Craig Lamson

Thanks John, I've been LMAO reading the stuff you post, knowing that soon you would post something that shows exactly how warped your brain really is. And now you have gone and jumped the shark! Good work...another Education Forum NUTJOB! A nuke in the basement...priceless!

How about "Moorman in the street" or the entire tome on Wellstone. Fetzer simply sucks at this stuff.

Jack, I am in the business of selling reproduction rights to the copyrighted photographic images I sell. As it applies to photography, the copyright laws are VERY clearcut and the case law backs it all up. The law requires vigilant protection or subject art may enter the public domain. Ask Robert Groden. He has reproduced virtually every important JFK image in books and videos, and has never been challenged legally. At this late date if anyone were to sue him for copyright violation, any court would likely find that the subject works HAVE ENTERED THE PUBLIC DOMAIN through numerous unchallenged publications. Furthermore, the Zapruder family for years could not afford to challenge his use of the film, SINCE HE WAS THEIR SOLE AND ONLY SOURCE TO OBTAIN COPIES OF THE FRAMES for which they charged huge fees. If I recall correctly, they charged Oliver Stone six figures to use the Zfilm...for which their SOLE SUPPLIER was Groden. The rule of thumb...if users have DEEP POCKETS, they charge. Otherwise they ignore violations. This has never yet been tested in court, but Jim Fetzer tried to provoke a lawsuit by publishing many Z frames...but they ignored him. On the other hand Life Magazine sued Tink Thompson for publishing drawings based on the frames. It is a case by case thing. Jack Nope, you are wrong. Unless the author of a photograph sells or gives awaqy the copyright to an image they have created the copyright continues to remain that of the creator. US copyright law gives the creator this protection even if the image is not registered with the US copyright office. THe copyright holder may or may not choose to enforce their copyright but failure to do so does not mean the image has become part of the public domain. Unless or until the owner of the copyright sells or gives away their rights to an image it remains theirs. EXACTLY...your key phrase is GIVES AWAY. Not exercising copyright privilege rights is literally GIVING IT AWAY. I have not done legal research and am not a lawyer, but repeated unauthorized use (giving it away) provides entry into the public domain. Trademarks are very similar...as Dupont found (cellophane, nylon) entered the public domain. When you close your fly, you use a zipper, not a Zipper. I think it was Talon Zippers who lost that case. More recently Sweet-n-low tried to trademark their PINK PACKAGES, but lost their case when the court ruled that a color is not copyrightable or trademarkable. On the other hand WALT DISNEY writes thousands of cease and desist letters to anyone using Mickey Mouse et al for any purpose. The Peanuts empire also protected their copyrights vigorously. A Fort Worth bar named Charlie Brown's Bar was forced through lawsuit to stop using the name and image, EVEN THOUGH THE OWNER'S NAME WAS CHARLIE BROWN. In Dallas right now, two competitors selling fall pumpkins under the name THE PUNKIN' PATCH are in a lawsuit over the name. I suggest that the judge throw them both out of court. Mary Moorman literally gave Gary Mack and me the RIGHT to use the Moorman Polaroid 3 and 5 for us to copy for any use without restriction. My opinion is that though Mary still owns the prints, by giving them away, she has lost the legal copyright. However, since she still owns the "originals", she may exercise control over those prints in any manner she wants, including charging for using. The same with Moorman 1 and 2 given me to copy by Jean Hill, who owned them. Even though Mary snapped the shutter, she GAVE THREE PRINTS TO JEAN, and thus the copyright. Jean always said that Mary gave her missing number four, which she gave to boyfriend BJ Martin. Additionally, Tink Thompson furnished Gary a half dozen Moorman prints he bought legally for reproduction use. By giving us the prints, Tink implicity also transferred to us any copyright use he had acquired. Copyrights for the five Moorman photos would be a real tangled web to untangle. Mary kept two, gave three to Jean, who gave one to BJ. Mary and Jean allowed Gary and me (gave) to copy four of the prints without restrictions. Jack You are so full of xxxx Jack. Mary still owns the copyrights to her JFK images despite giving you and and others usage rights. UNLESS you our anyone else has written documentation from Mary transfering exclusive ownership of the copyright to the Moorman images, they still belong to Mary Moorman. Unless Jean Hill has documentation from Mary TRANSFERING copyright she does not actually OWN the copyright to the images. Possession of the prints does not infer ownership of the copyright. Mary Moorman did not transfer owership of the copyright to you and Gary Mack. She gave you reproduction rights. Doing so did not place her images in the public domain nor did it end her ownerswhip of the copyright, regardless of her lack of vigor in defending it. This "protect it or lose it" line is one of the biggests myths about copyright around. I'm not sure exactly what rights TINK bought when he purchased his Moorman prints, and what he PURCHASED is all he is allowed to transfer. And again all of this goes back to the simple fact that as the creator of the works, and unless outright owership of the copyright to the images has been sold (and by this we are not talking about liimted or restricted licence for reproduction)or given away IN WRITING Mary is STILL the copyright owner to all the image she took that day in Dallas. None of this is rocket science. Its just standard business practice. Everyday I produce images for my clients. They pay me for my time, for any materials used, for the costs of props, travel, models, location rentals and so on. I deliver to my clients an electronic file that contains the images I produce. I also transfer limited reproduction rights ( per a written agreement). I retain the ownership of the copyrihgt and future useage of the image. The fact my client has possession of the images I have produced for them does not transfer OWNERSHIP of the copyright. The only instances where the copyright would transfer is if I sold or gave away the entire copyright ( in writting) or signed a work for hire agreement, neither of which I will do.

