Tom
-
You continue placing the car in the Wrong place alongside the Island. The car's front bumper is a little bit BEHIND THE SIGNAL LIGHT POLE. The car stretches BACK from that point 17.5 feet toward the railroad yard. This "getaway" car can be seen in the same position alongside the Island on: (1) Darnell Film, (2) Couch Film, (3) Hughes Film, and (4) Martin Film. Same car, same location. You need to closely examine these films in order to understand the position of the car and why it does NOT appear on the Wiegman Film. That car is simply Not There yet. The Sixth Floor Museum's recently released 1st Generation Copy of the Darnell Film is extremely helpful. Relative to each other, the viewer can see the position of the Signal Light Pole vs The Car vs Officer Baker, vs the curving edge of the Island.
-
You continue placing the car in the Wrong place alongside the Island. The car's front bumper is a little bit BEHIND THE SIGNAL LIGHT POLE. The car stretches BACK from that point 17.5 feet toward the railroad yard. This "getaway" car can be seen in the same position alongside the Island on: (1) Darnell Film, (2) Couch Film, (3) Hughes Film, and (4) Martin Film. Same car, same location. You need to closely examine these films in order to understand the position of the car and why it does NOT appear on the Wiegman Film. That car is simply Not There yet. The Sixth Floor Museum's recently released 1st Generation Copy of the Darnell Film is extremely helpful. Relative to each other, the viewer can see the position of the Signal Light Pole vs The Car vs Officer Baker, vs the curving edge of the Island.
Dear Comrade Storing,
I "get it" that your MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR was parked a little bit behind the "Signal Light Pole" / "No Parking Pole" in Hughes and Martin clips. I'm just saying that from the perspective of the Couch-Darnell and Wiegman films, the front of the very same car is visible to us to the right of the "Signal Light Pole" / "No Parking Pole," and that the reason we can't see it in the latter is because the gaggle of spectators is hiding it from view.
(If it's the same car that's in the National Geographic video, it's a 1958 Pontiac)
Question: Do you think the way James spliced together two half-second-apart Wiegman frames in his Couch-Darnell / Wiegman overlap montage was devious or misleading?
Ya gotta scroll down to it:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4597.40.html
-- Tom
-
You seem to believe that Wiegman ONLY filmed the Fedora Man from 1 Single Angle. WRONG! This is why I continue urging you to study the assassination films. You are operating from a position of ignorance until you familiarize yourself with the Wiegman Film along with the other films. For starters, I believe you have to be looking at a substandard copy of the Wiegman Film. The overwhelming majority of the Wiegman Film copies in circulation are horrid. And the still frame used by Hackrotte in the overlay is not the best Wiegman still frame of Fedora Man and the backdrop behind him.
All someone has to do to disprove my discovery is post an image of that car being in that position alongside the Island BEFORE the JFK Limo entered Dealey Plaza. That image does Not exist. If that car had been parked in that "No Parking At Any Time" zone before the JFK Motorcade entered Dealey Plaza, DPD would have had it towed outta there immediately. I continue to issue the blanket challenge, "Prove Me Wrong". The Elm St Ext was an overlooked assassination hotbed on 11/22/63. You had: (1) Shot(s) from the bushes, (2) "Wide Open" Huge Gates, and (3) "Getaway" Car rolling down the Elm St Ext while the JFK Limo was still on Elm St.
-
The still frame used by Hackrotte (sic) in the overlay is not the best Wiegman still frame of Fedora Man and the backdrop behind him.
Dear Comrade Storing,
James Hackerott spliced together two frames from Wiegman (that were taken about half-a-second apart) in order to make the montage sufficiently wide as to show both "Fedora Man" on the left and the area to the right where the front of your MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR would be visible if it wasn't hidden by the gaggle of people.
Regardless, you haven't answered my question:
Do you think James' splicing together those two Wiegman frames and his juxtaposing the finished product with the Couch-Darnell frame in his overlay montage was disingenuous or misleading?
Hint: Ya gotta scroll down to it:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4597.40.html
-- Tom
PS You forgot to mention the fake policeman with only one glove.
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
James Hackerott spliced together two frames from Wiegman (that were taken about half-a-second apart) in order to make the montage sufficiently wide as to show both "Fedora Man" on the left and the area to the right where the front of your MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR would be visible if it wasn't hidden by the gaggle of people.
Regardless, you haven't answered my question:
Do you think James' splicing together those two Wiegman frames and his juxtaposing the finished product with the Couch-Darnell frame in his overlay montage was disingenuous or misleading?
Hint: Ya gotta scroll down to it:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4597.40.html
-- Tom
PS You forgot to mention the fake policeman with only one glove.
You and Hockerott are focusing on the (R) of Fedora Man. The car stretches BACK to Fedora Man's (L). Roughly 17.5 FEET to the (L) of Fedora Man. The overlay does NOT show us 17.5 feet to the (L) of Fedora Man. We have already covered this.
-
You and Hockerott (sic) are focusing on the area to the right of Fedora Man. The car stretches back to Fedora Man's (L). Roughly 17.5 FEET to the left of Fedora Man.
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
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/50yCK1V1/shelleyloveladyelm.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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!!
(https://i.postimg.cc/JzWQPSR5/Lovelady-Kemp2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/mDC9zN5v/Couch-Royell.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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:
(https://i.postimg.cc/65mQK4HZ/Lovelady-Royell2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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."
-
[...]
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
-
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/50yCK1V1/shelleyloveladyelm.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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!!
(https://i.postimg.cc/JzWQPSR5/Lovelady-Kemp2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/mDC9zN5v/Couch-Royell.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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:
(https://i.postimg.cc/65mQK4HZ/Lovelady-Royell2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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.
