Jack White and his badgeman fantasy…
Once upon a time I was unbiased and thought the badgeman existed, and he was the man who fired the fatal bullet in JFK’s head.
But recently I started to doubt that badgeman really existed, based on Lee Bowers’s testimony. Jack White states that badgeman and his spotter hardhat man stood on the hood of a car, overlooking the area. Which means that Bowers must have seen them from his watchtower.
But why didn’t he mention it in his testimony? Such a serious observation must be worth to tell to the authorities, but why didn’t he?
I know the answer, and the simple answer is following: badgeman didn’t exist, just blobs on a photograph.
Mark
Full Version: Jack White's badgeman fantasy.....
QUOTE (Mark Johansson @ Oct 8 2006, 09:20 PM) 
Jack White and his badgeman fantasy…
Once upon a time I was unbiased and thought the badgeman existed, and he was the man who fired the fatal bullet in JFK’s head.
But recently I started to doubt that badgeman really existed, based on Lee Bowers’s testimony. Jack White states that badgeman and his spotter hardhat man stood on the hood of a car, overlooking the area. Which means that Bowers must have seen them from his watchtower.
But why didn’t he mention it in his testimony? Such a serious observation must be worth to tell to the authorities, but why didn’t he?
I know the answer, and the simple answer is following: badgeman didn’t exist, just blobs on a photograph.
Mark
Once upon a time I was unbiased and thought the badgeman existed, and he was the man who fired the fatal bullet in JFK’s head.
But recently I started to doubt that badgeman really existed, based on Lee Bowers’s testimony. Jack White states that badgeman and his spotter hardhat man stood on the hood of a car, overlooking the area. Which means that Bowers must have seen them from his watchtower.
But why didn’t he mention it in his testimony? Such a serious observation must be worth to tell to the authorities, but why didn’t he?
I know the answer, and the simple answer is following: badgeman didn’t exist, just blobs on a photograph.
Mark
Mark ... just so you know this ... I have never heard Jack say that Badge Man stood on the hood of a car. It has been said that Badge Man may have stood on the bumper of a car or even one of the concrete parking barriers, but never on an actual car hood.
It is also worth noting that Gordon Arnold was telling of a shot coming over his shoulder from the moment he arrived home to tell his family what he had experienced during the shooting. Mrs. Hartman also told of a furrow in the grass on the south pasture that led back to the Badge Man area and was told to her by a police officer that it appeared to be where a bullet struck the turf.
From Lee Bowers ELEVATED location in the tower - Bowers COULD NOT have seen the Badge Man for there was a back drop of tree foliage between Bowers and the fence ... not to mention the parked cars blocking part of the view near the ground.
I hope these few things give you a better understanding as to why the Badge Man scenario exist and how it was not merely made up out of nothing.
Bill Miller
As Miller points out, Mark is entirely wrong.
I have never said Badgeman stood on the hood of a car.
I said it is possible he stood on a car bumper, as I have
showed with reconstruction photos. It is not possible
for him to be on the ground, since the fence is five feet
tall. He could have stood on anything that raised him about
eighteen inches. According to Gordon Arnold, there was
a shot from that location.
I have never said that Badgeman's shot hit anything; in
fact, I believe that his shot missed.
The important thing about Badgeman, as it has always
been, is he is a shooter on the knoll, disproving the
"lone assassin theory".
As for Bowers, he did mention seeing two men in the
area, but it is not clear just what he saw.
Jack
I have never said Badgeman stood on the hood of a car.
I said it is possible he stood on a car bumper, as I have
showed with reconstruction photos. It is not possible
for him to be on the ground, since the fence is five feet
tall. He could have stood on anything that raised him about
eighteen inches. According to Gordon Arnold, there was
a shot from that location.
I have never said that Badgeman's shot hit anything; in
fact, I believe that his shot missed.
The important thing about Badgeman, as it has always
been, is he is a shooter on the knoll, disproving the
"lone assassin theory".
As for Bowers, he did mention seeing two men in the
area, but it is not clear just what he saw.
Jack
[quote name='Jack White' date='Oct 8 2006, 10:02 PM' post='77206']
As Miller points out, Mark is entirely wrong.
I have never said Badgeman stood on the hood of a car.
I said it is possible he stood on a car bumper, as I have
showed with reconstruction photos. It is not possible
for him to be on the ground, since the fence is five feet
tall. He could have stood on anything that raised him about
eighteen inches. According to Gordon Arnold, there was
a shot from that location.
I have never said that Badgeman's shot hit anything; in
fact, I believe that his shot missed.
The important thing about Badgeman, as it has always
been, is he is a shooter on the knoll, disproving the
"lone assassin theory".
As for Bowers, he did mention seeing two men in the
area, but it is not clear just what he saw.
Jack
[/quote]
We also don't know how much of Bower's testimony was edited out, as was the case with other eye witnesses to this horror.
I don't see a lot in most of the photos or film clips but, even to the untrained eye like mine, Badgeman is
very obvious. Does not say he's a cop, just someone wearing a badge, who likely should not have been there. An innocent explanation would have been offered years ago.
Dawn
As Miller points out, Mark is entirely wrong.
I have never said Badgeman stood on the hood of a car.
I said it is possible he stood on a car bumper, as I have
showed with reconstruction photos. It is not possible
for him to be on the ground, since the fence is five feet
tall. He could have stood on anything that raised him about
eighteen inches. According to Gordon Arnold, there was
a shot from that location.
I have never said that Badgeman's shot hit anything; in
fact, I believe that his shot missed.
The important thing about Badgeman, as it has always
been, is he is a shooter on the knoll, disproving the
"lone assassin theory".
As for Bowers, he did mention seeing two men in the
area, but it is not clear just what he saw.
Jack
[/quote]
We also don't know how much of Bower's testimony was edited out, as was the case with other eye witnesses to this horror.
I don't see a lot in most of the photos or film clips but, even to the untrained eye like mine, Badgeman is
very obvious. Does not say he's a cop, just someone wearing a badge, who likely should not have been there. An innocent explanation would have been offered years ago.
Dawn
Mark,
let's assume for a second that badgeman was real and a shooter,
would that conflict with the James Files claims
of being a shooter from the knoll ?
let's assume for a second that badgeman was real and a shooter,
would that conflict with the James Files claims
of being a shooter from the knoll ?
QUOTE (Dave Weaver @ Oct 9 2006, 12:25 AM)
Mark,
let's assume for a second that badgeman was real and a shooter,
would that conflict with the James Files claims
of being a shooter from the knoll ?
let's assume for a second that badgeman was real and a shooter,
would that conflict with the James Files claims
of being a shooter from the knoll ?
What kind of nonsense is this Dave Weaver???
Just look at the facts: a Polaroid photo!!!
Just know how grainy that is....
It wasn't a slide!
There is just NOT such information/detail/resolution in the spot of Moorman's Polaroid Jack White and Gary Mack just fantasized/created their "Badgeman", PERIOD!
Gr. Paul.
BTW,
Like Mark, I was also very impressed in the beginning when I saw TMWKK and Jack White/Gary Mack with their discovery...
But when you look at it more in detail, it just can't be and it just is something not true, just fabricated.
The "Badgeman" is one big HOAX, I think as big as the "magic bullet theory"!
Gr. Paul.
So many of the witnesses that day felt they heard or saw some evidienc of a shot from the N. Knoll, I find it interesting at this late date that people want to reject it completely. Look at the statements of Gordon Arnold and so many others.
Lemkin,
I’m not rejecting a bullet from the grassy knoll; all I reject is a bullet from the badgeman because he is a pure myth in my opinion.
I find it impossible to discern three human figures from a tiny section of a photo.
Mark
Lemkin,
I’m not rejecting a bullet from the grassy knoll; all I reject is a bullet from the badgeman because he is a pure myth in my opinion.
I find it impossible to discern three human figures from a tiny section of a photo.
Mark
QUOTE (Mark Johansson @ Oct 8 2006, 08:20 PM)
Jack White and his badgeman fantasy…
Once upon a time I was unbiased and thought the badgeman existed, and he was the man who fired the fatal bullet in JFK’s head.
But you are now presumably "biased" and think otherwise? Thank you for the unintended candor.
But recently I started to doubt that badgeman really existed, based on Lee Bowers’s testimony. Jack White states that badgeman and his spotter hardhat man stood on the hood of a car, overlooking the area. Which means that Bowers must have seen them from his watchtower.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
But why didn’t he mention it in his testimony? Such a serious observation must be worth to tell to the authorities, but why didn’t he?
Bowers did mention seeing two men in that precise location, as anyone can tell had they bothered to read his testimony. That he didn't see a third man doesn't negate the two he did see, and doesn't demonstrate that a third man could not have been there.
And Bowers wasn't alone in providing testimony consisent with Badgeman, as anyone can tell had they bothered to read the testimony:
STERLING HOLLAND:
Well, the only thing that I remember now that I didn't then, I remember about the third car down from this fence, there was a station wagon backed up toward the fence, about the third car down, and a spot, I'd say 3 foot by 2 foot, looked to me like somebody had been standing there for a long period. I guess if you could count them about a hundred foottracks in that little spot, and also mud upon the bumper of that station wagon....It was muddy, and you could have if you could have counted them, I imagine it would have been a hundred tracks just in that one location. It was just----
Mr. Stern.
And then you saw some mud on the bumper?
Mr. Holland.
Mud on the bumper in two spots.
Mr. Stern.
As if someone had cleaned his foot, or---
Mr. Holland.
Well, as if someone had cleaned their foot, or stood up on the bumper to see over the fence.
DEPUTY SEYMOUR WEITZMAN:
We noticed numerous kinds of footprints that did not make sense because they were going different directions.....
Mr. Ball.
Were there other people there besides you?
Mr. Weitzman.
Yes, sir; other officers, Secret Service as well...
OFFICER JOSEPH MARSHALL SMITH: [likely the FIRST cop on the scene]
Mr. Liebeler.
After you heard the shots, you proceeded down along the bushes here between the street that runs in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building and Elm Street to approximately point 5, and then when you went down looking to the cars, you then had occasion to look up at the railroad tracks running over the triple underpass?
Mr. Smith.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Liebeler.
Did you see anybody up there?
Mr. Smith.
Yes, sir; there was two other officers there, I know.
Mr. Liebeler.
Were there any other people up there, that you can remember?
Mr. Smith.
No, sir; none that I remember.
Mr. Liebeler.
But you remember that there were two police officers up there?
Mr. Smith.
Yes, sir.
Three persons in the motorcade - Mayor Earle Cabell's wife, Senator Ralph Yarborough and Congressman Ray Roberts - recounted to authorities that as they passed through Dealey Plaza, they smelled gunpowder. It is unlikely that shots fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD would result in gunpowder being smelled on the ground in Dealey Plaza. But Officer Smith, above, was among the first to reach the area behind the fence atop the grassy knoll - where he saw two police officers already there - and he recalled precisely the same thing for author Anthony Summers:
"...around the hedges, there was the smell, the lingering smell of gunpowder."
I know the answer, and the simple answer is following: badgeman didn’t exist, just blobs on a photograph.
Yes, your answer is "simple," as well as simplistic in the extreme. Rather than looking solely at blobs on a photograph, perhaps you could trouble yourself to read the testimony of those who were there, and suggested the presence of somebody at precisely the point indicated for Badgeman in Moorman, well before Messrs. White and Mack located those "blobs."
What is a "fantasy," Mr. Johansson, is that you - or any other johnny-come-lately - can make these uncomfortable truths disappear with a single, scurrilously baseless smear against White [and Mack, by extention.]
Mark
Once upon a time I was unbiased and thought the badgeman existed, and he was the man who fired the fatal bullet in JFK’s head.
But you are now presumably "biased" and think otherwise? Thank you for the unintended candor.
But recently I started to doubt that badgeman really existed, based on Lee Bowers’s testimony. Jack White states that badgeman and his spotter hardhat man stood on the hood of a car, overlooking the area. Which means that Bowers must have seen them from his watchtower.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
But why didn’t he mention it in his testimony? Such a serious observation must be worth to tell to the authorities, but why didn’t he?
Bowers did mention seeing two men in that precise location, as anyone can tell had they bothered to read his testimony. That he didn't see a third man doesn't negate the two he did see, and doesn't demonstrate that a third man could not have been there.
And Bowers wasn't alone in providing testimony consisent with Badgeman, as anyone can tell had they bothered to read the testimony:
STERLING HOLLAND:
Well, the only thing that I remember now that I didn't then, I remember about the third car down from this fence, there was a station wagon backed up toward the fence, about the third car down, and a spot, I'd say 3 foot by 2 foot, looked to me like somebody had been standing there for a long period. I guess if you could count them about a hundred foottracks in that little spot, and also mud upon the bumper of that station wagon....It was muddy, and you could have if you could have counted them, I imagine it would have been a hundred tracks just in that one location. It was just----
Mr. Stern.