Jack, I am in the business of selling reproduction rights to the copyrighted photographic images I sell. As it applies to photography, the copyright laws are VERY clearcut and the case law backs it all up. The law requires vigilant protection or subject art may enter the public domain. Ask Robert Groden. He has reproduced virtually every important JFK image in books and videos, and has never been challenged legally. At this late date if anyone were to sue him for copyright violation, any court would likely find that the subject works HAVE ENTERED THE PUBLIC DOMAIN through numerous unchallenged publications. Furthermore, the Zapruder family for years could not afford to challenge his use of the film, SINCE HE WAS THEIR SOLE AND ONLY SOURCE TO OBTAIN COPIES OF THE FRAMES for which they charged huge fees. If I recall correctly, they charged Oliver Stone six figures to use the Zfilm...for which their SOLE SUPPLIER was Groden. The rule of thumb...if users have DEEP POCKETS, they charge. Otherwise they ignore violations. This has never yet been tested in court, but Jim Fetzer tried to provoke a lawsuit by publishing many Z frames...but they ignored him. On the other hand Life Magazine sued Tink Thompson for publishing drawings based on the frames. It is a case by case thing. Jack Nope, you are wrong. Unless the author of a photograph sells or gives awaqy the copyright to an image they have created the copyright continues to remain that of the creator. US copyright law gives the creator this protection even if the image is not registered with the US copyright office. THe copyright holder may or may not choose to enforce their copyright but failure to do so does not mean the image has become part of the public domain. Unless or until the owner of the copyright sells or gives away their rights to an image it remains theirs.

Jack, I am in the business of selling reproduction rights to the copyrighted photographic images I create. As it applies to photography, the copyright laws are VERY clearcut and the case law backs it all up.