-
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
You asked me to fill in the blanks for you, and the above is what I get in return? Again, "Prove Me Wrong" regarding this car Not being on the Wiegman Film. Once we get close to the 11/22/63 anniversary, many of the Old Guard Heavy Hitters will stop by here to pay their respects. I'll run the Wiegman EVIDENCE by them when that time comes. Thus far, you have been unable to post any EVIDENCE to refute what I have found. THIS, is a much bigger discovery than you realize. There is no logical/innocent reason for a car to be coming down the Elm St Ext while the JFK Limo was still on Elm St. And then this same car remained parked in a clearly posted, "NO PARKING At Any Time" zone well after traffic was flowing down Elm St? Also, how do you believe the shooter on the 6th Floor planned on exiting the TSBD and then leaving Dealey Plaza? Do the research and think this completely through.
-
You asked me to fill in the blanks for you, and the above is what I get in return? Again, "Prove Me Wrong" regarding this car Not being on the Wiegman Film. Once we get close to the 11/22/63 anniversary, many of the Old Guard Heavy Hitters will stop by here to pay their respects. I'll run the Wiegman EVIDENCE by them when that time comes. Thus far, you have been unable to post any EVIDENCE to refute what I have found. THIS, is a much bigger discovery than you realize. There is no logical/innocent reason for a car to be coming down the Elm St Ext while the JFK Limo was still on Elm St. And then this same car remained parked in a clearly posted, "NO PARKING At Any Time" zone well after traffic was flowing down Elm St? Also, how do you believe the shooter on the 6th Floor planned on exiting the TSBD and then leaving Dealey Plaza? Do the research and think this completely through.
Dear Comrade Storing,
In case you missed it on the other thread:
To answer your question, there are ten or eleven people (who are, btw, about 20% smaller in Darnell than they are in Wiegman), standing shoulder-to-shoulder in front of your MYSTO "ABANDONED" 1958 PONTIAC BONNEVILLE GETAWAY CAR . . . gasp . . . on both the right and the left sides of the traffic light pole.
In addition to the fact that your MYSTO "ABANDONED" 1958 PONTIAC BONNEVILLE GETAWAY CAR is parked at a size-diminishing angle in Darnell, it is, just like the people standing in front of it, about 20% smaller in Darnell that it would be in Wiegman if they weren't standing shoulder-to-shoulder in front of it.
Hint: Ya gotta scroll down to it.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4597.40.html
-- Tom
PS At the 08:57 mark in the National Geographic Video, "Manhunt: The Search for JFK's Killer," as your MYSTO "ABANDONED" 1958 PONTIAC BONNEVILLE GETAWAY CAR is virtually surrounded by policemen, I mean cops, one can see that not only is the driver's side window all the way down, but there's a man sitting behind the wheel.
-
"...a man sitting behind the wheel"? Have you joined the Jake Maxwell Club? It's "observations" such as this that make me believe there is: (1) an issue regarding the detail of the JFK Assassination Images you are examining, (2) the monitor you are using, and/or (3) possibly your eyesight in general. And your additional "observation" claiming people are standing "shoulder to shoulder" forming a wall that COMPLETELY obstructs the view of a 17.5' x 4' vehicle is further proof as to (1), (2), and/or (3) above. For the record, there is NOBODY standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Fedora Man on his (L). The car in question would extend beyond Fedora Man's (L). This is why we can see the car parked on the other side of the street. You seriously need to upgrade your JFK Assassination Image Library.
-
"...a man sitting behind the wheel"? Have you joined the Jake Maxwell Club? It's "observations" such as this that make me believe there is: (1) an issue regarding the detail of the JFK Assassination Images you are examining, (2) the monitor you are using, and/or (3) possibly your eyesight in general. And your additional "observation" claiming people are standing "shoulder to shoulder" forming a wall that COMPLETELY obstructs the view of a 17.5' x 4' vehicle is further proof as to (1), (2), and/or (3) above. For the record, there is NOBODY standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Fedora Man on his (L). The car in question would extend beyond Fedora Man's (L). This is why we can see the car parked on the other side of the street. You seriously need to upgrade your JFK Assassination Image Library.
Dear Comrade Storing,
More like 5', isn't it?
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
More like 5', isn't it?
-- Tom
I do my best to Not exaggerate. The roof would be the height measurement listed for a car, but if all you were able to see was a fender, that max height figure would not be accurate.
Seriously, I think the images you are examining are substandard. Probably older stuff. The bulk of the Wiegman Film copies out there/You Tube are very bad. Same goes for a lot of the Couch Film copies. Both films are usually blurry and Wiegman of course is jiggly too. If you have a DVD Player look around for, "Unsolved History JFK, Death in Dealey Plaza" DVD. This will give you a good copy of the Wiegman Film. There are a lot of other very good/sharp images on that Discovery Channel/Gary Mack presentation. As long as your DVD Player and the Monitor you are using produce good picture definition, this DVD is an excellent addition to a JFK Assassination Library. It provides a very broad image foundation to build on. And if you use Ebay, do not be afraid to throw a lower $$/offer at a vendor there. That place is filled with "Mom & Pop" vendors. They are very good at quickly responding and can use the business.
-
". . . a man sitting behind the wheel"?
Look harder, Comrade Storing.
If you "click-click" it to the right spot, you'll even see his hairline.
-- Tom
-
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
Hey Pinko,
I've really missed your sad little efforts to make human contact.
Say, are you still telling lies about how your Shelley and Lovelady could be filmed on the Elm Street extension 25 seconds after the shooting?
Of course you are, you sad little man.
Just to stay on topic, as far as the thread is concerned - do you have any ideas about how Kamp's Lovelady image was created?
Of course you don't, you sad little man.
-
Hey Pinko,
I've really missed your sad little efforts to make human contact.
Say, are you still telling lies about how your Shelley and Lovelady could be filmed on the Elm Street extension 25 seconds after the shooting?
Of course you are, you sad little man.
Just to stay on topic, as far as the thread is concerned - do you have any ideas about how Kamp's Lovelady image was created?
Of course you don't, you sad little man.
Dear danny BOY o'meara,
Did you visit your hero, "former" KGB counterintelligence officer Vladimir Putin, during your vacation I mean holiday?
