Craig Lamson

Before we start the bending and folding I have a question for Jack White, who was the original poster of this list. Jack, do you beileve that each and every queston asked in this list is an honest question and states the facts correctly?

Jack, why did you make this claim when it is clearly not true. Evan discussed it in this very thread, post 142 I believe. As for me I belive I also discussed it in the original thread but since that thread is missing I can't offer any opinion either way...but of course neither can you. But in any case I have no fear of discussing this with you. For the record I believe it is a damaged piece of exterior insulation.

Jack- This is one situation that it is critical that we find out what the photo Id's are. If they were indeed taked arouind the same time, there might be anomolies present. If they were taken at different times, then no problems. This one might take a while to resolve. Stay Tuned. Steve, Jack has the same ability to search for the file numbers as you do. Its his study, he has access to the internet..he posted it, let HIM find the numbers. I suggest until Jack comes up with the file numbers and the source for his images we just leave this claim alone.

Your understanding of light and shadow is a bit lacking Sir. Unless you have some experience in this area of photography please refrain from telling me what shadows will and will not do. My daily working experience is based entirely on the creation of studio photographic lighting and I have done so for almost three decades. Now you statement that: "Shadows ? .... You have to be kidding me..... Shadows would only appear if it was an overhead light shining directly down on the astronaut being reflected in the visor .... Footlights which are directed in an upwards position would not cast any shadows on the ground ." ...is baseless in this situation. First even "footlights directed in an upwards position CAN cause shadows on the ground, but that really means nothing in the case. For your "theory" that the specular highlights in the visor are from footlights to have ANY validity you must go beyond the "I believe" stage and offer us some real proof that such lights were used. That proof would be TRIPLE SHADOWS anywhere on the spacesuit that is in shadow from the sun. IF there were "footlights" those shadows WOULD HAVE TO EXIST! This is simple studio lighting 101. In addition if there WERE FOOTLIGHTS there would also be specular highlights on the shiny surfaces of the spacesuit. The easiest place to look for such highlights are the chrome snaps placed at various places on the spacesuit. They offer us a great view of the light falling on that area of the spacesuit since they are convex mirrors. None of these snaps show any signs of three "footlights" Again this is studio lighting 101. Scratches on the visor were common on all missions. Why not? The gold visor (the one in question) was raised and lowered as were the three visor shades. These lexan plastic visors were raised and lowered with the gloved hand of the astronaut...gloved hands that where COVERED with abrasive lunar dust. For these shadows to show in a photograph we need a couple of things. First we need for the sun to light these scratches from exactly the right angle for them to show up in the photograph. This again is basic Studio Lighting 101. Next we need to have photographs that were MADE in the correct lighting and that are IN FOCUS for these scratches to be visible. Having reviewed ALL of the high res images taken just before and after the frame in question, I have not been able find any additional images that are in focus, have the right lighting nor being close enough to resolve the scratches. That however does not eliminate that the highlights on the visor along with what appears top be three scratches are in fact scratches with highlights. So what are we left with here. You state you "believe" that what you see in the visor are three additional lights added to the scene. You offer no evidence of this other than your "belief". As stated in your you have NO STUDIO LIGHING EXPERIENCE from which to base your claim. But based on this lack of solid evidence ( in fact no evidence at all) you tell us: "Otherwise I think it's pretty obvious what really caused these three light reflections to show up in Cernan's visor .... Footlights on a moon set ." On the other hand we have the lack of any shadows or highlights anywhere else in this image and these WOULD BE REQUIRED if there were in fact three additional lights used in this image. Studio Lighting 101. Also it’s a simple fact of photographic lighting that a light hitting a scratch of other indentation on a reflective surface will case a specular highlight. Studio lLghting 101 again. It happened to me just last week when photographing an rv bedroom with a large etched mirror. Simple fact of physics. We also have Lexan visors being handled by abrasive gloves...scratches happen. Such as can be seen here: http://dayton.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/LARGE/GPN-2000-001428.jpg Bottom line, the evidence is convincing that the highlights in question are being caused by scratches. You have offered no evidence what so ever other than your uninformed belief that the highlights in question are being caused by “footlights”.

