Blow up/#5 man

[John Kelin]

Hi all,

I have been interested in the #5 man detail of the Moorman photo for a long time. David Lifton describes his discovery of this detail in his book, Best Evidence (though he doesn't call it "#5 man").

Lifton also describes seeing the film Blow Up, directed by Michaelangelo Antonioni, a few years later, and noting the obvious similarities between what its protagonist is doing, and what Lifton himself did in 1965.

Ray Marcus, who worked closely with Lifton on these images and kept at it when Lifton moved on to the work that became Best Evidence, described these things to me in a phone interview about eight years ago.

I thought it might be interesting to juxtapose some of his remarks over a clip from Blow Up. The results can be seen at the URL below. Be forewarned, there's a little self-promotion at the very end.

It lasts a little less than four minutes.

John Kelin

[Bernice Moore]

Hi all,

I have been interested in the #5 man detail of the Moorman photo for a long time. David Lifton describes his discovery of this detail in his book, Best Evidence (though he doesn't call it "#5 man").

Lifton also describes seeing the film Blow Up, directed by Michaelangelo Antonioni, a few years later, and noting the obvious similarities between what its protagonist is doing, and what Lifton himself did in 1965.

Ray Marcus, who worked closely with Lifton on these images and kept at it when Lifton moved on to the work that became Best Evidence, described these things to me in a phone interview about eight years ago.

I thought it might be interesting to juxtapose some of his remarks over a clip from Blow Up. The results can be seen at the URL below. Be forewarned, there's a little self-promotion at the very end.

It lasts a little less than four minutes.

John Kelin

*************

John:

Thanks for the video link.....

Here is what was known as Lifton's # 5 man.....

May be of interest.....

B...

Edited March 10, 2008 by Bernice Moore

[Jack White]

Marcus' NUMBER 5 MAN is caused by a moire pattern of halftone dots

in the halftone he studied. I have studied every known good continuous tone

print available of the Moorman photo, and the originals exhibit no such image.

Jack

[Miles Scull]

Marcus' NUMBER 5 MAN is caused by a moire pattern of halftone dots

in the halftone he studied. I have studied every known good continuous tone

print available of the Moorman photo, and the originals exhibit no such image.

Jack

Have to agree.

[John Kelin]

Marcus' NUMBER 5 MAN is caused by a moire pattern of halftone dots

in the halftone he studied. I have studied every known good continuous tone

print available of the Moorman photo, and the originals exhibit no such image.

Jack

Take a look at #5 Man, November 22, 1963, the monograph by Ray Marcus. Andy W. probably has it. On p. 97 Ray shows copies of the Moorman photo made from the original Polaroid. The copies were made in 1967. While they are much less clear than the half-tones, the #5 man image is still there.

John Kelin

[Jack White]

Marcus' NUMBER 5 MAN is caused by a moire pattern of halftone dots

in the halftone he studied. I have studied every known good continuous tone

print available of the Moorman photo, and the originals exhibit no such image.

Jack

Take a look at #5 Man, November 22, 1963, the monograph by Ray Marcus. Andy W. probably has it. On p. 97 Ray shows copies of the Moorman photo made from the original Polaroid. The copies were made in 1967. While they are much less clear than the half-tones, the #5 man image is still there.

John Kelin

I have five 8x10 glossy prints of the Marcus studies given to me by David Lifton. One of them

is attached. The marcusman#5 is NOT on any good quality Moorman prints.

Jack

[Jack White]

The main reason that marcusman#5 is not likely is that he is standing in plain sight

inside the pergola in full view of many witnesses. A gunman likely would have chosen

a hidden location. He also has his "rifle" at "port arms" and not in a firing position.

Jack

[Michael Crane]

In Miles blow-up photo there might be an image worth taking a closer look at.The image I see appears on the bottom right side to the left of the big white blobs.

It`s a long shot but oh well.