I'd be surprised if he didn't give you a medal for all of the work you've done for him!
-- Tom
-
Dear danny BOY o'meara,
Did you visit your hero, "former" KGB counterintelligence officer Vladimir Putin, during your vacation I mean holiday?
I'd be surprised if he didn't give you a medal for all of the work you've done for him!
-- Tom
Dear Pinko Jerkov,
everyone knows you're the only person on this forum who has a hard-on for all things Russian.
You never let up about them, you starry-eyed fool.
Any thoughts about the topic of the thread ( :D :D :D)?
-
Dear Pinko Jerkov,
everyone knows you're the only person on this forum who has a hard-on for all things Russian.
You never let up about them, you starry-eyed fool.
Any thoughts about the topic of the thread ( :D :D :D)?
Dear danny BOY o'meara,
Did your "Uncle Vladdy" let you [you-know-what] his [you-know-what]?
-- Tom
-
Dear danny BOY o'meara,
Did your "Uncle Vladdy" let you [you-know-what] his [you-know-what]?
-- Tom
Dear Comrade Jerkov,
I'd appreciate it if you didn't project your fantasies on to me.
I notice you've thrown up yet another zero-Reply thread, it must be some kind of record.
And it's about your hero as well. Isn't that nice.
Listen up, troll.
This thread, like all the threads you troll, is about a specific subject - the creation of the 'Lovelady' image that buffoons such as yourself and your mentor, Lance "It's Time For My Nap" Payette, have swallowed down without question (a very LN trait).
Do you have anything to add to this subject?
-
Dear Comrade Jerkov,
I'd appreciate it if you didn't project your fantasies on to me.
I notice you've thrown up yet another zero-Reply thread, it must be some kind of record.
And it's about your hero as well. Isn't that nice.
Listen up, troll.
This thread, like all the threads you troll, is about a specific subject - the creation of the 'Lovelady' image that buffoons such as yourself and your mentor, Lance "It's Time For My Nap" Payette, have swallowed down without question (a very LN trait).
Do you have anything to add to this subject?
Dear danny BOY o'meara,
I love it when one tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorist (you) calls another tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorist (Bart Kamp) a liar and a fabricator.
LOL!
-- Tom
-
Dear danny BOY o'meara,
I love it when one tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorist (you) calls another tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorist (Bart Kamp) a liar and a fabricator.
LOL!
-- Tom
I'm not calling Kamp a liar and a fabricator.
That description applies to you.
You're the one inventing tall tales to get Shelley and Lovelady on the Elm Street Ext. within 25 seconds.
BOTH you and your mentor, Lance "Is it Time For My Meds" Payette, independently came up with the same lie - that BOTH Shelley and Lovelady ran across to the "little, old island" immediately after the shots and met Gloria coming the other way.
This is an out-and-out fabrication and lie.
You had to come up with this lie because you have swallowed down Kamp's Lovelady image like a good little boy. Even though I've demonstrated that the image MUST be false.
What does this say about your integrity as a researcher?
-
I'm not calling Kamp a liar and a fabricator.
That description applies to you.
You're the one inventing tall tales to get Shelley and Lovelady on the Elm Street Ext. within 25 seconds.
BOTH you and your mentor, Lance "Is it Time For My Meds" Payette, independently came up with the same lie - that BOTH Shelley and Lovelady ran across to the "little, old island" immediately after the shots and met Gloria coming the other way.
This is an out-and-out fabrication and lie.
You had to come up with this lie because you have swallowed down Kamp's Lovelady image like a good little boy. Even though I've demonstrated that the image MUST be false.
What does this say about your integrity as a researcher?
Dear danny BOY o'meara,
Bart won't appreciate your calling him a liar and a fabricator.
-- Tom
-
Dear danny BOY o'meara,
Bart won't appreciate your calling him a liar and a fabricator.
-- Tom
Do you appreciate being called it because I see you've not denied it.
Because you can't deny it.
Because you have been peddling the lie that Lovelady ran out to the island and met Gloria there.
Because you can't get your Shelley and Lovelady on the extension within 25 seconds without peddling this lie.
What happened to you, Pinko?
-
Do you appreciate being called it because I see you've not denied it.
Because you can't deny it.
Because you have been peddling the lie that Lovelady ran out to the island and met Gloria there.
Because you can't get your Shelley and Lovelady on the extension within 25 seconds without peddling this lie.
What happened to you, Pinko?
Dear danny BOY o'meara,
I've said at least once in the past that Shelley almost certainly intercepted his running and crying friend, Calvery, on-or-near the "island," and, after hearing from her that JFK had been shot, may have signaled his buddy, Lovelady (still on the steps) to join him on a quick walk / jog down to the railway yard / parking lot to see what was going on.
Don't you remember?
-- Tom
-
Dear danny BOY o'meara,
I've said at least once in the past that Shelley almost certainly intercepted his running and crying friend, Calvery, on-or-near the "island," and, after hearing from her that JFK had been shot, may have signaled his buddy, Lovelady (still on the steps) to join him on a quick walk / jog down to the railway yard / parking lot to see what was going on.
Don't you remember?
-- Tom
"........ALMOST Certainly" ?? Stop with your continued speculation. Post Facts.
-
"........ almost certainly"?
Dear Comrade Storing,
Shelley had been best man at her recent wedding.
Can you prove that he didn't intercept her on or near the "island" to see what she was crying and bellowing about?
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
Shelley had been best man at her recent wedding.
Can you prove that he didn't intercept her on or near the "island" to see what she was crying and bellowing about?
-- Tom
Are you now abandoning your Hughes Film claim? I don't know what your JFK Assassination Library consists of, but I can tell you that Trask's "Pictures Of The Pain" does not agree with the timeline you have slapped on the Hughes snippet showing the TSBD front steps after the kill shot. Try doing some legit research and stop the BS:
-
Are you now abandoning your Hughes Film claim?