They appear to be highlights from the sun as the sun hits scratches on the surface of the visor. I've seen this happen quite often while doing interior photographs of RV's and having a mirror with etched lines and a light at the right angle. If they were fill lights of some sort there would be a BUNCH of other signs...such as specular highlights elsewhere and more importhantly THREE MORE SHADOWS.

The reason for the photograph rule is that it is an attempt to humanize communications. It was hoped that this would improve people’s behaviour. In Craig’s case this has clearly failed. This thread was started in order to persuade LNs to engage in intellectual argument. People like Craig and Brendan are only interested in insulting members who believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. When this thread started to disintegrate into personal insults I started another thread. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8202 However, it is clear that Craig and Brendan are not interested in intellectual argument and have ignored attempts to enter into debate. It is hard not to conclude from this that the main purpose of Craig and Brendan being on this forum is to stir up trouble. Several months ago when Craig was trying to defend Bush's corrupt activities he said that one of his main sources of income was from shares in Halliburton. Ok lets see John, First once again you have FAILED to answer a simple question? Why? What exactly do you have to hide? Mr. Black has no photo, nor does he have a BIO. Both are part of the membership rules you posted for this forum. You have failed to tell the entire forum why Mr. Black is exempt? In the past you have threatened merbers without a photo with removal unless a photo and or bio were posted. Again why is Mr. Black not required to post them, and why are YOU skirting the question. The irony here is wonderful. John Simkin, socialist, creating a protected class of people. Then you wrote this little ditty: "Several months ago when Craig was trying to defend Bush's corrupt activities he said that one of his main sources of income was from shares in Halliburton." I said nothing of the sort. I noted that I held stock in Halliburton, as do many citizens of the US. I also said I have made a profit from my investment. NOWHERE did I indicate what portion of my total imcome came from my shares of Haliburton stock. What we have is yet another example of a 'historian" re-writing history to suit some silly fantasy playing out in his mind. Simkins writing in no way reflect the reality of the actual exchange, which , if one is interested can be found in this very forum. Finally I'm NOT interested in silly intellectual arguments. My goal is simple. Point out the TRUTH about the various photographic claims made on this forum. Either you can handle the truth and then fit that truth into whatever worldview you hold, (which would be the intellectually honest thing to do) or you cant. It's pretty clear that a large part of the posting members of this forum fall into group two, the "I can't handle the truth" group. It appears the facts and the truth upsets these intellectually dishonest people. Too bad.

Shanet prove once again that those here who SAY they seek the real truth and not at all interested in truth but rather confirmation of their warped worldview. Thanks so much Shanet. I

Learn to read old man...Tink answered your question quite a few posts ago. Thompson wrote: "The professional photographer in Dallas who copied Mary Moorman's photo in 1967 was well-known in Dallas and, I think, was recommended by Patsy Swank and Holland McCombs, people I worked with on the LIFE magazine investigation in Dallas. I can't recall his name just now. I do recall that both he and Mary Moorman were paid to get the best copies we could possibly get. Why? Because one of the arguments in "Six Seconds" was the claim that an anomalous shape along the fence-line might be a gunman. For this reason alone, I took pains to obtain the most accurate, high resolution image I could obtain." Now how about doing some of the things that have been asked of you? Got the balls? dgh:sitdown you moron, that includes your balls too, if you own a pair -- questions relating to Dr. Thompson's post have been asked, you have absolutely no knowledge regarding the topic or thiongs related to JFK's assassination Bite me guard dog. It appears I have FAR more knowlege about the photographic record and the processes involved that you ever will. Oh wait...you HAVE read a book...excuse me...and then F off. Nice post dips--t. Can you READ? I though not. Try REVIEWING the posts in a thread and then perhaps you will not look so f'ing stupid asking silly questions.