And then you saw some mud on the bumper?
Mr. Holland.
Mud on the bumper in two spots.
Mr. Stern.
As if someone had cleaned his foot, or---
Mr. Holland.
Well, as if someone had cleaned their foot, or stood up on the bumper to see over the fence.
DEPUTY SEYMOUR WEITZMAN:
We noticed numerous kinds of footprints that did not make sense because they were going different directions.....
Mr. Ball.
Were there other people there besides you?
Mr. Weitzman.
Yes, sir; other officers, Secret Service as well...
OFFICER JOSEPH MARSHALL SMITH: [likely the FIRST cop on the scene]
Mr. Liebeler.
After you heard the shots, you proceeded down along the bushes here between the street that runs in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building and Elm Street to approximately point 5, and then when you went down looking to the cars, you then had occasion to look up at the railroad tracks running over the triple underpass?
Mr. Smith.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Liebeler.
Did you see anybody up there?
Mr. Smith.
Yes, sir; there was two other officers there, I know.
Mr. Liebeler.
Were there any other people up there, that you can remember?
Mr. Smith.
No, sir; none that I remember.
Mr. Liebeler.
But you remember that there were two police officers up there?
Mr. Smith.
Yes, sir.
Three persons in the motorcade - Mayor Earle Cabell's wife, Senator Ralph Yarborough and Congressman Ray Roberts - recounted to authorities that as they passed through Dealey Plaza, they smelled gunpowder. It is unlikely that shots fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD would result in gunpowder being smelled on the ground in Dealey Plaza. But Officer Smith, above, was among the first to reach the area behind the fence atop the grassy knoll - where he saw two police officers already there - and he recalled precisely the same thing for author Anthony Summers:
"...around the hedges, there was the smell, the lingering smell of gunpowder."
I know the answer, and the simple answer is following: badgeman didn’t exist, just blobs on a photograph.
Yes, your answer is "simple," as well as simplistic in the extreme. Rather than looking solely at blobs on a photograph, perhaps you could trouble yourself to read the testimony of those who were there, and suggested the presence of somebody at precisely the point indicated for Badgeman in Moorman, well before Messrs. White and Mack located those "blobs."
What is a "fantasy," Mr. Johansson, is that you - or any other johnny-come-lately - can make these uncomfortable truths disappear with a single, scurrilously baseless smear against White [and Mack, by extention.]
Mark
QUOTE (Dave Weaver @ Oct 9 2006, 12:25 AM)
Mark,
let's assume for a second that badgeman was real and a shooter,
would that conflict with the James Files claims
of being a shooter from the knoll ?
let's assume for a second that badgeman was real and a shooter,
would that conflict with the James Files claims
of being a shooter from the knoll ?
Not necessarily, Uwe. If Bowers and no else didn't see badgeman and hardhat man, why would Files have seen them?
Also the acoustics study does not pinpoint the knoll shot to the badgeman position (on the short side of the fence behind the stone wall), but to the Files position (on the long side of the fence next to the large tree).
But indeed on Wim's forum and also by email , he gets a lot of questions:
Why did Files not see badgeman?
This shows what a die hard myth can do, also for truthseeking people. The answer to that question should be: He didn't see badgeman, because there was no badgeman.
Mark
Please show me ONE (1) photo where Gordon Armold is visible.
Don't give me "black dog man" because that's a black blob totally inconsistent with Jack White's light colored fatigue for Gordon Arnold.
Mark
Don't give me "black dog man" because that's a black blob totally inconsistent with Jack White's light colored fatigue for Gordon Arnold.
Mark
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Oct 9 2006, 12:08 AM' post='77213']
[quote name='Jack White' date='Oct 8 2006, 10:02 PM' post='77206']
As Miller points out, Mark is entirely wrong.
I have never said Badgeman stood on the hood of a car.
I said it is possible he stood on a car bumper, as I have
showed with reconstruction photos. It is not possible
for him to be on the ground, since the fence is five feet
tall. He could have stood on anything that raised him about
eighteen inches. According to Gordon Arnold, there was
a shot from that location.
I have never said that Badgeman's shot hit anything; in
fact, I believe that his shot missed.
The important thing about Badgeman, as it has always
been, is he is a shooter on the knoll, disproving the
"lone assassin theory".
As for Bowers, he did mention seeing two men in the
area, but it is not clear just what he saw.
Jack
[/quote]
We also don't know how much of Bower's testimony was edited out, as was the case with other eye witnesses to this horror.
I don't see a lot in most of the photos or film clips but, even to the untrained eye like mine, Badgeman is
very obvious. Does not say he's a cop, just someone wearing a badge, who likely should not have been there. An innocent explanation would have been offered years ago.
Dawn
[/quote]
Dawn, it's not so difficult to see a badgeman with the untrained eye, after it is enhanced and colored in.
The trouble is, you have forgotten that once upon a time there was an original, which has nothing to do with Jack's wishul-thinking-enhancements that are now imprinted on the brainstems of many.
Mark
[quote name='Jack White' date='Oct 8 2006, 10:02 PM' post='77206']
As Miller points out, Mark is entirely wrong.
I have never said Badgeman stood on the hood of a car.
I said it is possible he stood on a car bumper, as I have
showed with reconstruction photos. It is not possible
for him to be on the ground, since the fence is five feet
tall. He could have stood on anything that raised him about
eighteen inches. According to Gordon Arnold, there was
a shot from that location.
I have never said that Badgeman's shot hit anything; in
fact, I believe that his shot missed.
The important thing about Badgeman, as it has always
been, is he is a shooter on the knoll, disproving the
"lone assassin theory".
As for Bowers, he did mention seeing two men in the
area, but it is not clear just what he saw.
Jack
[/quote]
We also don't know how much of Bower's testimony was edited out, as was the case with other eye witnesses to this horror.
I don't see a lot in most of the photos or film clips but, even to the untrained eye like mine, Badgeman is
very obvious. Does not say he's a cop, just someone wearing a badge, who likely should not have been there. An innocent explanation would have been offered years ago.
Dawn
[/quote]
Dawn, it's not so difficult to see a badgeman with the untrained eye, after it is enhanced and colored in.
The trouble is, you have forgotten that once upon a time there was an original, which has nothing to do with Jack's wishul-thinking-enhancements that are now imprinted on the brainstems of many.
Mark
QUOTE (Mark Johansson @ Oct 8 2006, 08:20 PM)
Jack White and his badgeman fantasy…
.
Mark
.
Mark
Pot.................................Kettle.............................Black....
..................
Robert Charles-Dunne
Jack White and his badgeman fantasy…
Once upon a time I was unbiased and thought the badgeman existed, and he was the man who fired the fatal bullet in JFK’s head.
But you are now presumably "biased" and think otherwise? Thank you for the unintended candor.
But recently I started to doubt that badgeman really existed, based on Lee Bowers’s testimony. Jack White states that badgeman and his spotter hardhat man stood on the hood of a car, overlooking the area. Which means that Bowers must have seen them from his watchtower.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
But why didn’t he mention it in his testimony? Such a serious observation must be worth to tell to the authorities, but why didn’t he?
Bowers did mention seeing two men in that precise location, as anyone can tell had they bothered to read his testimony.
Yes, but none of them was a policeman or a guy with a hard hat. One of the men fits the description of James Files. The other one was most likely an innocent bystander looking for spot to watch the motorcade. Bowers is not sure at all if both men were still there during the shooting.
That he didn't see a third man doesn't negate the two he did see, and doesn't demonstrate that a third man could not have been there.
Sure, but the problem is that there is no photographic evidence to support three men behind the fence at the time of the shooting. Unless you wnat to believe in Jack White's blown-up fantasies.
And Bowers wasn't alone in providing testimony consisent with Badgeman, as anyone can tell had they bothered to read the testimony:
STERLING HOLLAND:
Well, the only thing that I remember now that I didn't then, I remember about the third car down from this fence, there was a station wagon backed up toward the fence, about the third car down, and a spot, I'd say 3 foot by 2 foot, looked to me like somebody had been standing there for a long period. I guess if you could count them about a hundred foottracks in that little spot, and also mud upon the bumper of that station wagon....It was muddy, and you could have if you could have counted them, I imagine it would have been a hundred tracks just in that one location. It was just----
Homework, do your homework. The spot that Holland describes was the Files spot, NOT the badgeman location.
J – Were you a smoker at the time?
JF – Oh yes, I did smoke.
J – Were you smoking cigarettes that morning?
JF – I had smoked that day. Careless! I probably stepped on several cigarette butts and left them there. Most of them Pall Mall.
J – Was it muddy back there?
JF – It was very muddy. Let me put it this way: A couple of times I even took my shoes, put them above up the little country ledger and scraped the mud off the bottom of them. I hated getting mud on them.
Jack White and his badgeman fantasy…
Once upon a time I was unbiased and thought the badgeman existed, and he was the man who fired the fatal bullet in JFK’s head.
But you are now presumably "biased" and think otherwise? Thank you for the unintended candor.
But recently I started to doubt that badgeman really existed, based on Lee Bowers’s testimony. Jack White states that badgeman and his spotter hardhat man stood on the hood of a car, overlooking the area. Which means that Bowers must have seen them from his watchtower.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
But why didn’t he mention it in his testimony? Such a serious observation must be worth to tell to the authorities, but why didn’t he?
Bowers did mention seeing two men in that precise location, as anyone can tell had they bothered to read his testimony.
Yes, but none of them was a policeman or a guy with a hard hat. One of the men fits the description of James Files. The other one was most likely an innocent bystander looking for spot to watch the motorcade. Bowers is not sure at all if both men were still there during the shooting.
That he didn't see a third man doesn't negate the two he did see, and doesn't demonstrate that a third man could not have been there.
Sure, but the problem is that there is no photographic evidence to support three men behind the fence at the time of the shooting. Unless you wnat to believe in Jack White's blown-up fantasies.
And Bowers wasn't alone in providing testimony consisent with Badgeman, as anyone can tell had they bothered to read the testimony:
STERLING HOLLAND:
Well, the only thing that I remember now that I didn't then, I remember about the third car down from this fence, there was a station wagon backed up toward the fence, about the third car down, and a spot, I'd say 3 foot by 2 foot, looked to me like somebody had been standing there for a long period. I guess if you could count them about a hundred foottracks in that little spot, and also mud upon the bumper of that station wagon....It was muddy, and you could have if you could have counted them, I imagine it would have been a hundred tracks just in that one location. It was just----
Homework, do your homework. The spot that Holland describes was the Files spot, NOT the badgeman location.
J – Were you a smoker at the time?
JF – Oh yes, I did smoke.
J – Were you smoking cigarettes that morning?
JF – I had smoked that day. Careless! I probably stepped on several cigarette butts and left them there. Most of them Pall Mall.
J – Was it muddy back there?
JF – It was very muddy. Let me put it this way: A couple of times I even took my shoes, put them above up the little country ledger and scraped the mud off the bottom of them. I hated getting mud on them.
QUOTE (Stephen Turner @ Oct 9 2006, 10:52 AM)
QUOTE (Mark Johansson @ Oct 8 2006, 08:20 PM)
Jack White and his badgeman fantasy…
.
Mark
Pot.................................Kettle.............................Black....
..................
Wow Stephen Turner,
That is a very contributing post you have here....
(like always)
Gr. Paul.
QUOTE (Mark Johansson @ Oct 9 2006, 09:54 AM)
Robert Charles-Dunne
Jack White and his badgeman fantasy…
Once upon a time I was unbiased and thought the badgeman existed, and he was the man who fired the fatal bullet in JFK’s head.
But you are now presumably "biased" and think otherwise? Thank you for the unintended candor.
But recently I started to doubt that badgeman really existed, based on Lee Bowers’s testimony. Jack White states that badgeman and his spotter hardhat man stood on the hood of a car, overlooking the area. Which means that Bowers must have seen them from his watchtower.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
But why didn’t he mention it in his testimony? Such a serious observation must be worth to tell to the authorities, but why didn’t he?
Bowers did mention seeing two men in that precise location, as anyone can tell had they bothered to read his testimony.
Yes, but none of them was a policeman or a guy with a hard hat. One of the men fits the description of James Files. The other one was most likely an innocent bystander looking for spot to watch the motorcade. Bowers is not sure at all if both men were still there during the shooting.
Thank you for identifying yourself as agenda-driven, rather than one of the "truthseeking people" as you seem to have previously claimed.
For you, this is not about learning who killed the President, but about proving James Files' various, ever-shifting assertions to be true. That doesn't seem to have worked out so well for others in the past, who now denounce Files as a fabricator, but perhaps you will fare better than they did.
