Craig Lamson

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.

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 Bill you have NO IDEA what the original polaroid looked like or if it was indeed sharp. Here is a SIMPLE FACT OF LIFE. The photograph was shot handheld and with the camera panning at 1/100 of a second at f64.5 using a poor quality lens and using film that could only resolve 17 or so lp/mm in the best of high contrast conditions. With all of these factors combined there is simply not enough resolution to show the level of detail shown in the "badgeman" forgery. Hell even the many recreation photos taken with modern film (with 2-3 times the resolving power of the Moorman polarid film) using the Moorman camera don't show the level of detail shown in the badgeman forgery. In a word Bill you are full of it. I suggest you bone up again on film grain Bill. Grain mostly shows up in areas of smooth tone. It also gets suppressed in very dark and very light areas of a print. It may nbot be uniform accross the entire image. I have to laugh watching you try and deny film grain after watching you go to great lengths to use grain as a reason the Z film is not altered. Try being consistant. The drum scan. I've seen Mack try and pull the 'its out of focus" line before but I'm not suprised, he has a vested interest in keeping badgeman alive. Of course the out of focus line is bullcrap. Take a close look at the entire image of the drumscan. The baseboard on which the print is placed is tack sharp. You can CLEARLY see marks made by the print coater in the upper right hand side of the print...sharp as a tack. The bends and crinkles in the upper left hand corner of the image are also tack sharp. The bottom line is that both you and Gary (which is where you got the "its out of focus" line right?) are simply wrong. The drumscan negative is tack sharp. PERIOD. Its the Moorman POLAROID print which cannot be sharp...due to the simple reason stated above...that the camera/lens/film are by their very nature unsharp. But that really does not matter...its a strawman. Show me another Moorman copy that did NOT come from the UPI copy in any manner...that means the Zippo or the Smith or the White copies and show me ONE that has the badge or the shoulder patch. Hell look at the badgeman work that Crawley did from the original Moorman polaroid....not badge or patch there either. Why? Because they are simply dust and lint artifacts. You have nothing Bill. Quit while you are still ahead. Continue and you will look as silly as old man White.

LOL, I've been aware of Charlie for a long while. I do however notice, you can't tackle a few thread related simple questions, can't support your SBT/lone nutter way's...? shame on you! Charlie, your theory seems to be as made up as the SBT was. How would altering the Zfilm keep one from seeing the gunman when the camera was trained on the immediate area of the limo??? I might also add that professional experts have viewed the film and their experience and expertise state that the actions seen on the film is real and what they would expect to see, thus what expertise can you offer to refute their conclusions??? Bill Miller no comment on the questions posted above? Are they beyond you? Stretch a bit, show us some JFK research abilities, specifics please.... Davie...I don't care a bit about the SBT nor the WC report nor do I give a rat butts about who did or did not fire the shots that killed JFK. Why should I be answering your silly questions again? Mr Lamson My equipment at the present time will not allow me to post a photo. This is my 85th post on this forum and I have no idea that any additional Bio. is required. Since I have not been active here for over a year, I do not understand your response. Why are you so eager to ask ? Charlie Black Lets see now, you can post to this forum yet you cannot post a picture... In any case a picture and a bio are a requirement for posting on this forum. I suggest you read the rules and then post both your picture and your bio. I would sure hate to take this to Simkin or Walker. WHy am I eger to ask? Why not? You are breaking forum rules. uh-uh-UH notty boy....not a forum rule when we were asked to join.....the above questions got you tongue-tied? Trying to change the subject matter? Really? Lets ask Mr. Simkin shall we? Mr. Lamson I am impressed. I wonder why you are so adamant regarding my posts ! Could it be that I say things that irritate you? Are you really going to tell the teacher? Healy is absolutely correct. My picture was not a requirement, tho what I said about posting it is fact. No Mr. Black your posting on the alteration of the Zapruder film did not irritate me in the slightest. I did however find it highly amusing. Thanks for the laughs.

I've noted that there is a member of this forum with no picture and no bio posted. I've been told by David Healy that certain members are exempt from this rule due to being early members of this forum. Is that a true statement and if so can you please explain exactly why they have been exempted.