Jack White is a HACK of the highest order. His limited understanding of the photographic process has been exposed MANY TIMES OVER. All Jack has added to the study of the JKF case is DISINFORMATION. That he has fooled the likes of you speaks VOLUMES about your intellectual honest and critical thinking skills...you have none. But please dont continure "soiling" ourself, if that is possible. I've read enough from you to have your number. Apology to Jack White, not on your life. And BTW, I am playing by the letter of the forum rules which is far more than can be said for you. I've also posted links to my business website on this forum and that included my address and phone number. I've sent the miserable likes of Jack White packages with my name, address and phone number. You on the other hand are a complete mystery...since you are in violation of the posted forum rules...who is hiding? Moron.

Wow. Can you read? Please show me WHERE I asked for your removal from this forum. 1. I DID ask you personally, in this very thread. 2. I asked for Mr. Simkins reply because HE makes the rules. HIS rule states that a member SHOULD post a picture and MUST post a bio. Simkin has threatened a number of members with removal for not having a picture and bio. I am simply wonderting WHY you are somhow different. 3. The bio"s (which are a requirement for membership per Simkins rules) provide the members a valuable service...they allow us a little insight ito the credential os the posters. 4. I actually agree that the photo rule is stupid, and in fac t Simkin can't even enforce the rule as he has written it. That said, its how he does business here and if he can demand some to post a picture or face removal, he should demand it of all. 5. MY original question about your pricture and bio were posted MAINLY for David Healy. Seems Healy likes to play "where's your picture" with members all the time. Interesting to see him weasel away this time. 6. Finally I really dont care what you look like or what your background is. Your stupid outburst speaks volumes. You sir are a moron.

Learn to read old man...Tink answered your question quite a few posts ago. Thompson wrote: "The professional photographer in Dallas who copied Mary Moorman's photo in 1967 was well-known in Dallas and, I think, was recommended by Patsy Swank and Holland McCombs, people I worked with on the LIFE magazine investigation in Dallas. I can't recall his name just now. I do recall that both he and Mary Moorman were paid to get the best copies we could possibly get. Why? Because one of the arguments in "Six Seconds" was the claim that an anomalous shape along the fence-line might be a gunman. For this reason alone, I took pains to obtain the most accurate, high resolution image I could obtain." Now how about doing some of the things that have been asked of you? Got the balls?

Yea, Jack talks all the time. Not much of it is the truth nor does most of it make any sense (kind of like you when you venture into the photo section of the jfk debate) but what do you expect? Just look at him!

Yes, they only seem interested in making personal attacks on Conspiracy Theorists. I have started a new thread on this issue: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8202 I recommend other researchers add questions that lone nutters should try and answer. Who is "They"? Slattery seems to be a LN. I'm not nor is Bill. When does one become they? You have yet to answer the question as to why Mr. Black has no pic nor bio posted. Are you ever going to answer?

My gosh you are so right..its Jack to a Tee!

Shanet...thanks. While on this subject, maybe we can get Lamson to come clean (confess?) who did the PHOTOSHOP alteration to his beloved DRUMSCAN Moorman. Someone (who?) SHARPENED THE TOP OF THE PEDESTAL AND TILTED IT A LITTLE TO INCREASE A PERCEIVED "GAP". Maybe Lamson knows who did this. Jack PS...back in the 80s when I did the TILT-EASEL discovery on the backyard photos, NOBODY had computers. Lamson implies I should have used computer controls to do this instead of such a "primitive" method. More rectal smoke. Have you used up your bag of xxxx yet Jack, the walls are getting all covered in the slimy goo but nothing is sticking. While we are at it, why not show us all a nice big and clean scan of YOUR copy of the Moorman original...in the area of the gap. Of course we all know you will NEVER do that because it will disprove your ignorant claim that the drum scan has been retouched. We all also know that you use the zippo simply because the quality is soooo bad. So come on Jack, step up to the plate and post your copy of the moorman orginal...nice and big in the ped area....You got the balls old man? You really can't read can you Jack. I suggested that Shanet use the computer NOW, not that you shOuld have used It way back in the dark ages. But while we are at it, why don'T YOU redo the tilt easal thing using the computer. You can prove once and for all that you are right. Just be sure to record all the information so we can all verify your work. You don't have the balls for that one either.