"One of the men fits the description of James Files?" To the exclusion of all other males in Dallas on that day? What, pray tell, makes any of Bowers' descriptors so unique that it could only apply to Files?
"The other one was most likely an innocent bystander looking for spot to watch the motorcade?" Really? Then presumably Files shooed him away, in order to commit the crime unnoticed by a stranger, correct? But, according to Bowers, the wrong man was present throughout, if Files was the gunman firing from the knoll. Here's Bowers describing the two men:
"One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket."
Later, asked if both were present immediately after the assassination, when Bowers noticed a motorcycle cop coming up the knoll, here's what he claimed to have seen:
Mr. Ball.
Were the two men there at the time?
Mr. Bowers.
I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not say. The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The white shirt, yes; I think he was.
In other words, the older man was present throughout - "middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers" - but Bowers didn't see the younger man who might be synonymous with Files.
Consequently, while you make much of the fact that Bowers didn't report seeing a cop - who wouldn't have seemed out of place to Bowers - how do you account for the fact that deadly assassin Files allowed the older man to remain at the scene while Files commited the crime if the second man was, as you assert, "most likely an innocent bystander?" Files liked to perform in front of an audience, did he?
That he didn't see a third man doesn't negate the two he did see, and doesn't demonstrate that a third man could not have been there.
Sure, but the problem is that there is no photographic evidence to support three men behind the fence at the time of the shooting. Unless you wnat to believe in Jack White's blown-up fantasies.
Perhaps, if you could be convinced to look for evidence in the testimony - hard work, I know - rather than relying upon the happy accident of photos, you would glean enough actual evidence that you, too, would denounce Files as a fabricator. In the meantime, I'd be very careful about dismissing anybody else's putative "blown-up fantasies."
And Bowers wasn't alone in providing testimony consisent with Badgeman, as anyone can tell had they bothered to read the testimony:
STERLING HOLLAND:
Well, the only thing that I remember now that I didn't then, I remember about the third car down from this fence, there was a station wagon backed up toward the fence, about the third car down, and a spot, I'd say 3 foot by 2 foot, looked to me like somebody had been standing there for a long period. I guess if you could count them about a hundred foottracks in that little spot, and also mud upon the bumper of that station wagon....It was muddy, and you could have if you could have counted them, I imagine it would have been a hundred tracks just in that one location. It was just----
Homework, do your homework. The spot that Holland describes was the Files spot, NOT the badgeman location.
So sayeth Files, whom you believe based upon nothing more than his word, at the expense of the others who were demonstrably there? Fascinating detective work on your part, I must say. By all means, ignore the actual evidence provided by real-live witnesses to the event, and present Files' conclusive proof for his claims.
J – Were you a smoker at the time?
JF – Oh yes, I did smoke.
J – Were you smoking cigarettes that morning?
JF – I had smoked that day. Careless! I probably stepped on several cigarette butts and left them there. Most of them Pall Mall.
"Careless?" Gee, do y'think? So, while awaiting the chance to commit the crime of the century, the ruthless assassin deliberately left behind incriminating evidence of his presence there? Did he leave behind anything else?
J – Was it muddy back there?
JF – It was very muddy. Let me put it this way: A couple of times I even took my shoes, put them above up the little country ledger and scraped the mud off the bottom of them. I hated getting mud on them.
This is what your average law enforcement official would call "proof," is it?
Rather than attack Jack White, or others whose observations undercut the already dubious Files, you might consider the wisdom of reassessing Files' veracity. Storytelling isn't evidence of anything but storytelling.
Jack White and his badgeman fantasy…
Once upon a time I was unbiased and thought the badgeman existed, and he was the man who fired the fatal bullet in JFK’s head.
But you are now presumably "biased" and think otherwise? Thank you for the unintended candor.
But recently I started to doubt that badgeman really existed, based on Lee Bowers’s testimony. Jack White states that badgeman and his spotter hardhat man stood on the hood of a car, overlooking the area. Which means that Bowers must have seen them from his watchtower.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
But why didn’t he mention it in his testimony? Such a serious observation must be worth to tell to the authorities, but why didn’t he?
Bowers did mention seeing two men in that precise location, as anyone can tell had they bothered to read his testimony.
Yes, but none of them was a policeman or a guy with a hard hat. One of the men fits the description of James Files. The other one was most likely an innocent bystander looking for spot to watch the motorcade. Bowers is not sure at all if both men were still there during the shooting.
Thank you for identifying yourself as agenda-driven, rather than one of the "truthseeking people" as you seem to have previously claimed.
For you, this is not about learning who killed the President, but about proving James Files' various, ever-shifting assertions to be true. That doesn't seem to have worked out so well for others in the past, who now denounce Files as a fabricator, but perhaps you will fare better than they did.
"One of the men fits the description of James Files?" To the exclusion of all other males in Dallas on that day? What, pray tell, makes any of Bowers' descriptors so unique that it could only apply to Files?
"The other one was most likely an innocent bystander looking for spot to watch the motorcade?" Really? Then presumably Files shooed him away, in order to commit the crime unnoticed by a stranger, correct? But, according to Bowers, the wrong man was present throughout, if Files was the gunman firing from the knoll. Here's Bowers describing the two men:
"One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket."
Later, asked if both were present immediately after the assassination, when Bowers noticed a motorcycle cop coming up the knoll, here's what he claimed to have seen:
Mr. Ball.
Were the two men there at the time?
Mr. Bowers.
I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not say. The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The white shirt, yes; I think he was.
In other words, the older man was present throughout - "middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers" - but Bowers didn't see the younger man who might be synonymous with Files.
Consequently, while you make much of the fact that Bowers didn't report seeing a cop - who wouldn't have seemed out of place to Bowers - how do you account for the fact that deadly assassin Files allowed the older man to remain at the scene while Files commited the crime if the second man was, as you assert, "most likely an innocent bystander?" Files liked to perform in front of an audience, did he?
That he didn't see a third man doesn't negate the two he did see, and doesn't demonstrate that a third man could not have been there.
Sure, but the problem is that there is no photographic evidence to support three men behind the fence at the time of the shooting. Unless you wnat to believe in Jack White's blown-up fantasies.
Perhaps, if you could be convinced to look for evidence in the testimony - hard work, I know - rather than relying upon the happy accident of photos, you would glean enough actual evidence that you, too, would denounce Files as a fabricator. In the meantime, I'd be very careful about dismissing anybody else's putative "blown-up fantasies."
And Bowers wasn't alone in providing testimony consisent with Badgeman, as anyone can tell had they bothered to read the testimony:
STERLING HOLLAND:
Well, the only thing that I remember now that I didn't then, I remember about the third car down from this fence, there was a station wagon backed up toward the fence, about the third car down, and a spot, I'd say 3 foot by 2 foot, looked to me like somebody had been standing there for a long period. I guess if you could count them about a hundred foottracks in that little spot, and also mud upon the bumper of that station wagon....It was muddy, and you could have if you could have counted them, I imagine it would have been a hundred tracks just in that one location. It was just----
Homework, do your homework. The spot that Holland describes was the Files spot, NOT the badgeman location.
So sayeth Files, whom you believe based upon nothing more than his word, at the expense of the others who were demonstrably there? Fascinating detective work on your part, I must say. By all means, ignore the actual evidence provided by real-live witnesses to the event, and present Files' conclusive proof for his claims.
J – Were you a smoker at the time?
JF – Oh yes, I did smoke.
J – Were you smoking cigarettes that morning?
JF – I had smoked that day. Careless! I probably stepped on several cigarette butts and left them there. Most of them Pall Mall.
"Careless?" Gee, do y'think? So, while awaiting the chance to commit the crime of the century, the ruthless assassin deliberately left behind incriminating evidence of his presence there? Did he leave behind anything else?
J – Was it muddy back there?
JF – It was very muddy. Let me put it this way: A couple of times I even took my shoes, put them above up the little country ledger and scraped the mud off the bottom of them. I hated getting mud on them.
This is what your average law enforcement official would call "proof," is it?
Rather than attack Jack White, or others whose observations undercut the already dubious Files, you might consider the wisdom of reassessing Files' veracity. Storytelling isn't evidence of anything but storytelling.
Badgeman emerged as part of Jack White's investigation into the JFK assassination,
and later NASA photographs and the September eleventh photographs, so until you
have seen the body of Jack Whites work, you should not judge badgeman.
I think badgeman, and Gordon Novel's shooter on the hood of a car, correspond
to the NIX shooter, and BOWERS testimony is very important for anyone looking for a
general government sponsorship conspiracy behind november 1963////////
and later NASA photographs and the September eleventh photographs, so until you
have seen the body of Jack Whites work, you should not judge badgeman.
I think badgeman, and Gordon Novel's shooter on the hood of a car, correspond
to the NIX shooter, and BOWERS testimony is very important for anyone looking for a
general government sponsorship conspiracy behind november 1963////////
QUOTE
I think badgeman, and Gordon Novel's shooter on the hood of a car, correspond
to the NIX shooter,
to the NIX shooter,
As Jack made quite clear ... Badge Man is not on the hood of any car.
Bill Miller
QUOTE (Shanet Clark @ Oct 10 2006, 02:05 AM)
Badgeman emerged as part of Jack White's investigation into the JFK assassination,
and later NASA photographs and the September eleventh photographs, so until you
have seen the body of Jack Whites work, you should not judge badgeman.
I think badgeman, and Gordon Novel's shooter on the hood of a car, correspond
to the NIX shooter, and BOWERS testimony is very important for anyone looking for a
general government sponsorship conspiracy behind november 1963////////
and later NASA photographs and the September eleventh photographs, so until you
have seen the body of Jack Whites work, you should not judge badgeman.
I think badgeman, and Gordon Novel's shooter on the hood of a car, correspond
to the NIX shooter, and BOWERS testimony is very important for anyone looking for a
general government sponsorship conspiracy behind november 1963////////
Having studied Jacks White's ENTIRE body of work, its safe to say he has NO talent for anything photographic and his skill set is non existant. In other words he is clueless and his entire body of work isdnothing but garbage, and provably so.
As for badgeman, the image White shows as Badgeman is simply and artifact of multipile generations of photographic copying as the Moorman camera/lens/film was UNABLE to produce the level of detail seen in Whites image. And thats the facts.
Was Polaroid using Kodak film at the time? I thought Polaraid is typically a camera that produces one hard copy without negative?
Wim
Wim
QUOTE (Wim Dankbaar @ Oct 10 2006, 11:20 AM)
Was Polaroid using Kodak film at the time? I thought Polaraid is typically a camera that produces one hard copy without negative?
Wim
Wim
Polaroid film in a Polaroid camera. Only a few polaroid films were made (and one is still made btw) that produce both a print and a negative. The film used by Mary Moorman (and a similar emulsion is still availabe today) was print only.
So why is this showing Kodak?
QUOTE (Wim Dankbaar @ Oct 10 2006, 11:32 AM)
So why is this showing Kodak?
Because I shot the copies on 35mm Kodak film, bracketing at
half-stop intervals for optimal exposure on Panatomic X.
Jack
The Moorman photo is worthless as legal evidence, because
it is provably altered in the area of the Z pedestal.
One proof is the very fine detail of Badgeman, who is in
shadow, and the very poor detail of Zapruder/Sitzman,
who are IN FULL SUNLIGHT. The image of Badgeman
is very small compared to the image of Zapruder. At larger
size and IN SUNLIGHT, the Z/S image SHOULD BE SUPERIOR
TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE.
Something few consider is that the Badgeman image may
be altered also. Perhaps it was inserted as a red herring.
But I doubt it.
Jack
it is provably altered in the area of the Z pedestal.
One proof is the very fine detail of Badgeman, who is in
shadow, and the very poor detail of Zapruder/Sitzman,
who are IN FULL SUNLIGHT. The image of Badgeman
is very small compared to the image of Zapruder. At larger
size and IN SUNLIGHT, the Z/S image SHOULD BE SUPERIOR
TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE.
Something few consider is that the Badgeman image may
be altered also. Perhaps it was inserted as a red herring.
But I doubt it.
Jack
[/quote]
One proof is the very fine detail of Badgeman, who is in
shadow, and the very poor detail of Zapruder/Sitzman,
who are IN FULL SUNLIGHT. The image of Badgeman
is very small compared to the image of Zapruder. At larger
size and IN SUNLIGHT, the Z/S image SHOULD BE SUPERIOR
TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE.
Jack
[/quote]
Jack, am I to understand correctly that the pedestal image you posted (#24) was from the same Moorman print the Badge Man is seen in?