Mr. Connolly...When I saw your obvious satire of my hand-tinted version of the Moorman photo, I must admit that I was amused...as well as confused. I could not imagine what you were trying to show, since you offered NO explanation with your creative "colorization". Others apparently thought so also, like Mr. Valenti, who attached the funny "comparisons" below, and others who made joking remarks, which you must have seen. Do you also consider legal action against Mr. Valenti for his amusing critique of your image, comparing it to Easter Island statuary or cartoon characters? If you were truly presenting this as serious research instead of satire, I of course apologize for characterizing it as "nonsense", for I am appreciative of ALL serious research efforts to advance understanding of mysteries of the JFK murder. Please tell us if you will just exactly what was your intent in showing this image...what does it show? You must have "something" in mind that you are showing as an alternative to the Gordon Arnold image, I assume. I took your work as an attempt to ridicule my research into this matter. If your intent was not ridicule, please tell us what you were trying to show. By using my name, your ridicule seemed clearly aimed at personally discrediting me. Please assure us that was NOT your intent. By the way, the matter of copyright ownership of the Moorman image is rather complicated and not settled in law. Mary owns the "original" print, but does not enforce her copyright; in fact, Mary encouraged and aided Gary Mack and me in our Badgeman research, even giving us access to the original print. All photowork on the Badgeman image (for various reasons) belongs jointly to Gary Mack and Jack White. We have never enforced our copyright because we both believed that the image should be widely seen by researchers and the public. Complicating these copyright privileges is my recent belief that the Moorman photo may not in fact be an original but a retouched fake by unknown parties...so may be useless as evidence. Further confusing the copyright of the original is that Jean Hill BOUGHT THE POLAROID FILM used to take the photos and Mary snapped the shutter...an interesting legal point never settled. So if the image you presented was genuine research showing "something" I apologize for saying it was "nonsense". I just could not "make sense" of it since you provided no explanation for what you believe it shows. I posted my ACTUAL STUDY of the image lest the unwary might think YOUR study is somehow related to MY study. It is not. Jack White The copyright issues are not complicated at all. Mary Moorman, AS THE CREATOR OF THE WORK, owns all rights to the image. PERIOD. US copyright law is very clear on t his point. Unless she has assigned rights to another party they still belong to here and will continue to belong to her heirs for 75 years after here death IIRC. Her lack of enforcement does not reduce her ownership of the copyright. Jean has no claim to the copyright as the purchaser of the film. Gary Mack nor Jack White have any claim to the copyright for their reproduction of parts of the Moorman original. Mary controls it all.

Uh Jack, in reviewing the web page you have offered, I have failed to find the examples of buildings that have collapsed after being struck by aircraft flying at high speed and carring a near full fuel load. When you find the examples please get back to us. From NIST: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm Yes they did analyse the impact of a 707 during the design stage...I watched a show where the designers said the same thing...an impact from a 707 flying at low speed like it was lost in the fog during a landing..Ill search for the exact quote. However I've yet to see anything that saod the building was designed to withstand the impact of aircraft at the speeds the occured on 9/11 And thanks for the image of the second impact. It shows us that the fuel mass...PASSED THROUGH the building and EXITED the other side.

Very impressive what you had to offer, even though it had nothing to do with the issue. You always want to turn every thread into an ugly situation. Did you forget to take your Prozac? No it had everything to do with the "issue". The issue was you . Try again next time.

It's my understanding that the towers were designed to withstand the mass of high speed aircraft. And I'm sure that damage to the core was taken into consideration. As for the mass of the liquid fuel, in the case of the south tower most of it apparently exploded outside the building. Spectacular show. But then the south tower falls first? Please show me anything that says the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a "HIGH SPEED" aircraft. Any proof anywhere that " in the case of the south tower most of it apparently exploded outside the building."?

Craig, Thanks for the link. I forgot and didn't read it in the course of my responses to Len and Steve. I have now read it, and basically as a layman I am not impressed. Why? Most notably because the Protec report completely evades a central problem for the official CT: the 47 steel core columns. In order for the towers to collapse as they did, with no core column left standing, those columns had to be taken out. The towers would then implode. Hence the thermite theory, starting with explosions heard in the basement, i.e. at the base of those core columns. Protec talks about the perimeter columns vis a vis controlled demolition, as if the core columns didn't exist. (According to the 9/11 Commission Report, they didn't! The cores were "hollow shafts.") Protec also subscribes to the "pancake" theory of the collapse, which the government itself has rejected. Protec also fails to explain how the floors pancaked with "a lot of resistance" at virtually free-fall speed. To borrow a term from the report, it's "physically impossible." Just like its non-mention of the core columns, Protec makes no mention of the speed at which the towers fell. Why not? Protec's assertion that no seismographs recorded any explosions would be impressive except for one thing. I don't take at face value any statements in a report that has destroyed its own credibility. Ron The cores were massive, of heavy gauge steel. Jack Gee, do you imagine that the mass of the high speed aircraft ( and more importantly the mass of the liquid fuel) simply bounced off of those massive steel beams after they tore trought the thin steel skin of the exterior and crossed the mostly open office spaces (lightly constructed )that surrounded the core? Or do you think it mig have caused some damage to the core? http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2006/0....Sozen.WTC.html http://reports.discoverychannel.ca/servlet...DiscoveryReport