In other words you CANNOT reproduce this part of Whites study and you have NOTHING to confirm your belief in his findings other than FAITH. High quality research there Shanet. Yada Yada yada...thats the quality of your ill-formed opinions....

Jack, these are your OWN words from just a few posts ago.... "John, they are greenish because I scanned them from 35mm slides of prints. The slides have a slight greenish cast, and I did not bother to adjust the tone." I wrote: Jack says its because he failed to correct the color balance when he made the scans. Learn to read. And I never said your images were b/w. I simply mentioned that you have a habit of scanning b/w image sin color and you have just confirmed that I was correct. Finally adding colorto a b/w image does nothing but uselessly increase the file size and it actually introduces MORE artifacts into the image. In other words you are destroying the image, not enhancing it.

Shanet please reporduce White's results of the "tilt easel" All the tools to do so are availabe in photoshop. You MUST make all the images MATCH EXACTLY. Should you be unable to do so Whites theory of the "tilt easal" will have been proven wrong. But good luck, I've tried time and time again and have yet to get the backgrounds to get even close to matching...which means that once again, WHite is full of caca. And unless you can verify his claim, please refrain from citing it.

The old man trys in vain to save his butt by posting more disinformation... " WRONG. THE SOURCE OF THE BADGEMAN IMAGE, ACCORDING TO GRODEN WAS A SLIDE OF THE UPI IMAGE WHICH HE BORROWED FROM THOMPSON. REGARDLESS OF THE INTERMEDIATE PHOTO STEPS, THE ORIGINAL WAS THE UPI PRINT BELONGING TO THOMPSON. ALL BADGEMAN IMAGES ARE FROM THE THOMPSON UPI PRINT. "1. the Moorman camera/lens/film did not hve the required resolution to produce the level of detail found in your badgeman forgery." WRONG. GARY MACK CHECKED WITH POLAROID ON THE CAMERA/LENS/FILM AND WAS TOLD THE LENS WAS A HIGH QUALITY GLASS LENS, AND THE FILM WAS "VIRTUALLY GRAINLESS" COMPARED TO NEGATIVE FILM BECAUSE THE DIFFUSION PROCESS PRODUCED A VERY "SMOOTH" IMAGE. CHECK WITH GARY ON HIS RESEARCH INTO THESE MATTERS. IT IS IDIOTIC TO SAY THAT "MY BADGEMAN IMAGE IS A FORGERY" BECAUSE IT IS MERELY A COPY FROM A GRODEN SLIDE OF A UPI PRINT. ANY FORGERY TOOK PLACE PREVIOUS TO THE UPI COPY. THIS IS A POSSIBILITY, BUT I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. "2. That the "badge and the shoulder patch" are simply artifacts created by lint and dust when the UPI copy negative was created." THE THOMPSON #1 UPI PRINT HAD NO LINT AND DUST ARTIFACTS IN THESE AREAS. RECTAL SMOKE DOES NOT ALTER FACTS. JUST SMELLS BAD. JACK" 1. You post YOUR forgery of "badgeman" and claim its a "good print of the Moorman". It is nothing of the sort. It is a b/w print from a 35mm negative....well you all know the rest of this song by now..... 2. Garys claim that Polaroid "says the lens is high quality and the film is virtually grainless" is a strawman. The question at hand is: does the camera/lens/film have the required resolution to record the level of detail found in you badgeman forgery? That has not be addressed by any of you. And the reason WHY is because the camera/lens/fils..and we should really add f-stop cannot record that level of detail. 3. Your image IS a forgery because it is a copy that does not reflect the actual contents of the Moorman original yet you claim it does. 4. The UPI print DOES show lint and dust in the location you call the badge and the shoulder patch. This is proven by the fact that NO OTHER COPIES of the Moorman (not including those made from the UPI print) show the "badge and shoulder patch" Thats because the dust and lint present when the UPI copy was made was NOT THERE when the other copies were made. 5. Your lack of knowlege into the detailed technical facts surrounding the crap called "badgeman" is the true smoke and its blowing out of your ass. Watching you spin here and Gary trying to spin in emails is just TOO FUNNY!