Bill Miller
One proof is the very fine detail of Badgeman, who is in
shadow, and the very poor detail of Zapruder/Sitzman,
who are IN FULL SUNLIGHT. The image of Badgeman
is very small compared to the image of Zapruder. At larger
size and IN SUNLIGHT, the Z/S image SHOULD BE SUPERIOR
TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE.
Jack
[/quote]
Jack, am I to understand correctly that the pedestal image you posted (#24) was from the same Moorman print the Badge Man is seen in?
Bill Miller
[quote name='Bill Miller' date='Oct 10 2006, 04:20 PM' post='77388']
[/quote]
One proof is the very fine detail of Badgeman, who is in
shadow, and the very poor detail of Zapruder/Sitzman,
who are IN FULL SUNLIGHT. The image of Badgeman
is very small compared to the image of Zapruder. At larger
size and IN SUNLIGHT, the Z/S image SHOULD BE SUPERIOR
TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE.
Jack
[/quote]
Jack, am I to understand correctly that the pedestal image you posted (#24) was from the same Moorman print the Badge Man is seen in?
Bill Miller
[/quote]
I know the origin of the Badgeman image: A Groden slide from a Thompson print.
I am not sure of the Zapruder image, but think it likely is the Thompson #1 print
loaned to Gary Mack by Josiah Thompson; I used the best image I could find in
my computer...but I have hundreds of Moorman images. But the Badgeman image
is seen most clearly in the Thompson #1 print.
Jack
[/quote]
One proof is the very fine detail of Badgeman, who is in
shadow, and the very poor detail of Zapruder/Sitzman,
who are IN FULL SUNLIGHT. The image of Badgeman
is very small compared to the image of Zapruder. At larger
size and IN SUNLIGHT, the Z/S image SHOULD BE SUPERIOR
TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE.
Jack
[/quote]
Jack, am I to understand correctly that the pedestal image you posted (#24) was from the same Moorman print the Badge Man is seen in?
Bill Miller
[/quote]
I know the origin of the Badgeman image: A Groden slide from a Thompson print.
I am not sure of the Zapruder image, but think it likely is the Thompson #1 print
loaned to Gary Mack by Josiah Thompson; I used the best image I could find in
my computer...but I have hundreds of Moorman images. But the Badgeman image
is seen most clearly in the Thompson #1 print.
Jack
QUOTE (Bill Miller @ Oct 10 2006, 06:32 AM)
QUOTE
I think badgeman, and Gordon Novel's shooter on the hood of a car, correspond
to the NIX shooter,
As Jack made quite clear ... Badge Man is not on the hood of any car.
Bill Miller
Hood, bumper, whatever you want to call it, the badgeman is pure fiction, as Lamson says: an artifact made of multiple generations photographic copying.
You can’t discern three persons from a tiny square as Jack White did, regardless what he says.
Johansson
[quote name='Jack White' date='Oct 10 2006, 04:47 PM' post='77393']
[quote name='Bill Miller' date='Oct 10 2006, 04:20 PM' post='77388']
[/quote]
One proof is the very fine detail of Badgeman, who is in
shadow, and the very poor detail of Zapruder/Sitzman,
who are IN FULL SUNLIGHT. The image of Badgeman
is very small compared to the image of Zapruder. At larger
size and IN SUNLIGHT, the Z/S image SHOULD BE SUPERIOR
TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE.
Jack
[/quote]
Jack, am I to understand correctly that the pedestal image you posted (#24) was from the same Moorman print the Badge Man is seen in?
Bill Miller
[/quote]
I know the origin of the Badgeman image: A Groden slide from a Thompson print.
I am not sure of the Zapruder image, but think it likely is the Thompson #1 print
loaned to Gary Mack by Josiah Thompson; I used the best image I could find in
my computer...but I have hundreds of Moorman images. But the Badgeman image
is seen most clearly in the Thompson #1 print.
Jack
[/quote]
For those who want to compare Groden's Badgeman with the Badgeman seen
on the Thompson #1 print, here is a scan from a copy made by a Fort Worth
professional photographer (Byrd Williams IV) on an 8x10 view camera with
a long lens. Gary Mack and I were present when Williams made the enlargement,
which is slightly contrastier than the image on the Groden slide. The 8x10 negative
captured the image in the greatest detail possible at the time. This scan is directly
from the Williams print, but is not quite as impressive as the print itself. Inset is
my copy from the Groden slide, which has greater tonal range.
Jack
[quote name='Bill Miller' date='Oct 10 2006, 04:20 PM' post='77388']
[/quote]
One proof is the very fine detail of Badgeman, who is in
shadow, and the very poor detail of Zapruder/Sitzman,
who are IN FULL SUNLIGHT. The image of Badgeman
is very small compared to the image of Zapruder. At larger
size and IN SUNLIGHT, the Z/S image SHOULD BE SUPERIOR
TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE.
Jack
[/quote]
Jack, am I to understand correctly that the pedestal image you posted (#24) was from the same Moorman print the Badge Man is seen in?
Bill Miller
[/quote]
I know the origin of the Badgeman image: A Groden slide from a Thompson print.
I am not sure of the Zapruder image, but think it likely is the Thompson #1 print
loaned to Gary Mack by Josiah Thompson; I used the best image I could find in
my computer...but I have hundreds of Moorman images. But the Badgeman image
is seen most clearly in the Thompson #1 print.
Jack
[/quote]
For those who want to compare Groden's Badgeman with the Badgeman seen
on the Thompson #1 print, here is a scan from a copy made by a Fort Worth
professional photographer (Byrd Williams IV) on an 8x10 view camera with
a long lens. Gary Mack and I were present when Williams made the enlargement,
which is slightly contrastier than the image on the Groden slide. The 8x10 negative
captured the image in the greatest detail possible at the time. This scan is directly
from the Williams print, but is not quite as impressive as the print itself. Inset is
my copy from the Groden slide, which has greater tonal range.
Jack
Jack, why did you use 35mm film for duplicating the Moorman polaroid and not bigger films like 6x6 or even 4"x5"?
And was it negative film or positive slide?
What kind of optics/lens did you use?
Gr. Paul.
And was it negative film or positive slide?
What kind of optics/lens did you use?
Gr. Paul.
[quote][quote]
Hood, bumper, whatever you want to call it, the badgeman is pure fiction, as Lamson says: an artifact made of multiple generations photographic copying.
You can’t discern three persons from a tiny square as Jack White did, regardless what he says.
Johansson
[/quote]
Mark, you should only reference what YOU can or cannot see. Some people are not very good at all when it comes to photo interpretation and others don't know the facts of the case. As I said before, which you seem to ignore by not acknowledging that you even read it, is that Gordon Arnold said a shot came over his LEFT shoulder at a time when Moorman took her photograph, thus someone with a gun was in that location. If it is your contention that Gordon Arnold lied, then you have to explain how he got details correct when telling his family and friends of his experience that only someone who was actually there would have known.
I see the Badge Man. I also see Gordon Arnold.
Bill Miller
[quote name='Jack White' date='Oct 10 2006, 06:47 PM' post='77393']
[quote name='Bill Miller' date='Oct 10 2006, 04:20 PM' post='77388']
[/quote]
One proof is the very fine detail of Badgeman, who is in
shadow, and the very poor detail of Zapruder/Sitzman,
who are IN FULL SUNLIGHT. The image of Badgeman
is very small compared to the image of Zapruder. At larger
size and IN SUNLIGHT, the Z/S image SHOULD BE SUPERIOR
TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE.
Jack
[/quote]
Jack, am I to understand correctly that the pedestal image you posted (#24) was from the same Moorman print the Badge Man is seen in?
Bill Miller
[/quote]
I know the origin of the Badgeman image: A Groden slide from a Thompson print.
I am not sure of the Zapruder image, but think it likely is the Thompson #1 print
loaned to Gary Mack by Josiah Thompson; I used the best image I could find in
my computer...but I have hundreds of Moorman images. But the Badgeman image
is seen most clearly in the Thompson #1 print.
Jack
[/quote]
Thanks for the clarification, Jack. Your remarks made it appear that Zapruder and Sitzman should be seen as clearly as the Badge Man, but the difference IMO lies in the fact that the two sets of images are not taken from the same photograph print. One print is obviously of much better quality, thus it is not fair to compare the Badge Man image from a good print to the pedestal images from a lesser quality print.
Bill Miller[/quote]
[quote][quote]As for badgeman, the image White shows as Badgeman is simply and artifact of multipile generations of photographic copying as the Moorman camera/lens/film was UNABLE to produce the level of detail seen in Whites image. And thats the facts.
[/quote][/quote]
About the Badge Man print ...
Robert Groden: "The Badge Man image in the Moorman photograph is from a first generation print obtained directly from Wide World Photos somewhere around 1965. It was made from an original first generation copy negative and is NOT multigenerational at all. Both Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg obtained prints of this quality as well.
Bill, I don't know who made this comment, but he is wrong The copies that I have printed did not come from Jack, and the image is even clearer than his."
Hood, bumper, whatever you want to call it, the badgeman is pure fiction, as Lamson says: an artifact made of multiple generations photographic copying.
You can’t discern three persons from a tiny square as Jack White did, regardless what he says.
Johansson
[/quote]
Mark, you should only reference what YOU can or cannot see. Some people are not very good at all when it comes to photo interpretation and others don't know the facts of the case. As I said before, which you seem to ignore by not acknowledging that you even read it, is that Gordon Arnold said a shot came over his LEFT shoulder at a time when Moorman took her photograph, thus someone with a gun was in that location. If it is your contention that Gordon Arnold lied, then you have to explain how he got details correct when telling his family and friends of his experience that only someone who was actually there would have known.
I see the Badge Man. I also see Gordon Arnold.
Bill Miller
[quote name='Jack White' date='Oct 10 2006, 06:47 PM' post='77393']
[quote name='Bill Miller' date='Oct 10 2006, 04:20 PM' post='77388']
[/quote]
One proof is the very fine detail of Badgeman, who is in
shadow, and the very poor detail of Zapruder/Sitzman,
who are IN FULL SUNLIGHT. The image of Badgeman
is very small compared to the image of Zapruder. At larger
size and IN SUNLIGHT, the Z/S image SHOULD BE SUPERIOR
TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE.
Jack
[/quote]
Jack, am I to understand correctly that the pedestal image you posted (#24) was from the same Moorman print the Badge Man is seen in?
Bill Miller
[/quote]
I know the origin of the Badgeman image: A Groden slide from a Thompson print.
I am not sure of the Zapruder image, but think it likely is the Thompson #1 print
loaned to Gary Mack by Josiah Thompson; I used the best image I could find in
my computer...but I have hundreds of Moorman images. But the Badgeman image
is seen most clearly in the Thompson #1 print.
Jack
[/quote]
Thanks for the clarification, Jack. Your remarks made it appear that Zapruder and Sitzman should be seen as clearly as the Badge Man, but the difference IMO lies in the fact that the two sets of images are not taken from the same photograph print. One print is obviously of much better quality, thus it is not fair to compare the Badge Man image from a good print to the pedestal images from a lesser quality print.
Bill Miller[/quote]
[quote][quote]As for badgeman, the image White shows as Badgeman is simply and artifact of multipile generations of photographic copying as the Moorman camera/lens/film was UNABLE to produce the level of detail seen in Whites image. And thats the facts.
[/quote][/quote]
About the Badge Man print ...
Robert Groden: "The Badge Man image in the Moorman photograph is from a first generation print obtained directly from Wide World Photos somewhere around 1965. It was made from an original first generation copy negative and is NOT multigenerational at all. Both Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg obtained prints of this quality as well.
Bill, I don't know who made this comment, but he is wrong The copies that I have printed did not come from Jack, and the image is even clearer than his."
[quote name='Bill Miller' date='Oct 10 2006, 06:33 PM' post='77410']
[quote][quote]
Hood, bumper, whatever you want to call it, the badgeman is pure fiction, as Lamson says: an artifact made of multiple generations photographic copying.
You can’t discern three persons from a tiny square as Jack White did, regardless what he says.
Johansson
[/quote]
Mark, you should only reference what YOU can or cannot see. Some people are not very good at all when it comes to photo interpretation and others don't know the facts of the case. As I said before, which you seem to ignore by not acknowledging that you even read it, is that Gordon Arnold said a shot came over his LEFT shoulder at a time when Moorman took her photograph, thus someone with a gun was in that location. If it is your contention that Gordon Arnold lied, then you have to explain how he got details correct when telling his family and friends of his experience that only someone who was actually there would have known.
I see the Badge Man. I also see Gordon Arnold.