Here is how that link answered Ron's question: "A steel framed building has never collapsed due to fire, yet three buildings collapsed on one day....therefore explosives must have been responsible." Protec's response: No, actually it means three buildings collapsed due to fire (and violent external forces) on one day. Many unprecedented things happened on 9/11. To draw any specific relationship between how many buildings were destroyed and the reason for their collapse runs counter to reason and common sense. The fact is, many steel structures have collapsed due to fire. And as with those failures, the collapse of all three buildings on 9/11 involved specific structural conditions. Each failure exhibited characteristics dissimilar to the other two, and in no case have we come across evidence of explosives being present or affecting any of those conditions. Pretty convincing stuff. They managed to clear everything up in three short paragraphs. Almost as succinctly as the simple one word explanation: gravity. Incidentally, the listed qualifications of Protec's employees that contributed to that article are most impressive. Yes it was pretty convincing stuff....imagine...folks who actually are in the business of documenting controlled demolition commenting on the ramblings of numerous CT"s with no experience in the field... And the listed credentials of the company who employed the authors is pretty impressive as well. http://www.protecservices.com/ Far more impressive that what you have to offer Hogan. But please...play again sometime.

I've covered that, I said that you official CTs call it an illusion. You didn't address the grand coincidence of the three collapses at all. http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictur...hard_8-8-06.pdf

A reasonable request. Maybe someone can explain it. In Zapruder (1,2,3,4) are the Franzen boy, Mr. Franzen, Mrs. Franzen, and the "gin-and-tonic-man". Note that Mrs. Franzen seems to be holding hands with her husband. Also note her SLIM SKIRT. With Jackie in the same position on the trunk a split second later, from the opposite direction Nix shows MRS. FRANZEN is no longer holding her husband's hand AND INDEED COMPLETELY DISAPPEARED. But ANOTHER WOMAN has been added about 10 feet to the west of where she had been. And instead of the slim skirt of Mrs. Franzen, this woman is wearing a FLARING black TOPCOAT, and though she is standing in front of "gin-and-tonic-man", her right arm is BEHIND him. This "new" woman CANNOT BE MRS. FRANZEN. These two images are mutually exclusive. Jack Because of Wim's request, I restudied the FRANZEN FRAMES and found that Mrs. Franzen grew about 4-6 inches taller and changed to a narrow skirt in one-third of a second. Also, the shadow of the streetlight changes location. How do you explain this? My explanation: alteration. Jack Look at the shadows...she STEPPED BACKWARD...Sheesh...

Yea...right...whatever... I'm not holding my breath.

No "protesting" Bernice, I just tell the SIMPLE TRUTH. The SIMPLE TRUTH, regardless of the pages of bullxxxx you care to selectively quote from the web and regardless of the "experts" you quote is that the IMAGE WHITE HAS CREATED BY ALTERING THE MOORMAN SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST IN THE ORIGINAL. PERIOD. FULL STOP. END OF STORY. Why? Because physics will not allow it. If you want to argue that the BLOB that is seen in MOORMAM is a person, fine, join the rest in this fools errand. However if you are arguing that the image White created was actually in the original Moorman, well then you are simply not intellectually honest. I'm betting on you being intellectually dishonest. I suggest YOU bone up on your reading skills because you cannot seem to grasp this simple fact. The Moorman camera/lens/film can not resolve the detail shown in the badgeman image. That makes those who say it can dishonest. Are White, Lifton, Mack et all wrong? Yes. If they disagree with my statement of FACT then bring them on. It will be as much fun as watching you squirm around like a worn on a fishing hook...trying to defend that which cannot be defended. You can't help yourself...thats what you get when you work from a position of ignorance. Truck on there Bernice, I love watching nutjobs in action. When you are ready to actually DEAL with the facts get back to me..... ______________________________________________________ Craig, Although I totally agree with you on the inherent inability of Moorman's "camera/lens/film" to resolve a recognizable, detailed "image" of the alleged "Badgeman," I do think you tend to be rather insulting to those who disagree with you. Could you please possibly tone it down a bit? This Forum is replete with people who insult each other on a regular basis (in other words, please don't think I'm singling you out), and to tell you the truth, I think it probably discourages other members from contributing and also discourages non-members from even joining the Forum. I know that such behavior discourages me from making more "serious" posts than I have. Otherwise, please keep up the excellent work. Very informative! (I don't "suffer fools gladly," so I hope you can take the fact that I'm even posting this to signify not an insult but a compliment of sorts.) Sincerely, Thomas _____________________________________________________ After years of being trashed by those on the "other side" if you will, I simply have no tolerance nor respect for those who continue to deal in disinformation, regardless of their stance or position. Am I insulting? Sure, its how the "other side" taught me how to play the game. If this turns others off, thats really too bad but its a fact of life ... been that way for years. I return what I'm given.