LOL, I've been aware of Charlie for a long while. I do however notice, you can't tackle a few thread related simple questions, can't support your SBT/lone nutter way's...? shame on you! Charlie, your theory seems to be as made up as the SBT was. How would altering the Zfilm keep one from seeing the gunman when the camera was trained on the immediate area of the limo??? I might also add that professional experts have viewed the film and their experience and expertise state that the actions seen on the film is real and what they would expect to see, thus what expertise can you offer to refute their conclusions??? Bill Miller no comment on the questions posted above? Are they beyond you? Stretch a bit, show us some JFK research abilities, specifics please.... Davie...I don't care a bit about the SBT nor the WC report nor do I give a rat butts about who did or did not fire the shots that killed JFK. Why should I be answering your silly questions again? Mr Lamson My equipment at the present time will not allow me to post a photo. This is my 85th post on this forum and I have no idea that any additional Bio. is required. Since I have not been active here for over a year, I do not understand your response. Why are you so eager to ask ? Charlie Black Lets see now, you can post to this forum yet you cannot post a picture... In any case a picture and a bio are a requirement for posting on this forum. I suggest you read the rules and then post both your picture and your bio. I would sure hate to take this to Simkin or Walker. WHy am I eger to ask? Why not? You are breaking forum rules. uh-uh-UH notty boy....not a forum rule when we were asked to join.....the above questions got you tongue-tied? Trying to change the subject matter? Really? Lets ask Mr. Simkin shall we?

Mr Lamson My equipment at the present time will not allow me to post a photo. This is my 85th post on this forum and I have no idea that any additional Bio. is required. Since I have not been active here for over a year, I do not understand your response. Why are you so eager to ask ? Charlie Black Lets see now, you can post to this forum yet you cannot post a picture... In any case a picture and a bio are a requirement for posting on this forum. I suggest you read the rules and then post both your picture and your bio. I would sure hate to take this to Simkin or Walker. WHy am I eager to ask? Why not? You are breaking forum rules.

Mr. Black, where is your picture and bio? I'm sure Healy willl be asking you the very same thing with his next post.

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.

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.

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.

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...... 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 ...

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...... 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!

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 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 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 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 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 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." 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.

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 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 bullxxxx from the master photographic bullxxxxter...Jack White 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!

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.

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.

The words of a paranoid old fool...what a sad life you lead Peter. I really feel sorry for you.

Oh HORSExxxx Jack! The shadow crossed right over his face. Only a silly old fool like you would think that the shadow does not cross his face. zyou actually think the shadow of his arm is as short as you suggest in your disinfo graphic? How do you explain such a short shadow for the arm wheh right behind we can see the lenght of the shadow for TUM? No this is simply ANOTHER case of Jack WHite having NO CLUE.... Learn to read light and shadow or slink back into your rathole....

Nice SHADOW of DCM's ARM over his face....

read HOAX, dufus... get educated! Now THATS FUNNY! Educated from 'HOAX"? ROFLMAO!

How about you deal with with your "nukes in the basement" claim first instead of throwing more crap on the wall and seeing if anything sticks.

I don't know if the sub-basement explosions were nuclear or conventional. My guess is that "they" were softening up the lower part of the structure for the planned coup de grace that was scheduled to take place a little later that morning. The lower part of the tower, near the foundation, was even more robustly constructed than the upper levels, because it had to bear the weight of all the steel and concrete comprising the building above it. That is why "they" had explosives detonate in the sub-basement level, near the moment of impact. Someone apparently miscalculated, and the explosions detonated several seconds before the impact near the 90th floor. This accounts for the 14 second discrepancy between the L.D.E.O. seismograph spike at 8:46 and 26 seconds, and the official impact time of 8:46 and 40 seconds. Oh please...engage your brain. There is no "official" impact time. The discrepancy is an illusion. Of course its the perfect CT illusion based on smopke and mirror...kind of like the crap WHite produces and all of you dunderheads fall for. "Softening up" the lower levels serves no one. The buildings FELL FROM THE TOP DOWN. Sheesh.