Bill Miller
[quote name='Jack White' date='Oct 10 2006, 06:47 PM' post='77393']
[quote name='Bill Miller' date='Oct 10 2006, 04:20 PM' post='77388']
[/quote]
One proof is the very fine detail of Badgeman, who is in
shadow, and the very poor detail of Zapruder/Sitzman,
who are IN FULL SUNLIGHT. The image of Badgeman
is very small compared to the image of Zapruder. At larger
size and IN SUNLIGHT, the Z/S image SHOULD BE SUPERIOR
TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE.
Jack
[/quote]
Jack, am I to understand correctly that the pedestal image you posted (#24) was from the same Moorman print the Badge Man is seen in?
Bill Miller
[/quote]
I know the origin of the Badgeman image: A Groden slide from a Thompson print.
I am not sure of the Zapruder image, but think it likely is the Thompson #1 print
loaned to Gary Mack by Josiah Thompson; I used the best image I could find in
my computer...but I have hundreds of Moorman images. But the Badgeman image
is seen most clearly in the Thompson #1 print.
Jack
[/quote]
Thanks for the clarification, Jack. Your remarks made it appear that Zapruder and Sitzman should be seen as clearly as the Badge Man, but the difference IMO lies in the fact that the two sets of images are not taken from the same photograph print. One print is obviously of much better quality, thus it is not fair to compare the Badge Man image from a good print to the pedestal images from a lesser quality print.
Bill Miller[/quote]
[quote][quote]As for badgeman, the image White shows as Badgeman is simply and artifact of multipile generations of photographic copying as the Moorman camera/lens/film was UNABLE to produce the level of detail seen in Whites image. And thats the facts.
[/quote][/quote]
About the Badge Man print ...
Robert Groden: "The Badge Man image in the Moorman photograph is from a first generation print obtained directly from Wide World Photos somewhere around 1965. It was made from an original first generation copy negative and is NOT multigenerational at all. Both Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg obtained prints of this quality as well.
Bill, I don't know who made this comment, but he is wrong The copies that I have printed did not come from Jack, and the image is even clearer than his."
[/quote]
............................................................................
It should be said that Robert is referring to LAMSON'S statement about the quality
of the Polaroid being from multi-generational prints. Groden, Thompson, and Weisberg
were determined by Gary Mack to have first generation prints from the same original
copy negative. I have never claimed that Groden's copies came from me. To the contrary,
my images CAME FROM A GRODEN SLIDE WHICH HE GAVE TO GARY MACK. Gary noticed
the image and asked me to copy it. By now, this should be clear.
Jack
[quote][quote]
Hood, bumper, whatever you want to call it, the badgeman is pure fiction, as Lamson says: an artifact made of multiple generations photographic copying.
You can’t discern three persons from a tiny square as Jack White did, regardless what he says.
Johansson
[/quote]
Mark, you should only reference what YOU can or cannot see. Some people are not very good at all when it comes to photo interpretation and others don't know the facts of the case. As I said before, which you seem to ignore by not acknowledging that you even read it, is that Gordon Arnold said a shot came over his LEFT shoulder at a time when Moorman took her photograph, thus someone with a gun was in that location. If it is your contention that Gordon Arnold lied, then you have to explain how he got details correct when telling his family and friends of his experience that only someone who was actually there would have known.
I see the Badge Man. I also see Gordon Arnold.
Bill Miller
[quote name='Jack White' date='Oct 10 2006, 06:47 PM' post='77393']
[quote name='Bill Miller' date='Oct 10 2006, 04:20 PM' post='77388']
[/quote]
One proof is the very fine detail of Badgeman, who is in
shadow, and the very poor detail of Zapruder/Sitzman,
who are IN FULL SUNLIGHT. The image of Badgeman
is very small compared to the image of Zapruder. At larger
size and IN SUNLIGHT, the Z/S image SHOULD BE SUPERIOR
TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE.
Jack
[/quote]
Jack, am I to understand correctly that the pedestal image you posted (#24) was from the same Moorman print the Badge Man is seen in?
Bill Miller
[/quote]
I know the origin of the Badgeman image: A Groden slide from a Thompson print.
I am not sure of the Zapruder image, but think it likely is the Thompson #1 print
loaned to Gary Mack by Josiah Thompson; I used the best image I could find in
my computer...but I have hundreds of Moorman images. But the Badgeman image
is seen most clearly in the Thompson #1 print.
Jack
[/quote]
Thanks for the clarification, Jack. Your remarks made it appear that Zapruder and Sitzman should be seen as clearly as the Badge Man, but the difference IMO lies in the fact that the two sets of images are not taken from the same photograph print. One print is obviously of much better quality, thus it is not fair to compare the Badge Man image from a good print to the pedestal images from a lesser quality print.
Bill Miller[/quote]
[quote][quote]As for badgeman, the image White shows as Badgeman is simply and artifact of multipile generations of photographic copying as the Moorman camera/lens/film was UNABLE to produce the level of detail seen in Whites image. And thats the facts.
[/quote][/quote]
About the Badge Man print ...
Robert Groden: "The Badge Man image in the Moorman photograph is from a first generation print obtained directly from Wide World Photos somewhere around 1965. It was made from an original first generation copy negative and is NOT multigenerational at all. Both Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg obtained prints of this quality as well.
Bill, I don't know who made this comment, but he is wrong The copies that I have printed did not come from Jack, and the image is even clearer than his."
[/quote]
............................................................................
It should be said that Robert is referring to LAMSON'S statement about the quality
of the Polaroid being from multi-generational prints. Groden, Thompson, and Weisberg
were determined by Gary Mack to have first generation prints from the same original
copy negative. I have never claimed that Groden's copies came from me. To the contrary,
my images CAME FROM A GRODEN SLIDE WHICH HE GAVE TO GARY MACK. Gary noticed
the image and asked me to copy it. By now, this should be clear.
Jack
QUOTE (Craig Lamson @ Oct 10 2006, 10:43 AM)
QUOTE (Wim Dankbaar @ Oct 10 2006, 11:20 AM)
Was Polaroid using Kodak film at the time? I thought Polaraid is typically a camera that produces one hard copy without negative?
Wim
Polaroid film in a Polaroid camera. Only a few polaroid films were made (and one is still made btw) that produce both a print and a negative. The film used by Mary Moorman (and a similar emulsion is still availabe today) was print only.
For a pro photographer, Lamson's Polaroid knowledge is abyssmal.
The process invented by Ed Land DID PRODUCE A NEGATIVE on paper
which was transferred chemically by contact to a positive form on another
piece of perforated paper on a double sandwiched roll. Pulling the double
roll through rollers actived the development of the negative, which was
usually discarded. So it was NOT "print only".
Years ago as an experiment, I copied a POLAROID PAPER NEGATIVE
and was able to make an "acceptable" image from it with considerable
darkroom work. I doubt that I can locate it. That was more than 40
years ago.
Jack
QUOTE (Paul Choor @ Oct 10 2006, 05:28 PM)
Jack, why did you use 35mm film for duplicating the Moorman polaroid and not bigger films like 6x6 or even 4"x5"?
And was it negative film or positive slide?
What kind of optics/lens did you use?
Gr. Paul.
And was it negative film or positive slide?
What kind of optics/lens did you use?
Gr. Paul.
The Badgeman work was copied from a 35MM SLIDE, which
could only be copied using 35mm film in my REPRONAR slide
copier, with fixed lens and electronic flash. It was copied on
Kodak Panatomic X negative film.
Later Gary Mack obtained from Mary Moorman permission
for me to copy the original faded print, which I did using a
Kodak bellows 4x5 view camera with a "long" copy lens and
TriX film because I used a universal developer as I recall and
did not have any fine grain developer on hand. See attachment.
Jack
QUOTE (Jack White @ Oct 10 2006, 08:22 PM)
QUOTE (Craig Lamson @ Oct 10 2006, 10:43 AM)
QUOTE (Wim Dankbaar @ Oct 10 2006, 11:20 AM)
Was Polaroid using Kodak film at the time? I thought Polaraid is typically a camera that produces one hard copy without negative?
Wim
Polaroid film in a Polaroid camera. Only a few polaroid films were made (and one is still made btw) that produce both a print and a negative. The film used by Mary Moorman (and a similar emulsion is still availabe today) was print only.
For a pro photographer, Lamson's Polaroid knowledge is abyssmal.
The process invented by Ed Land DID PRODUCE A NEGATIVE on paper
which was transferred chemically by contact to a positive form on another
piece of perforated paper on a double sandwiched roll. Pulling the double
roll through rollers actived the development of the negative, which was
usually discarded. So it was NOT "print only".
Years ago as an experiment, I copied a POLAROID PAPER NEGATIVE
and was able to make an "acceptable" image from it with considerable
darkroom work. I doubt that I can locate it. That was more than 40
years ago.
Jack
QUOTE (Jack White @ Oct 10 2006, 08:22 PM)
QUOTE (Craig Lamson @ Oct 10 2006, 10:43 AM)
QUOTE (Wim Dankbaar @ Oct 10 2006, 11:20 AM)
Was Polaroid using Kodak film at the time? I thought Polaraid is typically a camera that produces one hard copy without negative?
Wim
Polaroid film in a Polaroid camera. Only a few polaroid films were made (and one is still made btw) that produce both a print and a negative. The film used by Mary Moorman (and a similar emulsion is still availabe today) was print only.
For a pro photographer, Lamson's Polaroid knowledge is abyssmal.
The process invented by Ed Land DID PRODUCE A NEGATIVE on paper
which was transferred chemically by contact to a positive form on another
piece of perforated paper on a double sandwiched roll. Pulling the double
roll through rollers actived the development of the negative, which was
usually discarded. So it was NOT "print only".
Years ago as an experiment, I copied a POLAROID PAPER NEGATIVE
and was able to make an "acceptable" image from it with considerable
darkroom work. I doubt that I can locate it. That was more than 40
years ago.
Jack
Nice try at deflection Jack but it was an utter failure. Sure the polaroid films produce a "paper" negative but that paper negative is designed to be a one time use item. Its not a printable FILM negative like the ones produced by the Polaroid P/N films and what most users consider common when the term "negative" is used. While you "might' be able to produce "something" besides the original polaroid print from the paper "negative" it is not an item lends itself to reuse nor was it designed as such. And the result is sure to be poor.
No what we have ONCE AGAIN is bullshit from the master photographic bullshitter...Jack White
QUOTE (Jack White @ Oct 10 2006, 08:34 PM)
QUOTE (Paul Choor @ Oct 10 2006, 05:28 PM)
Jack, why did you use 35mm film for duplicating the Moorman polaroid and not bigger films like 6x6 or even 4"x5"?
And was it negative film or positive slide?
What kind of optics/lens did you use?
Gr. Paul.
The Badgeman work was copied from a 35MM SLIDE, which
could only be copied using 35mm film in my REPRONAR slide
copier, with fixed lens and electronic flash. It was copied on
Kodak Panatomic X negative film.
Later Gary Mack obtained from Mary Moorman permission
for me to copy the original faded print, which I did using a
Kodak bellows 4x5 view camera with a "long" copy lens and
TriX film because I used a universal developer as I recall and
did not have any fine grain developer on hand. See attachment.
Jack
Why copy the slide with the Repronar? You had an enlarger, you had sheet film holders, you had sheet film...why in the world did you use something as low quality as 35mm? Something to hide? Shesh, and you call yourself a photo expert! ROFLMAO!
[quote name='Bill Miller' date='Oct 10 2006, 07:33 PM' post='77410']
[quote][quote]
Hood, bumper, whatever you want to call it, the badgeman is pure fiction, as Lamson says: an artifact made of multiple generations photographic copying.
You can’t discern three persons from a tiny square as Jack White did, regardless what he says.
Johansson
[/quote]
Mark, you should only reference what YOU can or cannot see. Some people are not very good at all when it comes to photo interpretation and others don't know the facts of the case. As I said before, which you seem to ignore by not acknowledging that you even read it, is that Gordon Arnold said a shot came over his LEFT shoulder at a time when Moorman took her photograph, thus someone with a gun was in that location. If it is your contention that Gordon Arnold lied, then you have to explain how he got details correct when telling his family and friends of his experience that only someone who was actually there would have known.
I see the Badge Man. I also see Gordon Arnold.
Bill Miller
[quote name='Jack White' date='Oct 10 2006, 06:47 PM' post='77393']
[quote name='Bill Miller' date='Oct 10 2006, 04:20 PM' post='77388']
[/quote]
One proof is the very fine detail of Badgeman, who is in
shadow, and the very poor detail of Zapruder/Sitzman,
who are IN FULL SUNLIGHT. The image of Badgeman
is very small compared to the image of Zapruder. At larger
size and IN SUNLIGHT, the Z/S image SHOULD BE SUPERIOR
TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE.
Jack
[/quote]
Jack, am I to understand correctly that the pedestal image you posted (#24) was from the same Moorman print the Badge Man is seen in?