Edited March 10, 2008 by Michael Crane

[John Kelin]

The main reason that marcusman#5 is not likely is that he is standing in plain sight

inside the pergola in full view of many witnesses. A gunman likely would have chosen

a hidden location. He also has his "rifle" at "port arms" and not in a firing position.

Jack

This is all pretty obvious.

Granted, #5 man is in an exposed position. But there he is. Evidence of the old glazzies, as they say.

Thus far my resume does not include running an assassination team, so I can only offer speculative replies.

If I were running an assassination, and had bogus Secret Service agents on the knoll area, and was prepared to kill off any troublesome witnesses, and controlled the subsequent investigation that included a plainly spurious official report, #5's location might not be too problematic.

#5 man does not appear to be firing. So what?

The D.B. Thomas "Echo Correlation" article from 2001 bolsters shots fired from the front -- not necessarily #5 man, whose weapon does not appear to be in a firing position, but from the front. I imagine many here, maybe most, are in agreement on this point.

Presumed experts on this forum dismiss the validity of #5 man. So be it.

Other qualified experts, not part of this forum, have confirmed its validity. So be it. I remain interested in the image, but concede it is, comparatively speaking, minutiae. The overriding issue, of course, is the criminal conspiracy that killed JFK.

John Kelin

[Jack White]

The main reason that marcusman#5 is not likely is that he is standing in plain sight

inside the pergola in full view of many witnesses. A gunman likely would have chosen

a hidden location. He also has his "rifle" at "port arms" and not in a firing position.

Jack

This is all pretty obvious.

Granted, #5 man is in an exposed position. But there he is. Evidence of the old glazzies, as they say.

Thus far my resume does not include running an assassination team, so I can only offer speculative replies.

If I were running an assassination, and had bogus Secret Service agents on the knoll area, and was prepared to kill off any troublesome witnesses, and controlled the subsequent investigation that included a plainly spurious official report, #5's location might not be too problematic.

#5 man does not appear to be firing. So what?

The D.B. Thomas "Echo Correlation" article from 2001 bolsters shots fired from the front -- not necessarily #5 man, whose weapon does not appear to be in a firing position, but from the front. I imagine many here, maybe most, are in agreement on this point.

Presumed experts on this forum dismiss the validity of #5 man. So be it.

Other qualified experts, not part of this forum, have confirmed its validity. So be it. I remain interested in the image, but concede it is, comparatively speaking, minutiae. The overriding issue, of course, is the criminal conspiracy that killed JFK.

John Kelin

Who are the "qualified experts" and what are their qualifications?

If the image is NOT ON THE BEST QUALITY MOORMAN and is only

seen on a halftone copy, what do the experts say?

Jack

[John Kelin]

Who are the "qualified experts" and what are their qualifications?

If the image is NOT ON THE BEST QUALITY MOORMAN and is only

seen on a halftone copy, what do the experts say?

Jack

I'm going to type in a few paragraphs from the "#5 Man" monograph by Ray Marcus. This is from Chapter 6, "Expert Opinions."

<quote on>

In September 1967, I showed a specially prepared display of the #5 man to twelve photo experts in Boston and Los Angeles in order to solicit their opinions as to whether or not they believed the image represented an actual person. The display was prepared so as not to reveal the context -- no reference to the assassination, no sketch or cut-out shapes of the image -- the display showed only the enlargements, not the full Moorman photo.

The experts were questioned separately, none knowing -- till afterwards if at all -- what the others had said; nor did I answer until afterwards the inevitable question, "What's this all about, and who are you?"

Of the twelve, ten promptly identified #5 as a man, and two said they were unable to discern anything they could recognize. Three of the former were employees of the Graphic Arts Service at M.I.T.: Richard Hefferan, Supervisor, Benjamin Poole, Coordinator of Photographic Work, and Robert Lyon, Photographer. These three, and Howard Tribe, supervisor of the UCLA bio-medical photo lab, made sketches of #5 man and signed statements confirming their observations, again independent of each other. (I had drafted the statement, inviting each to make any changes to it they wished.)