Dear Comrade Storing,
What "Hughes Film claim"?
-- Tom
PS Has Vladimir Putin sent you his "peer review" of your CT, yet?
-
Dear danny BOY o'meara,
I've said at least once in the past that Shelley almost certainly intercepted his running and crying friend, Calvery, on-or-near the "island," and, after hearing from her that JFK had been shot, may have signaled his buddy, Lovelady (still on the steps) to join him on a quick walk / jog down to the railway yard / parking lot to see what was going on.
Don't you remember?
-- Tom
Of course I remember, Pinko.
This is the lie...sorry, fabrication... I'm talking about, so obviously I remember.
I've argued all along that Shelley immediately ran from the steps and met Gloria coming the other way. He states this in his affidavit. (People such as yourself have to ignore the fact that, during his WC testimony, Shelley completely changes his story, stating that he stayed on the steps for at least 3 minutes before Gloria ran up).
The 'fabrication' I have to keep calling you out on is the part where Shelley calls Lovelady to join him. You've invented that. It's your fabrication. It is not based on any testimonial evidence whatsoever. It's a lie you have to tell because you can't find any other way of getting Lovelady and Shelley on to the Elm Street Ext. within 25 seconds.
You have swallowed down Kamp's 'Lovelady' image without question even though it has been demonstrated that this image is dubious, to say the least, and now it's been pointed out that it's physically impossible for Shelley and Lovelady to do what they attested to in their WC testimonies AND be on Elm St within 25 seconds, you've had to invent this lie. If it's any comfort, Lance "I think I've Had An Accident" Payette did exactly the same thing.
On the other hand, my own identification of Lovelady in Darnell does not require me to lie my way through an explanation and makes perfect sense with the known timings:
(https://i.postimg.cc/6QzxBwPJ/Darnellstepsnamed.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Of course I remember, Pinko.
This is the lie...sorry, fabrication... I'm talking about, so obviously I remember.
I've argued all along that Shelley immediately ran from the steps and met Gloria coming the other way. He states this in his affidavit. (People such as yourself have to ignore the fact that, during his WC testimony, Shelley completely changes his story, stating that he stayed on the steps for at least 3 minutes before Gloria ran up).
The 'fabrication' I have to keep calling you out on is the part where Shelley calls Lovelady to join him. You've invented that. It's your fabrication. It is not based on any testimonial evidence whatsoever. It's a lie you have to tell because you can't find any other way of getting Lovelady and Shelley on to the Elm Street Ext. within 25 seconds.
You have swallowed down Kamp's 'Lovelady' image without question even though it has been demonstrated that this image is dubious, to say the least, and now it's been pointed out that it's physically impossible for Shelley and Lovelady to do what they attested to in their WC testimonies AND be on Elm St within 25 seconds, you've had to invent this lie. If it's any comfort, Lance "I think I've Had An Accident" Payette did exactly the same thing.
On the other hand, my own identification of Lovelady in Darnell does not require me to lie my way through an explanation and makes perfect sense with the known timings:
(https://i.postimg.cc/6QzxBwPJ/Darnellstepsnamed.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Dear danny BOY o'meara,
Why does your Shelley look so heavy and have a receding hairline all of a sudden?
Did Bart Kamp fake that, too?
-- Tom
-
Dear danny BOY o'meara,
Why does your Shelley look so heavy and have a receding hairline all of a sudden?
-- Tom
He's wearing a black, baggy suit and it is absolutely impossible to say anything about his hairline from such a poor quality image.
The suit trousers are tight around the calf area unlike the usual straight-cut trousers:
(https://i.postimg.cc/GpFLXxXS/Shelleywalking.png) (https://postimages.org/)
There are two reasons I believe this is Shelley.
The first is that the individual in question fits the general description - white male wearing a baggy black suit. There is nothing visually to refute the identification but, because the images are so poor, there is nothing in the image that can be used to make a positive identification of Shelley.
Which takes us to the second point - the timings of events.
Immediately after the shots Shelley runs across the street to the 'island' where he meets Gloria coming the other way. He then returns to the steps and re-enters the building.
As you point out, Shelley was the best man at Gloria's wedding. Gloria is distraught about what she has just witnessed and is racing back to the building from her position on Elm Street. It makes sense that Shelley would return to the steps with Gloria as he listens to what she saw.
Gloria reaches the steps and has her interaction with Lovelady as she tells everyone there about the shooting of the President. That is what we are seeing in the image below;
(https://i.postimg.cc/6QzxBwPJ/Darnellstepsnamed.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
In terms of timings, it makes sense that we would see Shelley in this image. When we watch the actual Darnell clip, the man I've identified as Shelley can be seen walking towards the front steps with his back to the camera. He then turns to his left to reveal he is quite slender and not at all as heavy as his baggy suit seems to indicate from behind.
I believe this is Shelley returning to the steps having accompanied the distraught Gloria across the street. He then seems to turn as Baker approaches him.
The timings work perfectly without any need to lie.
Your desperate insistence that you can discern this man's hairline from such a poor image is just part of your failed attempt to keep the Kamp 'Lovelady' identification alive. Even though it is refuted by the testimonial evidence and the image has been demonstrated to be suspect.
None of this 'proves' it's Shelley. It is just the best fit for all the available evidence.
What's important is to remember that, whichever Shelley identification is correct, both Shelley and Lovelady lied in their WC testimonies and the question has to be asked - why would they do that? What are they trying to hide?
-
He's wearing a black, baggy suit and it is absolutely impossible to say anything about his hairline from such a poor quality image.
The suit trousers are tight around the calf area unlike the usual straight-cut trousers:
(https://i.postimg.cc/GpFLXxXS/Shelleywalking.png) (https://postimages.org/)
There are two reasons I believe this is Shelley.
The first is that the individual in question fits the general description - white male wearing a baggy black suit. There is nothing visually to refute the identification but, because the images are so poor, there is nothing in the image that can be used to make a positive identification of Shelley.
Which takes us to the second point - the timings of events.