Good grief Jack...more wasted time when you know the reason why the negative was drum scanned. Start your brain. What was MISSING from the UPI copy? What was NEEDED for the the debunking of your stupid Moorman in the street non-sense? The negative used for the drumscan was not inferior. Sharp and crisp. So sharp and crisp one can see the fuzz on the tattered corner of the print, the fine thin lines left by the foam coater, detailed surface defects on the print and sharp folds in the upper left corenr of the print. No it is an EXCELLENT copy negative of the ORIGINAL Moorman. Proof that the "drumscan" from an original copy negative was far inferior to the Thompson #1 print from UPI. Case closed. Jack Craig, Could you please tell me why Moorman #1 & 2 are greenish since Jack did not respond to my question? Would the greenish effect was caused by a improper exposure? Thanks johnw Jack says its because he failed to correct the color balance when he made the scans. Also Jack has a habit of scanning b/w orignals in rgb color under the mistaken impression that doing so "shows more detail" It does not.

Good grief Jack...more wasted time when you know the reason why the negative was drum scanned. Start your brain. What was MISSING from the UPI copy? What was NEEDED for the the debunking of your stupid Moorman in the street non-sense? The negative used for the drumscan was not inferior. Sharp and crisp. So sharp and crisp one can see the fuzz on the tattered corner of the print, the fine thin lines left by the foam coater, detailed surface defects on the print and sharp folds in the upper left corenr of the print. No it is an EXCELLENT copy negative of the ORIGINAL Moorman. Proof that the "drumscan" from an original copy negative was far inferior to the Thompson #1 print from UPI. Case closed. Jack Once more for the lurkers not used to Jack White disinformation. The image he shows as "badgeman" is not created using the UPI copy print. It is a b/w print of a 35mm copy negative made from an enlarged 35mm slide which is a copy of an 8x10 b/w UPI print which was printed from a b/w copy negative taken of the original polaroid print. Case closed. Now Jack we have watched you twist and turn for 5 pages and you have yet to address the key points of this thread. 1. the Moorman camera/lens/film did not hve the required resolution to produce the level of detail found in your badgeman forgery. 2. That the "badge and the shoulder patch" are simply artifacts created by lint and dust when the UPI copy negative was created. Can we expect your answers to points or are you going to continue throwing more strawmen at the wall to see if anything will stick?

Good grief Jack...more wasted time when you know the reason why the negative was drum scanned. Start your brain. What was MISSING from the UPI copy? What was NEEDED for the the debunking of your stupid Moorman in the street non-sense? The negative used for the drumscan was not inferior. Sharp and crisp. So sharp and crisp one can see the fuzz on the tattered corner of the print, the fine thin lines left by the foam coater, detailed surface defects on the print and sharp folds in the upper left corenr of the print. No it is an EXCELLENT copy negative of the ORIGINAL Moorman.