Bill Miller
[/quote]
I know the origin of the Badgeman image: A Groden slide from a Thompson print.
I am not sure of the Zapruder image, but think it likely is the Thompson #1 print
loaned to Gary Mack by Josiah Thompson; I used the best image I could find in
my computer...but I have hundreds of Moorman images. But the Badgeman image
is seen most clearly in the Thompson #1 print.
Jack
[/quote]
Thanks for the clarification, Jack. Your remarks made it appear that Zapruder and Sitzman should be seen as clearly as the Badge Man, but the difference IMO lies in the fact that the two sets of images are not taken from the same photograph print. One print is obviously of much better quality, thus it is not fair to compare the Badge Man image from a good print to the pedestal images from a lesser quality print.
Bill Miller[/quote]
[quote][quote]As for badgeman, the image White shows as Badgeman is simply and artifact of multipile generations of photographic copying as the Moorman camera/lens/film was UNABLE to produce the level of detail seen in Whites image. And thats the facts.
[/quote][/quote]
About the Badge Man print ...
Robert Groden: "The Badge Man image in the Moorman photograph is from a first generation print obtained directly from Wide World Photos somewhere around 1965. It was made from an original first generation copy negative and is NOT multigenerational at all. Both Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg obtained prints of this quality as well.
Bill, I don't know who made this comment, but he is wrong The copies that I have printed did not come from Jack, and the image is even clearer than his."
[/quote]
Groden needs you bone up on "multigenerational". Moorman original to copy negative...generation TWO. Copy negative to print...generation THREE. Print reduced to a 35mm slide...generation FOUR..and a sloppy generation to boot...a reduction to 35mm. 35mm slide to 35mm b/w negative....generation FIVE. 35mm negative to b/w print....generation SIX.
Of course the the real killer here is the reduction step to 35mm....
Now would Groden like to try again?
So if you can see "badgeman" in all of these high quality prints, why oh why have no "badgeman" works been created from them?
Bottom line here is simply that the Moorman lens...defraction limited by being stopped down ot f64.5, coupled with the camera being hand held AND PANNED, coupled with the fact that the film used had a DISMAL ability to record fine detail leaves us in a bad place...at least as far as the "badgeman is real " crowd is concerned....Marys camera/film/lens simply COULD NOT record the level of detail in the "badgman" forgery.
Of course if the Moorman contained all of this detail in the badgeman area, why cant we make out the guys on the steps? Zapruder? The pickets on the fence? Bark on the trees? The reason...the detail simply was not recorded...just like the detail shown in the Badgeman forgery was not recorded.
Period.
[quote][quote]
Hood, bumper, whatever you want to call it, the badgeman is pure fiction, as Lamson says: an artifact made of multiple generations photographic copying.
You can’t discern three persons from a tiny square as Jack White did, regardless what he says.
Johansson
[/quote]
Mark, you should only reference what YOU can or cannot see. Some people are not very good at all when it comes to photo interpretation and others don't know the facts of the case. As I said before, which you seem to ignore by not acknowledging that you even read it, is that Gordon Arnold said a shot came over his LEFT shoulder at a time when Moorman took her photograph, thus someone with a gun was in that location. If it is your contention that Gordon Arnold lied, then you have to explain how he got details correct when telling his family and friends of his experience that only someone who was actually there would have known.
I see the Badge Man. I also see Gordon Arnold.
Bill Miller
[quote name='Jack White' date='Oct 10 2006, 06:47 PM' post='77393']
[quote name='Bill Miller' date='Oct 10 2006, 04:20 PM' post='77388']
[/quote]
One proof is the very fine detail of Badgeman, who is in
shadow, and the very poor detail of Zapruder/Sitzman,
who are IN FULL SUNLIGHT. The image of Badgeman
is very small compared to the image of Zapruder. At larger
size and IN SUNLIGHT, the Z/S image SHOULD BE SUPERIOR
TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE.
Jack
[/quote]
Jack, am I to understand correctly that the pedestal image you posted (#24) was from the same Moorman print the Badge Man is seen in?
Bill Miller
[/quote]
I know the origin of the Badgeman image: A Groden slide from a Thompson print.
I am not sure of the Zapruder image, but think it likely is the Thompson #1 print
loaned to Gary Mack by Josiah Thompson; I used the best image I could find in
my computer...but I have hundreds of Moorman images. But the Badgeman image
is seen most clearly in the Thompson #1 print.
Jack
[/quote]
Thanks for the clarification, Jack. Your remarks made it appear that Zapruder and Sitzman should be seen as clearly as the Badge Man, but the difference IMO lies in the fact that the two sets of images are not taken from the same photograph print. One print is obviously of much better quality, thus it is not fair to compare the Badge Man image from a good print to the pedestal images from a lesser quality print.
Bill Miller[/quote]
[quote][quote]As for badgeman, the image White shows as Badgeman is simply and artifact of multipile generations of photographic copying as the Moorman camera/lens/film was UNABLE to produce the level of detail seen in Whites image. And thats the facts.
[/quote][/quote]
About the Badge Man print ...
Robert Groden: "The Badge Man image in the Moorman photograph is from a first generation print obtained directly from Wide World Photos somewhere around 1965. It was made from an original first generation copy negative and is NOT multigenerational at all. Both Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg obtained prints of this quality as well.
Bill, I don't know who made this comment, but he is wrong The copies that I have printed did not come from Jack, and the image is even clearer than his."
[/quote]
Groden needs you bone up on "multigenerational". Moorman original to copy negative...generation TWO. Copy negative to print...generation THREE. Print reduced to a 35mm slide...generation FOUR..and a sloppy generation to boot...a reduction to 35mm. 35mm slide to 35mm b/w negative....generation FIVE. 35mm negative to b/w print....generation SIX.
Of course the the real killer here is the reduction step to 35mm....
Now would Groden like to try again?
So if you can see "badgeman" in all of these high quality prints, why oh why have no "badgeman" works been created from them?
Bottom line here is simply that the Moorman lens...defraction limited by being stopped down ot f64.5, coupled with the camera being hand held AND PANNED, coupled with the fact that the film used had a DISMAL ability to record fine detail leaves us in a bad place...at least as far as the "badgeman is real " crowd is concerned....Marys camera/film/lens simply COULD NOT record the level of detail in the "badgman" forgery.
Of course if the Moorman contained all of this detail in the badgeman area, why cant we make out the guys on the steps? Zapruder? The pickets on the fence? Bark on the trees? The reason...the detail simply was not recorded...just like the detail shown in the Badgeman forgery was not recorded.
Period.
QUOTE
Now would Groden like to try again?
So if you can see "badgeman" in all of these high quality prints, why oh why have no "badgeman" works been created from them?
So if you can see "badgeman" in all of these high quality prints, why oh why have no "badgeman" works been created from them?
I think the key is in this sentence that Groden offered .... "The copies that I have printed did not come from Jack, and the image is even clearer than his." So it appears that Groden has said that the original image and/or first generation copies thereof from which the prints were made was even clearer than Jack's image. As far as facial detail - Zapruder, Sitzman and the guys on the steps were in sunlight which addes some glare to their faces, but Badge Man was in partial shade which preserved more detail of his head and face. And once again .... I have not seen the men on the steps and/or Zapruder and Sitzman from the print Badge Man came from and it is because I have not seen the entire print - I cannot compare Badge Man from one print to Zapruder or anyone else from a diferent lesser quality print.
Bill Miller
Oddly, Lamson insists that the Badgeman image is "forged"
but that Zapruder and the pedestal gap are genuine. Now
if he will explain how he arrived at his forgery conclusion
we may be making progress.
I believe that Badgeman is genuine and that the pedestal
area is retouched.
So we agree. The Moorman has been retouched.
Jack
but that Zapruder and the pedestal gap are genuine. Now
if he will explain how he arrived at his forgery conclusion
we may be making progress.
I believe that Badgeman is genuine and that the pedestal
area is retouched.
So we agree. The Moorman has been retouched.
Jack
QUOTE (Bill Miller @ Oct 11 2006, 01:19 AM)
QUOTE
Now would Groden like to try again?
So if you can see "badgeman" in all of these high quality prints, why oh why have no "badgeman" works been created from them?
So if you can see "badgeman" in all of these high quality prints, why oh why have no "badgeman" works been created from them?
I think the key is in this sentence that Groden offered .... "The copies that I have printed did not come from Jack, and the image is even clearer than his." So it appears that Groden has said that the original image and/or first generation copies thereof from which the prints were made was even clearer than Jack's image. As far as facial detail - Zapruder, Sitzman and the guys on the steps were in sunlight which addes some glare to their faces, but Badge Man was in partial shade which preserved more detail of his head and face. And once again .... I have not seen the men on the steps and/or Zapruder and Sitzman from the print Badge Man came from and it is because I have not seen the entire print - I cannot compare Badge Man from one print to Zapruder or anyone else from a diferent lesser quality print.
Bill Miller
Well Bill we have White's recently posted copy made directly from the Thompson #1 print generation image) and it it very much different that the crap made from the slide. In any case it PROVES what I have been saying all along...that all we are seeing are the effects of copying artifacts. In Grodens case he has at least a third genetration copy to start his process , gen 1 original print, gen 2 copy negative, gen 3 print. Add at least two more generations ( another copy neg and then another print) and we are so far removed from the original its not funny. Heres the long and short of it Bill..."badgeman" is noting more that the grain buildup from making copy negatives.
You guys can crap all over this until it turns to ice in hell...because NONE of you can prove the camera/lens/film could resolve the level of detail seen in the badgeman forgery. The bottom line is that it is simply impossible.
I have to admit it sure is funny as all get out watching you guys making a badge and a shoulder patch from a piece of dust and a piece of lint......
QUOTE (Jack White @ Oct 11 2006, 01:34 AM)
Oddly, Lamson insists that the Badgeman image is "forged"
but that Zapruder and the pedestal gap are genuine. Now
if he will explain how he arrived at his forgery conclusion
we may be making progress.
I believe that Badgeman is genuine and that the pedestal
area is retouched.
So we agree. The Moorman has been retouched.
Jack
but that Zapruder and the pedestal gap are genuine. Now
if he will explain how he arrived at his forgery conclusion
we may be making progress.
I believe that Badgeman is genuine and that the pedestal
area is retouched.
So we agree. The Moorman has been retouched.
Jack
No retouching in the Moorman old man, just you doing what you always do, claim something is retouched when the reality is that you are simply ignorant.
Badgeman IS a forgery...its a BAD copy of the original.
To be more precise, its a bad copy of the original that is being PASSED OFF as being what is seen in the original. Problem is that what is being shown in "badgeman" simply cannot be in the Moorman original. You simply forged "him"
BTW, nice dust and lint spots making up the badge and shoulder patch...LOL!
QUOTE (Craig Lamson @ Oct 10 2006, 05:37 PM)
QUOTE (Bill Miller @ Oct 11 2006, 01:19 AM)
QUOTE
Now would Groden like to try again?
So if you can see "badgeman" in all of these high quality prints, why oh why have no "badgeman" works been created from them?
So if you can see "badgeman" in all of these high quality prints, why oh why have no "badgeman" works been created from them?
I think the key is in this sentence that Groden offered .... "The copies that I have printed did not come from Jack, and the image is even clearer than his." So it appears that Groden has said that the original image and/or first generation copies thereof from which the prints were made was even clearer than Jack's image. As far as facial detail - Zapruder, Sitzman and the guys on the steps were in sunlight which addes some glare to their faces, but Badge Man was in partial shade which preserved more detail of his head and face. And once again .... I have not seen the men on the steps and/or Zapruder and Sitzman from the print Badge Man came from and it is because I have not seen the entire print - I cannot compare Badge Man from one print to Zapruder or anyone else from a diferent lesser quality print.
Bill Miller
Well Bill we have White's recently posted copy made directly from the Thompson #1 print generation image) and it it very much different that the crap made from the slide. In any case it PROVES what I have been saying all along...that all we are seeing are the effects of copying artifacts. In Grodens case he has at least a third genetration copy to start his process , gen 1 original print, gen 2 copy negative, gen 3 print. Add at least two more generations ( another copy neg and then another print) and we are so far removed from the original its not funny. Heres the long and short of it Bill..."badgeman" is noting more that the grain buildup from making copy negatives.
You guys can crap all over this until it turns to ice in hell...because NONE of you can prove the camera/lens/film could resolve the level of detail seen in the badgeman forgery. The bottom line is that it is simply impossible.
I have to admit it sure is funny as all get out watching you guys making a badge and a shoulder patch from a piece of dust and a piece of lint......
QUOTE (Jack White @ Oct 11 2006, 01:34 AM)
Oddly, Lamson insists that the Badgeman image is "forged"
but that Zapruder and the pedestal gap are genuine. Now
if he will explain how he arrived at his forgery conclusion
we may be making progress.