No "protesting" Bernice, I just tell the SIMPLE TRUTH. The SIMPLE TRUTH, regardless of the pages of bullxxxx you care to selectively quote from the web and regardless of the "experts" you quote is that the IMAGE WHITE HAS CREATED BY ALTERING THE MOORMAN SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST IN THE ORIGINAL. PERIOD. FULL STOP. END OF STORY. Why? Because physics will not allow it. If you want to argue that the BLOB that is seen in MOORMAM is a person, fine, join the rest in this fools errand. However if you are arguing that the image White created was actually in the original Moorman, well then you are simply not intellectually honest. I'm betting on you being intellectually dishonest. I suggest YOU bone up on your reading skills because you cannot seem to grasp this simple fact. The Moorman camera/lens/film can not resolve the detail shown in the badgeman image. That makes those who say it can dishonest. Are White, Lifton, Mack et all wrong? Yes. If they disagree with my statement of FACT then bring them on. It will be as much fun as watching you squirm around like a worn on a fishing hook...trying to defend that which cannot be defended. You can't help yourself...thats what you get when you work from a position of ignorance. Truck on there Bernice, I love watching nutjobs in action. When you are ready to actually DEAL with the facts get back to me.....

John, Sorry I missed your post. I'll attempt to answer your questions. First film grain varys in size depending on the filmstock. Some films are very fine grained like the new Kodax t-max films. Others have larger grains like the old Kodak Tri-x films. To further complicate things when you get to color films you have dye layers and dye clouds to muddy up the waters. But a general rule of thumb is that the slower the film speed the smaller and tighter the grain. When you take a negative and make a print in an enlarger some of the grain noise gets filtered out by the lens and somewhat by the paper...all lenses no matter how high the quality will degrade the sharpness of the image. It gets even more complicated if you are using lenses that are non aprochromatic...meaning that they focus the colors of light at different planes. THe bottom line is that the print is never as sharp as the negative. When you scan a negative with a common flatbed scanner it also filters out some of the grain noise, partly because most scanenrs have a lens and also because most scanners use a diffuse light source to illuminate the neg being scanned. When you scan a negative with a drum scanner you actually increase the appearence of film grain because the light source is highly directional and it casts "shadows" from the grain crystals. Nothing can match the sharpness of a drum scan, but, depending on the resolution selected, a drum scan will really show the grain. A side note: Drum scans were the standard method of taking a film based image (usually a transparency) and converting it to digital form for ues in offset printing. As a rule we photographers used the largest film size reasonablly possibe to keep the degree of enlargement(and therefore grain noise) as small as possible. Nowdays the professional photography world is mostly digital and the current crop of digital is so good in regards to no film grain (and the digital equal...color noise) that we are using small camers in place of the bigger ones an actuall seeing an increase in the resolution. We are finding that much of what we thought of as "detail" with scanned film was actually just grain noise. Polaroid prints are grain free. As a professional advertising photographer I used polaroid film BY THE CASE LOT as a proofing medium during the film days. It was not uncommon to shoot 15-20 sheets of polaroid film before ever shooting real film on a big shot...just because it was the only way to check lighting and composition and to get client approval. Notice I did not include checking focus. The reason is that the nature of a polaroid print (peel apart films) is such that the image itself is not sharp and crisp. Its comprised of what I will call silver "clumps"...the print looks ok at arms length but put it under a loupe and it is worthless. Resolution is generally considered the ability to resolve two distinct items. It is generally tested by photographing a USAF resolution test chart with a lens/lims combination and then counting the number of line pairs the lens/film can resolve . It is possible to test a lens or a film alone and arrive at a resolution figure. However the only way to arrive at a figre for a lens/film combination is to test them together. Resolution testing of a len/film combo is almost always higher that real world results for two main reasions. Fisrt high contrast is generally used for testing. Real world is much lower contrast and lower resolution. Second, most real world photography is done with a camera hand held as opposed to being on a tripod. Hand holding robs resolution. One of the suprises we professional photographers found when we went digital (along with our new found ability to pixel peep...view our images at very high magnification onscreen) is that the old rules of thumb for safe hand holding shutter speeds were all wrong. The pro photographer forums are full of posts from photographers upset with the soft images they are getting with their new $10,000 digital cameras...all because they are hand holding their cameras. The bottom line: If the lens/film does not have the resolving power the subect (badgeman) will not berecored on the film with visable detail. Every pass through a lens will degrade the image even further...camera lens-copy camera lens-enlarger lens-copy camera lens-copy camera lens-enlarger-copy camera lens-copy camera lens. Every copy negative or slide will impart new film grain noise to the image. For example the film grain we see in the drumscan moorman is not from the actual moorman print but rather the film the copy was made with. Everytime you dupe the film or make another copy you add new grain on top of the old.

