JFK Assassination Forum

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

You need to be made to stood in the corner and look at the wall for three hours.

-- Tom

A few posts ago I tried to get this thread back on track.
I'll try again.
Why not have a grown up discussion about the points I'm raising?

This is the 'Lovelady' image Bart Kamp produced from a large print obtained for him from the collection of Richard Sprague.



This image seems to include an incredible amount of detail, particularly on the shirt of 'Lovelady'.
However, the print from which Kamp got this 'Lovelady' image is of such poor quality that is very hard to understand how this amount of detail could be present when far superior pictures show no such detail.
Kamp alludes to this contradiction in his description of how he came across the Sprague print:

"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."

How can it be that the Sprague print "doesn't overall have much information", yet the part of it showing Lovelady's shirt does?

This is a copy of the Sprague print that Kamp used to get his image of Lovelady from:



Look at the poor quality of this image in general. How washed out it is and how there is a lack of fine detail. As Kamp points out, there is not much overall information in this print, as it is of such poor quality.
In contrast, here is an image from the Couch footage taken from "Four Days In November":



Look at how superior this image is in quality, look at how much more detail is present in this image, how much more information is present overall.
One would have thought that the more detailed picture of 'Lovelady' would come from this 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?

This is a crop of 'Lovelady' from the Sprague print and 4 Days.



How was Kamp able to obtain such fine detail from the inferior Sprague print when no such detail is present in the far superior copy from 4 Days?

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

Question:

How is it that one of your precious witnesses, Ernest Brandt, described your "Z-222 first shot" as thunderous whereas others said it sounded like a firecracker or just another of those darn motorcycle backfires?

Answer:

The Z-222 shot was Oswald's second, and, unlike his missing-everything first shot, the muzzle of his short-rifle was outside the Sniper's Nest window.

-- Tom

 
Could your arguments be any weaker!
Rather than just make stuff up, why don't you do some actual research?
I've presented a mountain of evidence in the previous pages that make a mockery of your "z124" nonsense.
The study you based your opinion on has been debunked...by one of the authors of the study!!
None of this makes any difference to you because you're just a troll trying to derail anyone trying to have an honest debate.

[...]

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

You need to be made to stood in the corner and look at the wall for three hours.

-- Tom

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

Trolls who call other people "troll" are the biggest trolls of all.

-- Tom

Do some research and take part in the debates.
Your constant trolling is embarrassing.
#growup

Your silence over the other witnesses speaks volumes.

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

How many of your "Z-222 first shot" witnesses said they heard two shots after it?

-- Tom