Immediately after the shots Shelley runs across the street to the 'island' where he meets Gloria coming the other way. He then returns to the steps and re-enters the building.
As you point out, Shelley was the best man at Gloria's wedding. Gloria is distraught about what she has just witnessed and is racing back to the building from her position on Elm Street. It makes sense that Shelley would return to the steps with Gloria as he listens to what she saw.
Gloria reaches the steps and has her interaction with Lovelady as she tells everyone there about the shooting of the President. That is what we are seeing in the image below;
(https://i.postimg.cc/6QzxBwPJ/Darnellstepsnamed.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
In terms of timings, it makes sense that we would see Shelley in this image. When we watch the actual Darnell clip, the man I've identified as Shelley can be seen walking towards the front steps with his back to the camera. He then turns to his left to reveal he is quite slender and not at all as heavy as his baggy suit seems to indicate from behind.
I believe this is Shelley returning to the steps having accompanied the distraught Gloria across the street. He then seems to turn as Baker approaches him.
The timings work perfectly without any need to lie.
Your desperate insistence that you can discern this man's hairline from such a poor image is just part of your failed attempt to keep the Kamp 'Lovelady' identification alive. Even though it is refuted by the testimonial evidence and the image has been demonstrated to be suspect.
None of this 'proves' it's Shelley. It is just the best fit for all the available evidence.
What's important is to remember that, whichever Shelley identification is correct, both Shelley and Lovelady lied in their WC testimonies and the question has to be asked - why would they do that? What are they trying to hide?
The man above is Not the same guy that is labeled as "Shelley" on the older posted Darnell Still Film. If you look at the recently released 1st Generation Darnell Film Copy, that guy on Darnell is clearly too wide to be the same guy labeled as Shelley above. This new copy of the 1st half of the Darnell Film makes that older still frame showing the TSBD front steps obsolete.
-
The man above is not the same guy that is labeled as "Shelley" on the older posted Darnell Still Film. If you look at the recently released 1st Generation Darnell Film Copy, that guy on Darnell is clearly too wide to be the same guy labeled as Shelley above. This new copy of the 1st half of the Darnell Film makes that older still frame showing the TSBD front steps obsolete.
Dear Comrade Storing,
What guy on (sic) what Darnell?
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
What guy on (sic) what Darnell?
-- Tom
Go to YOU TUBE. Search - "NBC 5 Archive Collection | Assassination Aftermath in Dealey Plaza | Darnell Film" by - SixthFloorMuseum
That is roughly the 1st :40 Seconds of the Darnell Film. That man in the suit that is alleged to be Shelley is clearly too wide on this 1st generation copy.
The opening of this :40 also shows the 3 camera cars to be at a Dead Stop. The driver of Camera Car #2 is standing outside of the car. This is indicative of how long these cars have been sitting there stock still. This is why this opening of the Darnell Film had been "lost". It throws the currently assigned timelines of everyone pictured in this Darnell Film and the Couch Film too into a cocked hat. This also means that the JFK Limo was on Elm St LONGER than its' currently assigned timeline too. Whether that is due to a prolonged "rolling stop" and/or "dead stop". Wiegman filming the JFK Limo going under the Triple Underpass mandated that this snippet of camera cars being at a dead stop become "lost".
-
Do a google search for "NBC 5 Archive Collection Assassination Aftermath in Dealey Plaza Darnell Film" by the Sixth Floor Museum. It's roughly the first 40 seconds of the Darnell film. In this first-generation copy, the man in front of the steps at the 0:04 mark whom O'meara alleges is Shelley is clearly too wide to be him.
[Translated into comprehensible English by T.G.]
I agree.
-
I agree.
This is why I believe you are examining inferior JFK Assassination Images. You now easily see on this 1st Generation Copy of the Darnell Film what I am talking about with respect to the incorrect Shelley ID. The same goes for your examining a better copy of the Wiegman Film and seeing there is NO CAR to the (L) of Fedora Man or behind Fedora Man.
-
This is why I believe you are examining inferior JFK Assassination Images.
Dude,
I saw those frames of O'meara's broad-shouldered "Shelley" a long time ago and speculated that he might be Truly's boss, Ochus V. Campbell.
-- Tom
-
Dude,
I saw those frames of O'meara's broad-shouldered "Shelley" a long time ago and speculated that he might be Truly's boss, Ochus V. Campbell.
-- Tom
Then it was pointed out to you that Campbell was wearing a hat that day, so you dropped it and quietly moved on.
-
Then it was pointed out to you that Campbell was wearing a hat that day, so you dropped it and quietly moved on.
Dear danny BOY o'meara,
That doesn't make your broad-shouldered "Shelley" Shelley.
-- Tom
-
Dude,
I saw those frames of O'meara's broad-shouldered "Shelley" a long time ago and speculated that he might be Truly's boss, Ochus V. Campbell.
-- Tom
YOU admit to "speculated". The much clearer images on the 1st generation copy of the Darnell Film are conclusive. You're Welcome.
-
You admit to "speculated". The much clearer images on the 1st generation copy of the Darnell Film are conclusive. You're Welcome.
Dear Comrade Storing,
Are you always right?
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
Are you always right?
-- Tom
Again, update the JFK Assassination Images that you are currently basing your conclusions on. Start this updating with the worst images you are using. The Wiegman Film should be high on this list. That film made you look like Mr Magoo with respect to the total absence of the "escape car". If you have a good DVD Player, buy the Discovery Channel presentation that Gary Mack hosted. That's a very broad based image heavy presentation. There are so many images jammed into it, you gotta frame-by-frame it in order to catch every image flashing across the screen. It also has the Towner Film, and a very good uncropped Willis 5 among other photos.
-
[...]
Dear Comrade Storing,
Why did the evil, evil CIA or the evil, evil [fill in the blank] send such a crummy "sniper and spotter" to shoot JFK "from the bushes"?
They missed everything!