Bernice...that is an outstanding, concise and accurate summary of all the known information about Badgeman (or Badge Man). Who wrote it? It is an impartial review of the facts without bias. Thanks for posting it! Jack It was written by Dale K. Myers. Here is the part Bernice LEFT OUT.... the part where he tears you a new bunghole.... http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_3.htm Thanks for asking! BTW, nice research skills there old man...you had a link to the original article and yet you HAD TO ASK! Tsk Tsk.

Bernice, Take or leave my remarks, I really don't care, but please dont tell us you deal in facts and evidence because it is clear from your post that you do not. You deal with things from the perspective of your worldview...period. I know the history of the "badgman" fraud very well...in depth if you will. It's nothing but pure poppycock. You believe it because it FITS YOUR WORLDVIEW. Cut through all of the crap and ct garbage and lies and ONE SIMPLE FACT REMAINS and this SIMPLE FACT cannot be challenged...the MOORMAN CAMERA/LENS/FILM did not have the required resolution to produce the fradulent image known as "badgeman" The image known as "badgeman" is simply an artifact created from repeated copying and them additional alteration by Jack White. Those are the simple facts, everything else is PURE BULLxxxx. Now it is plain to see you are ignorant of these simple facts. Should you deside to live your life in ignorance, fine by me. However your ignorance, nor the ignorance of those who believe in the fraud that is known as badgeman CANNOT ERASE THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE MOORMAN CAMERA/LENS/FILM (and a handheld...panning camera/lens/film at that) IS UNABLE TO RECORD THE DETAIL FOUND IN THE FRAUDLENT BADGEMAN IMAGE. And that is the SIMPLE FACT. Try your BS on someone else P.S. By the way, nice "selective" quoting in your post. It was so nice to see you leave out the parts that trash the badgeman works.....

I think I see something sticking out over the edge of the concrete wall. To me, it doesn't appear to be part of the foliage. I wondered how you interprted it. Steve Thomas I'm sorry Steve, I don't play "lets guess what this blob is".

What is this? Steve Thomas What is what? Care to explain where you are going with this?