I believe that Badgeman is genuine and that the pedestal
area is retouched.
So we agree. The Moorman has been retouched.
Jack
but that Zapruder and the pedestal gap are genuine. Now
if he will explain how he arrived at his forgery conclusion
we may be making progress.
I believe that Badgeman is genuine and that the pedestal
area is retouched.
So we agree. The Moorman has been retouched.
Jack
No retouching in the Moorman old man, just you doing what you always do, claim something is retouched when the reality is that you are simply ignorant.
Badgeman IS a forgery...its a BAD copy of the original.
To be more precise, its a bad copy of the original that is being PASSED OFF as being what is seen in the original. Problem is that what is being shown in "badgeman" simply cannot be in the Moorman original. You simply forged "him"
BTW, nice dust and lint spots making up the badge and shoulder patch...LOL!
dust, lint...? want credibility get out Photoshop and show us, you know the rules, photog .... otherwise, you're just more NOISE!
Comparing the extreme difference between the Moorman polaroid and
the Nix film also points to a forgery, of the polaroid..........
the Nix film also points to a forgery, of the polaroid..........
QUOTE (David G. Healy @ Oct 11 2006, 04:24 AM)
QUOTE (Craig Lamson @ Oct 10 2006, 05:37 PM)
QUOTE (Bill Miller @ Oct 11 2006, 01:19 AM)
QUOTE
Now would Groden like to try again?
So if you can see "badgeman" in all of these high quality prints, why oh why have no "badgeman" works been created from them?
So if you can see "badgeman" in all of these high quality prints, why oh why have no "badgeman" works been created from them?
I think the key is in this sentence that Groden offered .... "The copies that I have printed did not come from Jack, and the image is even clearer than his." So it appears that Groden has said that the original image and/or first generation copies thereof from which the prints were made was even clearer than Jack's image. As far as facial detail - Zapruder, Sitzman and the guys on the steps were in sunlight which addes some glare to their faces, but Badge Man was in partial shade which preserved more detail of his head and face. And once again .... I have not seen the men on the steps and/or Zapruder and Sitzman from the print Badge Man came from and it is because I have not seen the entire print - I cannot compare Badge Man from one print to Zapruder or anyone else from a diferent lesser quality print.
Bill Miller
Well Bill we have White's recently posted copy made directly from the Thompson #1 print generation image) and it it very much different that the crap made from the slide. In any case it PROVES what I have been saying all along...that all we are seeing are the effects of copying artifacts. In Grodens case he has at least a third genetration copy to start his process , gen 1 original print, gen 2 copy negative, gen 3 print. Add at least two more generations ( another copy neg and then another print) and we are so far removed from the original its not funny. Heres the long and short of it Bill..."badgeman" is noting more that the grain buildup from making copy negatives.
You guys can crap all over this until it turns to ice in hell...because NONE of you can prove the camera/lens/film could resolve the level of detail seen in the badgeman forgery. The bottom line is that it is simply impossible.
I have to admit it sure is funny as all get out watching you guys making a badge and a shoulder patch from a piece of dust and a piece of lint......
QUOTE (Jack White @ Oct 11 2006, 01:34 AM)
Oddly, Lamson insists that the Badgeman image is "forged"
but that Zapruder and the pedestal gap are genuine. Now
if he will explain how he arrived at his forgery conclusion
we may be making progress.
I believe that Badgeman is genuine and that the pedestal
area is retouched.
So we agree. The Moorman has been retouched.
Jack
but that Zapruder and the pedestal gap are genuine. Now
if he will explain how he arrived at his forgery conclusion
we may be making progress.
I believe that Badgeman is genuine and that the pedestal
area is retouched.
So we agree. The Moorman has been retouched.
Jack
No retouching in the Moorman old man, just you doing what you always do, claim something is retouched when the reality is that you are simply ignorant.
Badgeman IS a forgery...its a BAD copy of the original.
To be more precise, its a bad copy of the original that is being PASSED OFF as being what is seen in the original. Problem is that what is being shown in "badgeman" simply cannot be in the Moorman original. You simply forged "him"
BTW, nice dust and lint spots making up the badge and shoulder patch...LOL!
dust, lint...? want credibility get out Photoshop and show us, you know the rules, photog .... otherwise, you're just more NOISE!
The proof is aleady on this thread if you cared to look cowboy shooter...
White posted it with his comparison of two "badgeman" images. You know thew rules davie, do some research before you shoot off your mouth.
I see you are back to guard dog mode ...
Oddly, Lamson insists that the Badgeman image is "forged"
but that Zapruder and the pedestal gap are genuine. Now
if he will explain how he arrived at his forgery conclusion
we may be making progress.
I don't see anything odd. He says Badgeman is forged (by you) , and that the original Moorman picture is all genuine, thus including the pedestal.
I believe that Badgeman is genuine and that the pedestal
area is retouched.
Why the heck would anyone want to retouch the pedestal area? That's the same thing as "Mrs. Franzen dissappeared" and "Hill and Moorman were moved from the sidewalk to the grass". I would not be surprised if you say Kennedy was not in his limousine.
So we agree. The Moorman has been retouched.
I don't agree to that at all. FWIW, I believe you see a badgeman and two other figures in blobs, shadows and light reflections. Then you enhanced and colored those with a lot of wishfull thinking and imgination. That's why you never show the original, nor the size of these "figures" in relation to other humans in the picture.
Wim
Jack
but that Zapruder and the pedestal gap are genuine. Now
if he will explain how he arrived at his forgery conclusion
we may be making progress.
I don't see anything odd. He says Badgeman is forged (by you) , and that the original Moorman picture is all genuine, thus including the pedestal.
I believe that Badgeman is genuine and that the pedestal
area is retouched.
Why the heck would anyone want to retouch the pedestal area? That's the same thing as "Mrs. Franzen dissappeared" and "Hill and Moorman were moved from the sidewalk to the grass". I would not be surprised if you say Kennedy was not in his limousine.
So we agree. The Moorman has been retouched.
I don't agree to that at all. FWIW, I believe you see a badgeman and two other figures in blobs, shadows and light reflections. Then you enhanced and colored those with a lot of wishfull thinking and imgination. That's why you never show the original, nor the size of these "figures" in relation to other humans in the picture.
Wim
Jack
QUOTE
I don't agree to that at all. FWIW, I believe you see a badgeman and two other figures in blobs, shadows and light reflections. Then you enhanced and colored those with a lot of wishfull thinking and imgination. That's why you never show the original, nor the size of these "figures" in relation to other humans in the picture.
Wim
Jack
Wim
Jack
I understand why Craig says that the Badge Man image is a product of multigenerational reproductions, but sometimes that is not always the case. In 1978, and before all the Badge Man work was done, Groden tells me that Jimmy Carter's sister was one of the first people to see the Badge Man in a good first generation Moorman print. B&W photographs are very limited in color tone, thus making out shapes can be more difficult compared to using color photos. However, we still have to consider Gordon Arnold's statements regarding the shot that came over his left shoulder at a time Moorman would have taken her photograph.
Bill Miller
QUOTE (Bill Miller @ Oct 12 2006, 12:08 AM)
QUOTE
I don't agree to that at all. FWIW, I believe you see a badgeman and two other figures in blobs, shadows and light reflections. Then you enhanced and colored those with a lot of wishfull thinking and imgination. That's why you never show the original, nor the size of these "figures" in relation to other humans in the picture.
Wim
Jack
I understand why Craig says that the Badge Man image is a product of multigenerational reproductions, but sometimes that is not always the case. In 1978, and before all the Badge Man work was done, Groden tells me that Jimmy Carter's sister was one of the first people to see the Badge Man in a good first generation Moorman print. B&W photographs are very limited in color tone, thus making out shapes can be more difficult compared to using color photos. However, we still have to consider Gordon Arnold's statements regarding the shot that came over his left shoulder at a time Moorman would have taken her photograph.
Bill Miller
First of all Bill, unless Carters sister was shown the out of camera polaroid print taken by Mary Moorman she DID NOT SEE a FIRST generation print. At best she saw a THIRD generation print.
Second people see bunny rabbits in the clouds but just because thats what they think they see does not mean there were bunny rabbits in the clouds.
You are spinning here Bill. Bottom line...the Moorman camera/lens/film cannot resolve the detail shown in the thing called "badgeman".
For cripes sake, we have lint and dust as a MAJOR part of badgeman. Sheesh. How do we know that? Take a look at the Thompson thumbprint Moorman. Do you see a "badge" and a "shoulder patch"? Of course not. And why? Because those items of "detail" we introduced when the Moorman was copied by UPI. The dust was not there when Thompson had the Moorman copied hense no "badge" and not "patch". Then take a look at the drumscan print and notice the BLACK dust and lint that can be found around the image and compare that to what you see in the "badgeman" image. (note that the dust and lint is black because it was in the surface of the sheet film used to copy the Moorman) When you compare the two imgaes you find that the dust and lint on the drumscan thumbprint Moorman match the sizes of the lint and dust on "badgeman".
I know you have a vested interest in keeping "badgeman" alive, but its a fools errand Bill. Add it all up. The image known as "badgeman" simply did not exist in the original out of camera Moorman photograph.
QUOTE
Jack
[b]I understan
Second people see bunny rabbits in the clouds
THE POLAROID IS WORTHLESS
Lamson is delusional:
QUOTE:
For cripes sake, we have lint and dust as a MAJOR part of badgeman. Sheesh. How do we know that? Take a look at the Thompson thumbprint Moorman. Do you see a "badge" and a "shoulder patch"? Of course not. And why? Because those items of "detail" we introduced when the Moorman was copied by UPI. The dust was not there when Thompson had the Moorman copied hense no "badge" and not "patch". Then take a look at the drumscan print and notice the BLACK dust and lint that can be found around the image and compare that to what you see in the "badgeman" image. (note that the dust and lint is black because it was in the surface of the sheet film used to copy the Moorman) When you compare the two imgaes you find that the dust and lint on the drumscan thumbprint Moorman match the sizes of the lint and dust on "badgeman".
UNQUOTE
Thompson never had the Moorman original copied. He purchased many
COPIES from various sources. So far as I know, when Gary Mack obtained
the ORIGINAL FOR ME TO COPY, it had only been copied twice...by UPI,
and by whoever shot the ZIPPO copy. I believe I am only the third person
to COPY THE ORIGINAL. Gordon Smith was the fourth. All other prints were
generated from the original copy negative by UPI or prints therefrom.
It is interesting that Lamson brings up his SUPPOSEDLY GREAT QUALITY
DRUMSCAN PRINT. It is a piece of shit. See comparison of Badgeman in
the Thompson #1 with the "drumscan". Lamson is blowing smoke out
his ass. Who does he think he can fool with the images say it better than words?
Jack
PS...as far as I know, Groden never copied the ORIGINAL POLAROID.
His copy which shows Badgeman was shot from the Thompson #1 print
which he had borrowed from Thompson, according to him. According to
Mary Moorman when she brought the original to Gary for me to copy,
it had been in her safe deposit box since 1963. If Gary remembers
differently, he will likely tell someone here. Gary is THE expert on ALL
copies of the Moorman, since he tracked them all down to sources.
QUOTE:
For cripes sake, we have lint and dust as a MAJOR part of badgeman. Sheesh. How do we know that? Take a look at the Thompson thumbprint Moorman. Do you see a "badge" and a "shoulder patch"? Of course not. And why? Because those items of "detail" we introduced when the Moorman was copied by UPI. The dust was not there when Thompson had the Moorman copied hense no "badge" and not "patch". Then take a look at the drumscan print and notice the BLACK dust and lint that can be found around the image and compare that to what you see in the "badgeman" image. (note that the dust and lint is black because it was in the surface of the sheet film used to copy the Moorman) When you compare the two imgaes you find that the dust and lint on the drumscan thumbprint Moorman match the sizes of the lint and dust on "badgeman".
UNQUOTE
Thompson never had the Moorman original copied. He purchased many
COPIES from various sources. So far as I know, when Gary Mack obtained
the ORIGINAL FOR ME TO COPY, it had only been copied twice...by UPI,
and by whoever shot the ZIPPO copy. I believe I am only the third person
to COPY THE ORIGINAL. Gordon Smith was the fourth. All other prints were
generated from the original copy negative by UPI or prints therefrom.
It is interesting that Lamson brings up his SUPPOSEDLY GREAT QUALITY
DRUMSCAN PRINT. It is a piece of shit. See comparison of Badgeman in
the Thompson #1 with the "drumscan". Lamson is blowing smoke out
his ass. Who does he think he can fool with the images say it better than words?
Jack
PS...as far as I know, Groden never copied the ORIGINAL POLAROID.