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
Why did the evil, evil CIA or the evil, evil [fill in the blank] send such a crummy "sniper and spotter" to shoot JFK "from the bushes"?
They missed everything!
-- Tom
You do know that Max Holland is claiming that the 1st shot fired from the sniper's nest missed? Also, the HSCA claimed the 4th shot fired from behind the picket fence missed. So why is it so difficult to believe that a shot fired from "the bushes" missed?
-
You do know that Max Holland is claiming [sic] that the 1st shot fired from the Sniper's Nest missed?
Will-we?
My comment: Although Max Holland is probably wrong that the bullet glanced off the traffic signal's mast arm at hypothetical "Z-107," it's totally plausible that Oswald missed everything with his shot at hypothetical "Z-124" because it, like Holland's conjectured "Z-107" shot, was steeply-downward-angled and therefore Oswald had to stand and lean forward awkwardly while firing it.
Also, the HSCA claimed the 4th shot fired from behind the picket fence missed.
As you know, the only reason the HSCA concluded there had been a fourth shot (gasp . . . from the bushes) was because it misinterpreted some sounds on the infamous Dictabelt recording.
D'oh!
-
You miss the point. The claim of a possible missed shot is not rare.
-
You miss the point. The claim of a possible missed shot is not rare.
Dear Comrade Storing,
A missing-everything, steeply-downward-angled shot at a rapidly moving target is easy to understand; a missing-everything horizontal shot by a professional sniper and his spotter is hard to understand.
Why did the evil, evil CIA or the evil, evil [fill in the blank] send such a crummy sniper and spotter to shoot at JFK "from the bushes"?
And after missing miserably with their one-and-only shot, why did they try to join the motorcade in their "getaway car" instead of just leaving their rifle in it and mingling innocent-like "to see what the heck's going on, and maybe even to help catch the bad guy!!!"?
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
A missing-everything, steeply-downward-angled shot at a rapidly moving target is easy to understand; a missing-everything horizontal shot by a professional sniper and his spotter is hard to understand.
Why did the evil, evil CIA or the evil, evil [fill in the blank] send such a crummy sniper and spotter to shoot at JFK "from the bushes," anyway?
And after missing miserably with their one-and-only shot, why did they try to join the motorcade in their "getaway car" instead of just leaving the rifle in it and mingling innocent-like with the crowd "to see what the heck's going on, and maybe even to help catch the bad guy!!!"?
-- Tom
-
Will-we?
My comment: Although Max Holland is probably wrong that the bullet glanced off the traffic signal's mast arm at hypothetical "Z-107," it's totally plausible that Oswald missed everything with his shot at hypothetical "Z-124" because it, like Holland's conjectured "Z-107" shot, was steeply-downward-angled and therefore Oswald had to stand and lean forward awkwardly while firing it.
As you know, the only reason the HSCA concluded there had been a fourth shot (gasp . . . from the bushes) was because it misinterpreted some sounds on the infamous Dictabelt recording.
D'oh!
I continue urging you to "Do The Research". The HSCA claimed that the 4th shot/Missed Shot came from behind the Picket Fence. To my knowledge they made no mention of "the bushes". (Though that would strengthen my Discovery).
-
The HSCA claimed that the 4th shot/missed shot came from behind the picket fence.
To my knowledge the HSCA made no mention of "the bushes".
Close enough for government work (pardon the pun).
Regardless of the exact location, it was a missing shot.
Which begs the question:
Why-oh-why did the evil, evil CIA or the evil, evil [fill in the blank] send such a crummy sniper (and spotter!!!, according to your tinfoil-hat CT) to kill JFK?
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
A missing-everything, steeply-downward-angled shot at a rapidly moving target is easy to understand; a missing-everything horizontal shot by a professional sniper and his spotter is hard to understand.
Why did the evil, evil CIA or the evil, evil [fill in the blank] send such a crummy sniper and spotter to shoot at JFK "from the bushes"?
And after missing miserably with their one-and-only shot, why did they try to join the motorcade in their "getaway car" instead of just leaving their rifle in it and mingling innocent-like "to see what the heck's going on, and maybe even to help catch the bad guy!!!"?
-- Tom
Regarding the sniper's nest shooter, you somehow left out the parts: (1) shooter is standing straight up, (2) firing straight down, (3) firing through a 1/4 open window, (4) leaves hulls behind, and (5) leaves weapon behind. If this is not a "frame job", it has got to be a, "crummy sniper".
-
Regarding the sniper's nest shooter, you somehow left out the parts: (1) shooter is standing straight up, (2) firing straight down, (3) firing through a 1/4 open window, (4) leaves hulls behind, and (5) leaves weapon behind. If this is not a "frame job", it has got to be a "crummy sniper".
Dear Comrade Storing,
1) Not straight up; standing and awkwardly leaning forward
2) Not straight down, but at a steep downward angle, nevertheless
3) Through a 1/3 open window
4) So what if he left the three shells behind?
5) Should he have taken the short-rifle downstairs with him, walked a quarter-of-a-mile and gotten on the bus with it?
6) He was a former Marine sharpshooter. Anyone would have had a hard time making that first shot.
D'oh!
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
1) Not straight up; standing and awkwardly leaning forward
2) Not straight down, but at a steep downward angle, nevertheless
3) Through a 1/3 open window
4) So what if he left the three shells behind?
5) Should he have taken the short-rifle downstairs with him, walked a quarter-of-a-mile and gotten on the bus with it?
6) He was a former Marine sharpshooter. Anyone would have had a hard time making that first shot.
D'oh!
Guy's a "sharpshooter" and he then tries a half arsed 1st shot? Why leave your own rifle behind and then simply walk to a bus? Think it through. Doesn't fit.
-
Why leave your own rifle behind and then simply walk to a bus?
Dear Comrade Storing,
Should he have taken it with him?
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
Should he have taken it with him?
-- Tom
Did the shooter that took out Kirk leave his rifle there at the scene? Nope.
-
Did the shooter that took out Kirk leave his rifle there at the scene? Nope.