_______________________________________________________ Even though both Jack and I attended T.C.U. (Go "Froggies!"), I must say that I do tend to agree with this statement. "Circles of confusion" and all of that, if you know what I mean..... Sincerely, --Thomas (class of "71," did not graduate... But at least my buddies and I went to Kirkwood's place very late one weekday night during "finals week." Talk about an education! Ironically, several years later I gave Neil Armstrong a ride in my taxi in Scotsdale. Sorry Jack. _______________________________________________________ Hi fellow Frog... Let me first say that Lamson is fulla crap. Attached is my original discovery of Badgman in Moorman. Lamson is simply wrong about the resolving power of the Polaroid lens and film. Lamson says I fabricated the image. But the actual facts: Gary Mack discovered in a copy slide of the the Polaroid what seemed to be a man; he asked me to copy it and see what I could find. Using a Repronar slide copier, I used half-stop increments and made exposures from f4.5 to f22 at 4X. The mid-range exposures turned out to be optimal. Despite Lamson's ignorant ravings, the lens and film captured a very crisp image of what has become known as Badgeman. That the Polaroid captured the man reveals Lamson's ignorance. Go Frogs! Jack Once again White spews even more disinformation about his work. First his exposures of "badgeman" were GROSS overexposures. Take a look at the retaining wall under the "badgeman" figure in White's alteration of Moorman. There is simply NO detail left in the retaining wall, it is rendered as pure white. There IS NO DOUBT that White OVER EXPOSED the original slide to throw away enough detail to "create" badgeman. This is very SIMPLE...badgeman does not exist in Moorman. How do we know that? Because the Moorman camera/lens/film simply cannot resolve the level of detail shown in badgeman. A few SIMPLE facts that Jack White CANNOT refute. Modern day Polaroid 3000 speed film has a lp/mm resolution of 14-17 AT 1000/1 contrast! It is highly unlikely that the 1963 version had MORE resolving power and it is likely that it had LESS based on the the advances that have been made in film technology. Tests done with the Moorman camera and tri-x film do not show the level of detail as the "badgeman" image. Tri_x film has a lp/mm resolution of 50-60. Tests done with the Moorman camera and Vericolor negative film do not show the level of detail as the "badgeman" image. Vericolor film has a lp/mm resloution of 50-60. Films with a much higher resolving power cannot match what White says is contained in the Moorman. And NONE of these tests were done with the Moorman lens being highly diffraction limited STOPPED DOWN to F64.5. So unless Mary Moorman was able to BREAK THE LAWS OF PHYSICS with her super duper polaroid camera, what we have here is VERY SIMPLE...once again JACK WHITE shows his utter lack of photographic knowlege and continues to spew disinformation. The simple bottom line is that the Moorman polaroid camera/film/lens could only AT BEST render a person at the badgeman position as a detailess blob. It simply CANNOT resolve the level of detail shown in the 'badgeman" alteration.

What I've posted is NOT in error, but what you have posted is. And this ALL VERY SIMPLE regardless of the CT's attempts to make it otherwise. First Mary was NOT in the street when she took number 5 and she has stated that fact. She has given differing accounts of the events that day like many of the witnesses... however science comes to the rescue... Second the simple line of sight facts show Moorman was on the GRASS exactly where the Zapruder film shows her. Simple, elegant and FOOLPROOF fact. PERIOD. EVERY version of the Moorman photograph CONFIRMS this simple fact. Jack White chose the poorest version of the Moorman to use in his attempt to FOOL the ignorant....I guess that includes you. Third, Jack and Gary DID look at every copy of the Moorman they could find during the course of the the badgeman project and JACK used a slide from Groden to make his badgeman alteration. This image was at LEAST three generations if not four away from the Moorman original and worst of all it was a reduction down to 35mm.. In fact he used the slide instead of the print it was made from BECAUSE the slide contained false detail not found in the print. A SLIGHT of hand by Jack that fooled many ignorant people...of which you must be one. Forth, the image was not "confirmed" by JPL or MIT. There were some who THOUGHT it might be what Jack and Gary CLAIMED but to say the findings were'confirmed" is just silly. Finally, Jack DID throw away detail in his alteration of the Moorman to creat the illusion called badgeman. He grossly OVEREXPOSED his copy negative to throw away highlight detail UNTIL he had the image he wanted. This is a SIMPLE fact. Its also a SIMPLE fact that the Moorman camera/lens/film could not provide the level of resolution that Jack shows in Badgeman. All of this IS quite SIMPLE, Jack has been hoaxing the world. Lots of ignorant people have fallen for it. You must be one of them.