Uh John, you made an extraordinary claim, its YOUR job to back it up, which you have failed to do. But lets start here...show us proof that the buildings fell from the bottom UP! Witnesses inside the north tower reported a massive explosion in the sub basement at the moment of, or several seconds before, the impact of the plane. The Naudet brothers video documentary of the events shows massive damage to the ground floor lobby, with all the glass being blown out, and the tiles being knocked off the walls. The official explanation for the lobby damage is that burning jet fuel raced down the elevator shafts and caused the explosion, but there was only one express elevator shaft in the north tower that connected from the ground floor to the level of the plane's impact. All the other elevator shafts were staggered, most extending to only about the 40th floor, and I believe one or two going as far as the 70th floor. The alleged hijacked plane, American Airlines flight 11, impacted above the 90th floor. WTC maintenance man, William Rodriguez, was in one of the sub-basement offices with about 14 other people when a huge explosion erupted in one of the sub-basement levels just beneath them, causing the walls to crack, and the ceiling to cave in. A fellow worker came running up from the floor below where Rodriguez and the others had heard the explosion screaming "Explosion! Explosion!", with the skin hanging off his arms, and with "pieces of his face missing." Another WTC employee, Mike Peccarello, was talking to a co-worker in the sub-basement level when the lights went on and off, and assuming another terrorist attack like the one in 93, began to ascend to the ground floor to see what was going on. As they got to the level of the machine shop, they saw a several ton piece of machinery blown completely across the room, and a fire door "crumpled up like a piece of aluminum foil." How could burning jet fuel, igniting at the 90th floor or above, have been the cause of all of this? The Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory seismograph recorded seismic spikes 14 seconds before the official time of plane impact on the north tower, and 17 seconds before the time of impact on the south tower. This discrepancy in time between the seismographic spikes recorded at the L.D.E.O., and the official time of plane impacts, has still not been satisfactorily explained. And its YOUR contention that this was the result of a NUKE...and the buildings stood for an hour? Please. Your brain has popped a breaker. This Finnish website explains the use of SMALL NUCLEAR DEVICES at various levels of the WTC buildings: http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/evidence.htm The Finnish site has numerous pages. Go to all of them. Home page: http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/evidence.htm Follow the evidence. Jack Sigh...YOU folow the evidence...you might note that ALL of the evidence of value ( and you might also note that all fo the eviidece of the "truth movement" has NO VALUE) points to airliners and fire as the cause of the building failures. But why should we NOT expect you and your ilk to find such junk compelling...hell you claim to be a "photo expert" and yet you cannot understand what happens to a photograph when the photographer moves the camera. T

Uh John, you made an extraordinary claim, its YOUR job to back it up, which you have failed to do. But lets start here...show us proof that the buildings fell from the bottom UP! Witnesses inside the north tower reported a massive explosion in the sub basement at the moment of, or several seconds before, the impact of the plane. The Naudet brothers video documentary of the events shows massive damage to the ground floor lobby, with all the glass being blown out, and the tiles being knocked off the walls. The official explanation for the lobby damage is that burning jet fuel raced down the elevator shafts and caused the explosion, but there was only one express elevator shaft in the north tower that connected from the ground floor to the level of the plane's impact. All the other elevator shafts were staggered, most extending to only about the 40th floor, and I believe one or two going as far as the 70th floor. The alleged hijacked plane, American Airlines flight 11, impacted above the 90th floor. WTC maintenance man, William Rodriguez, was in one of the sub-basement offices with about 14 other people when a huge explosion erupted in one of the sub-basement levels just beneath them, causing the walls to crack, and the ceiling to cave in. A fellow worker came running up from the floor below where Rodriguez and the others had heard the explosion screaming "Explosion! Explosion!", with the skin hanging off his arms, and with "pieces of his face missing." Another WTC employee, Mike Peccarello, was talking to a co-worker in the sub-basement level when the lights went on and off, and assuming another terrorist attack like the one in 93, began to ascend to the ground floor to see what was going on. As they got to the level of the machine shop, they saw a several ton piece of machinery blown completely across the room, and a fire door "crumpled up like a piece of aluminum foil." How could burning jet fuel, igniting at the 90th floor or above, have been the cause of all of this? The Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory seismograph recorded seismic spikes 14 seconds before the official time of plane impact on the north tower, and 17 seconds before the time of impact on the south tower. This discrepancy in time between the seismographic spikes recorded at the L.D.E.O., and the official time of plane impacts, has still not been satisfactorily explained. And its YOUR contention that this was the result of a NUKE...and the buildings stood for an hour? Please. Your brain has popped a breaker.

Uh John, you made an extraordinary claim, its YOUR job to back it up, which you have failed to do. But lets start here...show us proof that the buildings fell from the bottom UP!