So, Oswald couldn't have killed JFK because his short-rifle was found partially hidden on the same floor as the "Sniper's Nest" (He would have taken it with him like the guy who killed Charlie Kirk!), three shells that had been fired from it were found on the "Sniper's Nest" floor, and his fingerprints were found on it as well as on two of the of the smaller boxes in the aforementioned "Sniper's Nest," etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
HE WAS FRAMED!!!
(LOL)
-
So, Oswald couldn't have killed JFK because his short-rifle was found partially hidden on the same floor as the "Sniper's Nest" (He would have taken it with him like the guy who killed Charlie Kirk!), three shells that had been fired from it were found on the "Sniper's Nest" floor, and his fingerprints were found on it as well as on two of the of the smaller boxes in the aforementioned "Sniper's Nest," etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
HE WAS FRAMED!!!
(LOL)
If this was all tied up with a bow, they would Not NOW be lengthening the elapsed firing time for the 3 shots to 11+ seconds. And I would not be Discovering the "getaway car" and proving a Conspiracy.
-
If this was all tied up with a bow, they would not now be lengthening the elapsed firing time for the 3 shots to 11+ seconds. And I would not be discovering the "getaway car" and proving a conspiracy.
Dear Comrade Storing,
"They" who?
The evil, evil Deep State?
Btw, it's not "11 seconds."
According to a 2020 analysis by Roselle and Scearce of the conscious reactions of seven prime witnesses to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot, it was only 10.2 seconds in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza.
-- Tom
https://d7922adf-f499-4a26-96d4-8ab2d521fa35.usrfiles.com/ugd/d7922a_e280e26982b44f2c97c6e6e27026e385.pdf
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
"They" who?
The evil, evil Deep State?
Btw, it's not "11 seconds."
According to a 2020 analysis by Roselle and Scearce of the conscious reactions of seven prime witnesses to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot, it was only 10.2 seconds in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza.
-- Tom
https://d7922adf-f499-4a26-96d4-8ab2d521fa35.usrfiles.com/ugd/d7922a_e280e26982b44f2c97c6e6e27026e385.pdf
Have you ever heard of Max Holland? Have you ever watched, "The Lost Bullet"? If you really want to get seriously involved in ongoing JFK Assassination discussion(s), you need to increase your JFK Assassination knowledge. This means adding to your current JFK Assassination Reference Library. Rome wasn't built in a day, but NOW is the time to begin. Brick-by-brick. Book-by-book.
-
Have you ever heard of Max Holland? Have you ever watched, "The Lost Bullet"?
Dear Comrade Storing,
What an ignorant question.
What would you like to know about it?
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
What an ignorant question.
What would you like to know about it?
-- Tom
You admit to being clueless about the elapsed firing time for all 3 shots now being almost doubled. Max Holland has addressed this directly via his Sixth Floor Museum presentation. It is posted on YOU TUBE. Holland has also moved the physical position of the JFK Limo on Elm St to make this extended firing time work. You are WAY Behind the curve. This is why I urge you to increase your JFK Assassination Knowledge Foundation. Learn how to walk before trying to run. You're currently stumbling.
-
You admit to being clueless about the elapsed firing time for all three shots now being almost doubled. Max Holland has addressed this directly via his Sixth Floor Museum presentation. It is posted on YouTube. Holland has also moved the physical position of the JFK limo on Elm Street to make this extended firing time work.
Dear Comrade Storing,
Are you talking about something Max did fifteen years ago?
-- Tom
You are way behind the curve. This is why I urge you to increase your JFK Assassination Knowledge Foundation. Learn how to walk before trying to run. You're currently stumbling.
Dear Comrade Storing,
That's a suggestion I refuse to accept.
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
Are you talking about something Max did fifteen years ago?
-- Tom
Dear Comrade Storing,
That's a suggestion I refuse to accept.
-- Tom
Where do you think this very early 1st shot, (before Zapruder filmed the JFK Limo), was hatched from? This started with Holland and that cockamamie stuff of his regarding a bullet striking the signal light support beam. There is ZERO EVIDENCE of a bullet striking that signal light. If You or I were to propose something of this nature, with ZERO EVIDENCE to support it, would see us getting laughed off of this forum. Holland somehow gets his schtick broadcast by National Geographic and guys like Gary Mack/"Sixth Floor Museum" are falling all over themselves to support it. Any wild scenario supporting a "lone gunman" is granted free rein with a cheering section to go along with it. You promote a "conspiracy" and you are immediately forced to run through a gauntlet.
-
Where do you think this very early 1st shot, (before Zapruder filmed the JFK limo), was hatched from? This started with Holland and that cockamamie stuff of his regarding a bullet striking the signal light support beam. There is zero evidence of a bullet striking that signal light. If You or I were to propose something of this nature, with zero evidence to support it, would see us getting laughed off of this forum. Holland somehow gets his schtick broadcast by National Geographic and guys like Gary Mack/"Sixth Floor Museum" are falling all over themselves to support it. Any wild scenario supporting a "lone gunman" is granted free rein with a cheering section to go along with it. You promote a "conspiracy" and you are immediately forced to run through a gauntlet.
Dear Comrade Storing,
Holland did find an old painted-over shallow dent on the top of the mast arm near its juncture with the signal box.
I thought you knew that.
Regardless, based on the fine work of Roselle and Scearce, I think Oswald fired his first, missing-everything, shot about a second later at hypothetical "Z-124," i.e., half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133 after a 17-second, film-saving pause.
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
Holland did find an old painted-over shallow dent on the top of the mast arm near its juncture with the signal box.
I thought you knew that.
Regardless, based on the fine work of Roselle and Scearce, I think Oswald fired his first, missing-everything, shot about a second later at hypothetical "Z-124," i.e., half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133 after a 17-second, film-saving pause.