Nice try old man. Too bad your limited skill set is showing. Its always so much fun to watch you grasping at straws while your reputation lies in tatters the floor. First of all "I" produced nothing. Tink Thompson had the drum scan made, I simply made copies that were sent to fellow reearchers, INCLUDING those who were on the opposite side of the Moorman in the street debate. The orignal negative still exists. Prints from this negative exist. Scans of the print from this negative have been posted on the web for years. And all of the images match. So either I "retouched" all of the copies of the Thompson thumbprint Moorman YEARS AGO, including "retouching" the original copy negative BEFORE it was even scanned...or this is simply a case of Jack being a poor loser and telling tales that are simply not true. However I am more than happy to review any and all studies that claim show the "retouching" on the actual drum scan file. The tale of the drum scan is here: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/drum_scan_gap.html Here is a quick tutorial on drum scanning for those of you who dont understand the process: http://photography.about.com/library/weekly/aa060203e.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_scanner#Drum_scanners http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dru...atbed-scanners/ The scan is not from "an unknown version of the Moorman photo" We know EXACTLY where it came from. The flatbed scan from the print version of this negative has been posted many times on the web over quite a few years, including many times at Jacks favorite walled garden..the JFK Research forum. Jack has also had the print from this negative in his hands and reviewed it during the process of creating his altered Moorman that he says shows "badgeman". He also made a copy negative of this print at that time if I remember correctly. Given the fact that the drum scan image, while sharper since it has been scanned down to film grain level, matches all the other extant copies of the moorman in existance when it comes to the area of the pedestal, "retouching" is proven not to have occured. The drum scan of theg Thompson thumbprint Moorman even matches Jacks miserable 35mm copy and scan of the zippo when one takes into account the asevere image softness and massive grain buildup of the zippo. Even Jack's buddy Costella agrees that the zippo does indeed match all the other Moormans. The bottom line is pretty simple here. Jack used a really POOR image (the zippo) to try and build his case that Mary Moorman was in the street when she took her polaroid of JFK. He was shown to be totally wrong on this count. However Jack is not intellectually honest. He has disregarded all of the evidence that his study was wrong and has NOW decided that the Moorman has been ALTERED to prove him wrong. Never mind that ALL of the Moorman images show the same thing...even his crappy zippo. Its simply a case of an old man grasping at straws.

Not quite "enough said" there Jack. Its pretty FUNNY that when the image in question was the SMITH copy YOU had created it was the best thumbprint moorman around. Now when it NOT yours...its a "phoney" and a "clever hoax" What a load of crap old man. You got your hand caught in the cookie jar and now you are throwing crap trying to cover your sorry butt. We have been over and over exactly WHY there is no "badgeman" image in the original Moorman and why your "clever alteration" of a many generational copy of the moorman produced the hoax of all hoaxs...badgeman. But just for the record lets lay it out once again. First the polaroid film used by Moorman does not have the required line pairs per millimeter of resolution to resolve the detail Jack shows in his hoax called badgeman. There is simply no way to get around this simple fact. Ask yourself this question. If Jack can find the detail shown in his badgeman image then were is the simillar level of detail in the men on the steps or even JFK? The answer iswthe detail is not there in part because the film will not record that level of detail. Second the Moorman polaroid camera, while having the better glass lens, was defraction limited when used to take her famous photo. If you don't understand why a lens can get defraction limited see here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials...hotography.htm# Now you need to understand just how much the Moorman lens was diffraction limited. You start with the film which was ISO 3000 which is very fast film (more sensitive to light). Then you factor in the amount of light in the original scene...high noon, clear sky, bright daylight. Then you calulate the correct exposure for the film speed-lighting conditions. For years photographers have used the "sunny 16 rule" to calculate exposure. It says that in bright daylight your shutter speed is 1 over the film speed at f16. In this case that would translate to an exposure of 1/3000 at f16 for the Moorman photograph. The problem is that the Moorman camera did not have adjustable shutter speeds. It had only two, 1/100 second and time exposure. So to get the correct exposure the lens needed to be stopped WAY down. How far down? How about to 1/100 sec. at f64 1/2! That means major sharpness loss due to diffraction. My own tests of a glass polariod lens of the same type mounted on a modern view camera and exposed to a very high resolution digital imaging device : http://www.betterlight.com shows the loss of sharpness to excessive. The bottom line is that the Moorman lens/film combo simply did not have the resolving power to produce the fabricated image Jack White calls badgeman. So how doi White get his "badgeman" image? Simple. He used a photograph that was many generations removed from the original and simply threw away (false, grain created) detail by over exposing the film in his COPY until he produced the image he calls badgeman. Badgeman never existed in the original Moorman polariod. Thats why Jack had to look at MANY different copy versions to find the stuff he needed for his hoax. The reason you will not find the "badgeman" hoax image in the Thompson drum scan is that its TOO close to the original. Badgeman is the real hoax.