Thanks for the post Tink. It was enlightening since I have never known your views 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 Thanks, Bill...Gary is absolutely correct. He should know. He did all the leg work, I did all the photo work. I shared every step of my work with him. He knows more about the Moorman photo and its history than ANY OTHER RESEARCHER. Jack Lamson claims that Thompson had in his possession the ORIGINAL MOORMAN POLAROID, which he had a professional photographer copy. Mary Moorman told Gary Mack and me when she brought us the original for me to copy, that the print and camera had been in her bank lock box since 1963/64. Whom should we believe...Mary or Lamson? Jack PS...as far as I know, Lamson has NEVER POSTED AN IMAGE OF ANY KIND ON THE FORUM. Let him prove his arguments by posting the images he alleges so we can see them. His "drumscan" is not from the Thompson #1 image, which Gary and I determined was the best of all Moorman images. Bill Miller, What the hell are you talking about? Mary Moorman took a POLAROID! She didn't use any film. Comprendo? Gr. Paul. BTW: why are you always replying in bold text? Is that really necessary? Or are you thinking we otherwise don't read your replies? For the benefit of the ignorant, Polaroid has always referred to its product as FILM. Doubt me? Just Google POLAROID FILM. Jack Who should we believe...NOT YOU JACK! I've posted many an image on this forum, The image from the Thompson drum scan was posted on this very forum (you remember Jack its the image you said was YOURS but in fact it was not) I posted a very high res copy on my Pbase page and linked so members of this forum could download it. Come one Jack. You are being stupid again. And I never said the drumscan was from the Thompson UPI print. It's not. It is a THUMBPRINT Moorman. Its from the professional copy Thompson had made in 1967. Despite of the bullcrap spewing from Whites keyboard, Thompson DID have the original Moorman print copied. From this link, an article in part authored by Thompson: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/drum_scan_gap.html "The drum scan In 1967, Josiah Thompson hired a professional Dallas photographer to copy the original Moorman Polaroid. The photographer returned to Thompson two 4 x 5 inch black and white negatives and 8 x 10 prints from the negatives. When the Moorman controversy arose recently, Thompson scanned one of the prints on a consumer-grade flatbed scanner and made the image available to the JFK research community. Dr. Costella used a version of this image file for his gap analysis. As part of the analysis, he magnified the image 3 times larger and rotated it to compensate for both camera rotation and scanner rotation. Both the Thompson original image and Dr. Costella's enlarged version contain compression artifacts, presumably from the source JPEG image file. The edges show signs of ringing, which is a byproduct of the compression inherent in JPEG, but also may be a sign of edge enhancement. Dr. Costella's processing of the image inevitably contributed its own artifacts. Unsure of the effect of these artifacts on gap measurement, we decided to get as close to the Moorman original as we could. Josiah Thompson took his negatives to Octagon Digital in San Francisco to have one of them professionally scanned on a drum scanner. He had the 4 x 5 negative scanned at 2400 DPI with no edge enhancement, no tonal adjustments, and no other processing. The scanner generated a 110 MB, 8-bit grayscale image to CD as an uncompressed TIFF file." Bottom Line: Jack White simply has no clue. The version of the "drumscan" I used was on a CD that someone in Tink's Gang mailed to me; I don't remember who. Presumably it should be superior quality to one downloaded from the internet. I am sure that Gary Mack can verify whether the original Polaroid ever left Mary's possession. When Smith and I copied the original, Mary and/or her husband waited while it was copied, never letting it out of their sight. So now Lamson not claims that the drumscan was made FROM A NEGATIVE SHOT FROM THE ORIGINAL, and not from a Thompson print. Interesting. Jack Sigh...your mind is going old man. I sent you the cd with the drumscan file. I also sent it to ANYONE who requested it at the JKFresearch forum. I've never claimed it was made from a print. I've mentioned any nuber of time ON THIS FORUM that the scan was direct from the negative. That was the whole point of getting the scan done...to get as close to the original as possible. We had a scan of the print produced from this negative, why scan it again... sheesh. As stated the file in the above quote was untouched off the scanner. As such it has not had any levels or curves adjustments made to it. It looks "flat" This was also done for a reason...to keep guys like you from making stupid comment about the file being altered. Not that it stopped you in any case. The file I posted (and was copied by a great many people during the time it was up) did have the levels adjusted as I pointed out when I posted the link. As such it DID look better than the file on the cd. It was also reduced in size down to about 11x14 at 300dpi from he original which was 39"x32" at 300dpi...and this was native resolution from the scanner, no interpolation. Good grief Jack, you knew all of this stuff, why suddenly are you making this seem like new news. Senile? BTW, Gary Mack was part of our group that trashed your silly claim that Mary was in the street. Are you suggesting that he was willing to put a falsehood about the origin of the drumscan in the article?

Why Jack, there is clearly as much detail in my forum photo as there is in the "badgeman" forgery and you have no problems seeing him. Whats your problem?