-- Tom
Sure I knew. But how about telling the WHOLE STORY. Holland originally claimed a bullet bounced off of the traffic signal itself. When an examination of the signal failed to show anything, he then took a fine tooth comb to the support arm. There he found a mere ding, which could easily have been the result of a very common Southern hail storm. Same old double standard being applied here. Anything claiming to support a shot from the sniper's nest gets an automatic free pass.
-
Sure I knew. But how about telling the WHOLE STORY. Holland originally claimed a bullet bounced off of the traffic signal itself. When an examination of the signal failed to show anything, he then took a fine tooth comb to the support arm. There he found a mere ding, which could easily have been the result of a very common Southern hail storm. Same old double standard being applied here. Anything claiming to support a shot from the sniper's nest gets an automatic free pass.
Dear Comrade Storing,
What makes you think I think Holland's theory is correct?
Why are you obsessing on Holland's theory?
You do realize, don't you, that Roselle and Scearce's hypothetical "Z-124" is about a second after Holland's hypothetical "Z-107"?
You do realize, don't you, that Brian Roselle has shown that it was possible that James Tague was nicked by a piece of concrete struck off the curb by a largish bullet fragment from the Z-313 head shot?
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
What makes you think I think Holland's theory is correct?
Why are you obsessing on Holland's theory?
You do realize, don't you, that Roselle and Scearce's hypothetical "Z-124" is about a second after Holland's hypothetical "Z-107"?
You do realize, don't you, that Brian Roselle has shown that it was possible that James Tague was nicked by a piece of concrete struck off the curb by a largish bullet fragment from the Z-313 head shot?
-- Tom
Or maybe Tague's injury was the result of a shot fired from the, "Bushes/Shrubs/The Garden"?
That car had No Reason to be rolling down the Elm St Ext while the JFK Limo was under fire on Elm St. That car had No Reason to still be parked in a "NO PARKING At Any Time" zone, long after traffic was freely rolling down Elm St. That Car was a, "Getaway Car"!
-
Or maybe Tague's injury was the result of a shot fired from the, "Bushes/Shrubs/The Garden"? That car had no reason to be rolling down the Elm Street Extension while the JFK limo was under fire on Elm Street. That car had no reason to still be parked in a "NO PARKING At Any Time" zone, long after traffic was freely rolling down Elm Street. That car was a "Getaway Car"!
Dear Comrade Storing,
1) The lead-and-antimony smear on the curb had no copper in it.
2) "Getaway Car" or Getaway Car?
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
1) The lead-and-antimony smear on the curb had no copper in it.
2) "Getaway Car" or Getaway Car?
-- Tom
With respect to Holland's "The Lost Bullet", that "lost bullet" is alleged to have struck the signal light support beam and then caromed down to the curb near Tague. Are you refuting this Holland claim?
-
With respect to Holland's "The Lost Bullet", that "lost bullet" is alleged to have struck the signal light support beam and then caromed down to the curb near Tague. Are you refuting this Holland claim?
Dear Comrade Storing,
I think it's more likely that Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot occurred at Roselle's and Scearce's hypothetical "Z-124," i.e., half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming (after a 17-second film-saving pause) at Z-133, and that the curb (and therefore Tague) was nicked by a largish bullet fragment from Oswald's Z-313 fatal head shot.
I hope that's okay with you, Comrade Storing.
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
I think it's more likely that Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot occurred at Roselle's and Scearce's hypothetical "Z-124," i.e., half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming (after a 17-second film-saving pause) at Z-133, and that the curb (and therefore Tague) was nicked by a largish bullet fragment from Oswald's Z-313 fatal head shot.
I hope that's okay with you, Comrade Storing.
-- Tom
You have the Tague curb being struck by, "....a largish BULLET fragment...". Yet, you also claim there was "no copper" in the smear on the same curb. How do you make both claims work?
-
You have the Tague curb being struck by "a largish bullet fragment," yet you also claim there was "no copper" in the smear on the same curb. How do you make both claims work?
Dear Comrade Storing,
I figure the curb was struck by either a chunk of lead-antimony core from Oswald's Z-313 head shot, or by an ice bullet fired by your "Bad Guys In The Bushes."
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
I figure the curb was struck by either a chunk of lead-antimony core from Oswald's Z-313 head shot, or by an ice bullet fired by your "Bad Guys In The Bushes."
-- Tom
My blanket challenge of "Prove Me Wrong" regarding the "getaway car" remains standing. And it is standing exceptionally taller with each passing day as we approach the 62 yr anniversary. Respectfully, this discovery of a "getaway car" just withstood the scrutiny of yet another extremely well respected JFK Assassination Researcher. That "getaway car" is Not Present alongside the Island on the Wiegman Film.
-
My blanket challenge of "Prove Me Wrong" regarding the "getaway car" remains standing. And it is standing exceptionally taller with each passing day as we approach the 62- year anniversary. Respectfully, this discovery of a "getaway car" just withstood the scrutiny of yet another extremely well-respected JFK Assassination Researcher. That "getaway car" is not present alongside the Island on the Wiegman film.
Dear Comrade Storing,
Your "Bad Guys in the Bushes" shot an ice bullet, right?
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Storing,
Your "Bad Guys in the Bushes" shot an ice bullet, right?
-- Tom
I am not familiar with an "ice bullet" itself or the weapon(s) that possibly fire one.
-
I am not familiar with an "ice bullet" itself or the weapon(s) that possibly fire one.
Perhaps you should look into it, Sonderführer Storing.
It's either that, or they just plum missed.
-- 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.
This Couch Film still frame is taking place roughly 20 seconds after the kill shot. There's no way Shelley and Lovelady could have talked with Calvery and then began walking down the Elm St Ext in only 20 seconds. The 2 guys we see have just exited their "getaway" car.
-
This Couch film still frame is taking place roughly 20 seconds after the kill shot. There's no way Shelley and Lovelady could have talked with Calvery and then began (sic) walking down the Elm Street Extension in only 20 seconds. The two guys we see have just exited their "getaway" car.
Okay.
(LOL!)