These sketches were quite similar to each other in major details, varying primarily according to the drawing ability of the interviewees. The ten who recognized the image as a man also described him in generally consistent terms: subject visibile from lower chest upwards; youngish; light-to-medium build; balding or with light or thinning hair; right point of shirt collar visible (light colored); right elbow elevated and extended to his right; both hands in front, right somewhat higher than left; straight object apparently held in hands.

Two volunteered the opinion that he was wearing sunglasses, noting further that his markedly darker left "lens" must have been perpendicular to a line from the camera lens, and was reflecting no light.

The most memorable reaction to the display was that of Richard Windmiller, supervisor of the photo analysis department of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. Although he declined to sign a statement, he said -- after a quick look at the images -- "You don't need an expert to tell you that's a man."

<end quote>

Ray reproduces the signed statements and sketches in his monograph.

He also reproduces his "Blow up" article from the L.A. Free Press, 11-24-67, which describes the various experts cited above.

Another quote from the "#5 Man" monograph:

<quote on>

One photo expert not mentioned in the "Blow-Up" article was Jacques De Langre, whose decades-long experience as a professional photographer included work for the War Crimes Investigative Team of the U.S. Army at the close of World War II. In a letter to me on January 16, 1968, after stating his opinion that #5 in the half-tone print is a man, and referring to a copy supplied by [Josiah] Thompson to [David] Lifton of the badly decayed Moorman original, he says:

"While the first generation print is so poor as to preclude easy location and recognition in it of this #5 man, by comparing the half-tone carefully with the first-generation print, I have determined to my satisfaction that the #5 man indeed is present in the first-generation print.

"The copy I made this date from the first-generation print, when compared carefully with the first generation print and the half-tone, also shows sufficient evidence of the #5 man to determine that he is there."

<end quote>

De Langre's 1-16-68 letter to Marcus is also reproduced in the "#5 Man" monograph; the portion quoted above represents only the last couple of paragraphs.

John Kelin

[Jack White]

Thanks for the additional info.

However, all of the BEST quality Moorman prints, including ones from

Tink Thompson, Harold Weisberg and UPI were examined in great detail

and no such image is present. It is seen ONLY in the HALFTONE print

studied by Marcus. If it appears in the halftone and NOT IN THE ORIGINAL,

it must be an artifact of the halftone process.

I have no stake in this; I am just reporting facts. I do not care whether

it is a man or not. If it is, so what?

Jack

[John Kelin]

Thanks for the additional info.

However, all of the BEST quality Moorman prints, including ones from

Tink Thompson, Harold Weisberg and UPI were examined in great detail

and no such image is present. It is seen ONLY in the HALFTONE print

studied by Marcus. If it appears in the halftone and NOT IN THE ORIGINAL,

it must be an artifact of the halftone process.

I have no stake in this; I am just reporting facts. I do not care whether

it is a man or not. If it is, so what?

Jack

Look, I don't want to spend much more time on this, and I sense you don't either. But it is in the original Moorman photo. Yes, the one Marcus showed to de Langre was not the original but a copy of the original. But it wasn't a half tone, and de Langre concluded it was a man. (He saw the half tone, too...same conclusion.)

I would suggest anyone interested in reading more find a copy of #5 Man: November 22, 1963, the monograph by Ray Marcus. Andy W. at Last Hurrah has had it in the in the past and may well still have it in stock. There is more to the story than what I've presented here, and it's fascinating.

John

[Miles Scull]

If it is, so what?

Jack

Duncan!

I am surprized.

Have you forgotten Arnie (aka Gordon Arnold)?

Marcusman is a midget.

[Miles Scull]

No Midgets here Miles....Duncan 6ft 1 with my boots on

Duncan,

Figure?

Hey!

Where's BM?