His copy which shows Badgeman was shot from the Thompson #1 print
which he had borrowed from Thompson, according to him. According to
Mary Moorman when she brought the original to Gary for me to copy,
it had been in her safe deposit box since 1963. If Gary remembers
differently, he will likely tell someone here. Gary is THE expert on ALL
copies of the Moorman, since he tracked them all down to sources.
Mr. White,
To end this fairy tale of your "Badgeman" once and for all:
The picture on the left is genuine and says: "Badgeman in drum scan", although these are just blobs and pieces, NOTHING ELSE! It is just a big blowup from a tiny grainy Polaroid, and shows indeed....NOTHING!
The picture on the right is NOT genuine and says: "Badgeman in good print", although you retouched and colored some person in and called it your "Badgeman"....
I don't know what I find worse: the outcome of the WC or your fake "Badgeman"?
I think the last, because everyone disbelieves the outcome of the WC nowadays BUT everyone still believes the "Badgeman"-crap....And that's no good to solve this crime!
Gr. Paul.
To end this fairy tale of your "Badgeman" once and for all:
The picture on the left is genuine and says: "Badgeman in drum scan", although these are just blobs and pieces, NOTHING ELSE! It is just a big blowup from a tiny grainy Polaroid, and shows indeed....NOTHING!
The picture on the right is NOT genuine and says: "Badgeman in good print", although you retouched and colored some person in and called it your "Badgeman"....
I don't know what I find worse: the outcome of the WC or your fake "Badgeman"?
I think the last, because everyone disbelieves the outcome of the WC nowadays BUT everyone still believes the "Badgeman"-crap....And that's no good to solve this crime!
Gr. Paul.
QUOTE (Jack White @ Oct 12 2006, 03:35 AM)
Lamson is delusional:
QUOTE:
For cripes sake, we have lint and dust as a MAJOR part of badgeman. Sheesh. How do we know that? Take a look at the Thompson thumbprint Moorman. Do you see a "badge" and a "shoulder patch"? Of course not. And why? Because those items of "detail" we introduced when the Moorman was copied by UPI. The dust was not there when Thompson had the Moorman copied hense no "badge" and not "patch". Then take a look at the drumscan print and notice the BLACK dust and lint that can be found around the image and compare that to what you see in the "badgeman" image. (note that the dust and lint is black because it was in the surface of the sheet film used to copy the Moorman) When you compare the two imgaes you find that the dust and lint on the drumscan thumbprint Moorman match the sizes of the lint and dust on "badgeman".
UNQUOTE
Thompson never had the Moorman original copied. He purchased many
COPIES from various sources. So far as I know, when Gary Mack obtained
the ORIGINAL FOR ME TO COPY, it had only been copied twice...by UPI,
and by whoever shot the ZIPPO copy. I believe I am only the third person
to COPY THE ORIGINAL. Gordon Smith was the fourth. All other prints were
generated from the original copy negative by UPI or prints therefrom.
It is interesting that Lamson brings up his SUPPOSEDLY GREAT QUALITY
DRUMSCAN PRINT. It is a piece of shit. See comparison of Badgeman in
the Thompson #1 with the "drumscan". Lamson is blowing smoke out
his ass. Who does he think he can fool with the images say it better than words?
Jack
PS...as far as I know, Groden never copied the ORIGINAL POLAROID.
His copy which shows Badgeman was shot from the Thompson #1 print
which he had borrowed from Thompson, according to him. According to
Mary Moorman when she brought the original to Gary for me to copy,
it had been in her safe deposit box since 1963. If Gary remembers
differently, he will likely tell someone here. Gary is THE expert on ALL
copies of the Moorman, since he tracked them all down to sources.
QUOTE:
For cripes sake, we have lint and dust as a MAJOR part of badgeman. Sheesh. How do we know that? Take a look at the Thompson thumbprint Moorman. Do you see a "badge" and a "shoulder patch"? Of course not. And why? Because those items of "detail" we introduced when the Moorman was copied by UPI. The dust was not there when Thompson had the Moorman copied hense no "badge" and not "patch". Then take a look at the drumscan print and notice the BLACK dust and lint that can be found around the image and compare that to what you see in the "badgeman" image. (note that the dust and lint is black because it was in the surface of the sheet film used to copy the Moorman) When you compare the two imgaes you find that the dust and lint on the drumscan thumbprint Moorman match the sizes of the lint and dust on "badgeman".
UNQUOTE
Thompson never had the Moorman original copied. He purchased many
COPIES from various sources. So far as I know, when Gary Mack obtained
the ORIGINAL FOR ME TO COPY, it had only been copied twice...by UPI,
and by whoever shot the ZIPPO copy. I believe I am only the third person
to COPY THE ORIGINAL. Gordon Smith was the fourth. All other prints were
generated from the original copy negative by UPI or prints therefrom.
It is interesting that Lamson brings up his SUPPOSEDLY GREAT QUALITY
DRUMSCAN PRINT. It is a piece of shit. See comparison of Badgeman in
the Thompson #1 with the "drumscan". Lamson is blowing smoke out
his ass. Who does he think he can fool with the images say it better than words?
Jack
PS...as far as I know, Groden never copied the ORIGINAL POLAROID.
His copy which shows Badgeman was shot from the Thompson #1 print
which he had borrowed from Thompson, according to him. According to
Mary Moorman when she brought the original to Gary for me to copy,
it had been in her safe deposit box since 1963. If Gary remembers
differently, he will likely tell someone here. Gary is THE expert on ALL
copies of the Moorman, since he tracked them all down to sources.
For the record since Jack White is clueless. Thompson had the MOORMAN ORIGINAL copied by a professional photographer in 1967. He had two 4x5 b/w copy negatives made at time of the original polaroid print. He had prints made from that negative. Those prints are known as the Thompson Thumbprint Moorman. A few years ago when a few of us got together to destroy another Jack WHite fantasy, Moorman in the Street, Thompson took one of his copy negatives from the Moorman original to a prepress house in San Francisco and they made a very high resolution drumscan directly from the negative.
Clearly the copy of the Moorman original made by UPI was done before the original print started to fade. However the fading of the original print would NOT HAVE REMOVED A WHITE SPOT OR A WHITE 'PATCH" surrounded by black. In other words the things White calls the 'badge" and the "shoulder patch" would still be visable in the drumscan negative IF they were real detail from the Moorman. The simple fact is they are NOT visable in the drumscan BECAUSE they were NEVER IN THE ORIGINAL MOORMAN PRINT! They were dust and lint introduced when UPI made their copy negative. They are simply artifacts from the copy process. How do we know this? We can compare the size and shape of the dust and lint on the drumscan copy negative. Likewise the detail that is said to be the face of "Badgeman" is simply grain from the copy negative. How do we know its grain from the copy negative? Because polariod prints are virtually GRAINLESS! (note that close inspection of a processed b/w polaroid print shows that it has clumps rather than standard film grain features. This is exactly why no professional photographer will use a b/w polaroid print as a proofing tool to check focus. Prior to digital photography professionals used polaroid film by the case lots as a proofing medium)
Badgeman is an illusion. Lets not forget that the Moorman camera/lens/film did not have the resolution to record the detail shown in the forgery known as "Badgeman"
P.S.
Lets correct a Jack White "little white lie" from his above post.
He says his "badgeman" image is from a "good print of the Moorman"
This is untrue. The 'badgeman" image he posted is a flatbed scan of a b/w print made from a 35mm b/w copy negatative that is an enlargement from a 35mm color copy slide made from a 8x10 b/w print that was made from a b/w copy negative made from the Moorman original polaroid print.
The Thompson drumscan image is a high resolution commercial drum scan of a b/w copy negative made from the original Moorman polaroid print.
Simply more disinformation from Jack White.
QUOTE
For cripes sake, we have lint and dust as a MAJOR part of badgeman. Sheesh. How do we know that? Take a look at the Thompson thumbprint Moorman. Do you see a "badge" and a "shoulder patch"? Of course not. And why? Because those items of "detail" we introduced when the Moorman was copied by UPI. The dust was not there when Thompson had the Moorman copied hense no "badge" and not "patch". Then take a look at the drumscan print and notice the BLACK dust and lint that can be found around the image and compare that to what you see in the "badgeman" image. (note that the dust and lint is black because it was in the surface of the sheet film used to copy the Moorman) When you compare the two imgaes you find that the dust and lint on the drumscan thumbprint Moorman match the sizes of the lint and dust on "badgeman".
Craig, your point on what the cause of the alleged badge or police patch may or may not be correct, but the face and head shape is what sells me on the image in combination with Gordon Arnold's statements. When I look at the Badge Man's face ... I see the side of his face from which the sun would be on to be lighter than the side facing away from the sun, thus I do not believe his appearence to be part of the tree foilage. So whille I believe you certainly have an argument as to whether this individual wore a badge or police patch ... I disagree that his complete image is nothing more than lint, dust, and shadows.
In asking Gary Mack for what he recalls pertaining to these images ...
"In 1966/1967, Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg separately received several 8x10 prints of the Moorman photo from United Press International (not Wide World Photos).
Groden made slide blowups from one of Thompson's prints and some included the Badge Man area. He sent a slide to me, I noticed Badge Man, and gave the slide to Jack to see what he could do to improve the image.
Later, I borrowed Thompson's 8x10 print and Jack made blowups from that, too. I have seen both Groden's and Jack's Badge Man images - and Jack's are better. "
Bill Miller
QUOTE (Bill Miller @ Oct 12 2006, 04:01 PM)
QUOTE
For cripes sake, we have lint and dust as a MAJOR part of badgeman. Sheesh. How do we know that? Take a look at the Thompson thumbprint Moorman. Do you see a "badge" and a "shoulder patch"? Of course not. And why? Because those items of "detail" we introduced when the Moorman was copied by UPI. The dust was not there when Thompson had the Moorman copied hense no "badge" and not "patch". Then take a look at the drumscan print and notice the BLACK dust and lint that can be found around the image and compare that to what you see in the "badgeman" image. (note that the dust and lint is black because it was in the surface of the sheet film used to copy the Moorman) When you compare the two imgaes you find that the dust and lint on the drumscan thumbprint Moorman match the sizes of the lint and dust on "badgeman".
Craig, your point on what the cause of the alleged badge or police patch may or may not be correct, but the face and head shape is what sells me on the image in combination with Gordon Arnold's statements. When I look at the Badge Man's face ... I see the side of his face from which the sun would be on to be lighter than the side facing away from the sun, thus I do not believe his appearence to be part of the tree foilage. So whille I believe you certainly have an argument as to whether this individual wore a badge or police patch ... I disagree that his complete image is nothing more than lint, dust, and shadows.
In asking Gary Mack for what he recalls pertaining to these images ...
"In 1966/1967, Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg separately received several 8x10 prints of the Moorman photo from United Press International (not Wide World Photos).
Groden made slide blowups from one of Thompson's prints and some included the Badge Man area. He sent a slide to me, I noticed Badge Man, and gave the slide to Jack to see what he could do to improve the image.
Later, I borrowed Thompson's 8x10 print and Jack made blowups from that, too. I have seen both Groden's and Jack's Badge Man images - and Jack's are better. "
Bill Miller
Bill, regardless of what you think you may or may not see in the Moorman, the simple fact of the matter is that the Moorman camera/lens/film combo did not have the resolving power to record the image that is now known as the "face" of badgeman. Everything else is simply crap.
Finally you miss the entire point..the image is not just dust, lint (which are a big part of it) and shadows...but it is actually GRAIN from the UPI copy negative.
QUOTE
Bill, regardless of what you think you may or may not see in the Moorman, the simple fact of the matter is that the Moorman camera/lens/film combo did not have the resolving power to record the image that is now known as the "face" of badgeman. Everything else is simply crap.
Finally you miss the entire point..the image is not just dust, lint (which are a big part of it) and shadows...but it is actually GRAIN from the UPI copy negative.
Finally you miss the entire point..the image is not just dust, lint (which are a big part of it) and shadows...but it is actually GRAIN from the UPI copy negative.
Craig, the original photo was sharp ... at least when you talk to people who know its history. By the time Mary's photo was being looked at in 1978 - the photo's clarity was badly degraded.
The film Mary used didn't show grain, but it is possible that the copy print used had grain, but the problem is that there are parts of the photo in those prints that show little grain and grain on film should be uniform - correct? If the latter is true, then what you think is grain may not be grain at all.
The drum scan was made from a copy negative that was shot out of focus, which means that it is not a good source for knowing what was seen on those original UPI prints made on the afternoon of the assassination.
I have worked with many assassination images and in all my experiences, I have been able to show that what someone thought was a person was never really there, while I have never been able to create an image of an individual out of nothing.
Bill Miller
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.