The myth of Badgeman

[Mark Johansson]

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/badgeman.htm

[Kathy Beckett]

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/badgeman.htm

The picture (in position #3 below the Arnold interview in your link) does not show them as the same height.

Does the existence of Badge Man negate the Files' story?

Edited December 6, 2007 by Kathy Beckett

[Mark Johansson]

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/badgeman.htm

The picture (in position #3 below the Arnold interview in your link) does not show them as the same height.

Does the existence of Badge Man negate the Files' story?

That's because that is one of Jack's "enhancements", and I rather draw from the original.

Badgeman negates all credibe evidence, like Lee Bowers, the HSCA acoustics tests, witness accounts, and the puff of smoke from under the large tree, seen by at least three witnesses, like Sam Holland and co-workers. But most of all, Badgeman negates the laws of physics. But if you don't believe your eyes or think I tricked them, be my guest , take a big copy of the Moorman picture and go through the exercise yourself.

Wim

Edited December 6, 2007 by Mark Johansson

[Kathy Beckett]

So Jack's enhancement is incorrect? Why did you use it in your Badge Man link?

Can't you enhance the picture so we can see--I can't really tell if the outline you provided is correct.

Does the existence of Badge Man negate the Files' story?

[Mark Johansson]

Because I first needed to "show" Badgeman according to the interpretations and "enhancements" of others.

You can't really tell if the outline is correct? There is no correct outline to begin with, because all you see is blobs, lights and shadows. Do you mean the outline of "Gordon Arnold" or "Badgeman"?

I'm sure you will see the "figure" here, or what some people perceive to be Badgeman:

Now, you tell me if I drew the correct outline:

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/badgemanareafigures.bmp

and then zoom out to the full size of the Moorman picture:

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/moorman-drawing1.JPG

Badgeman does not necesserily negate the Files story. However, it would mean that James Files did not see or notice Badgeman, just like all other witnesses, except "wttness" Gordon Arnold. Judging from the irrefutable fact that alledged "Badgeman" and "Gordon Arnold" are too small to be humans anyway, that makes Files' story rather more credible than incredible

But if you still like to cling on to Gordon Arnold, defying the laws of physics and human dimensions, then try to point out Badgeman kicking Gordon Arnold and robbing his film in any of these pictures:

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/knoll.htm

But heck, I also realise that not everyone accepted that the world was round when the evidence was presented to them.

Wim

[Jack White]

Wouldn't if be better if Dankbaar posted here under his own name?

I thought posing as someone else was against forum rules.

Jack

[Mark Johansson]

Wouldn't if be better if Dankbaar posted here under his own name?

I thought posing as someone else was against forum rules.

Jack

That would be nice, Jack. If only the moderators would come through with some assitance to regain my password.

Wim

[Alan Healy]

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/badgeman.htm

The picture (in position #3 below the Arnold interview in your link) does not show them as the same height.

Does the existence of Badge Man negate the Files' story?

That's because that is one of Jack's "enhancements", and I rather draw from the original.

Badgeman negates all credibe evidence, like Lee Bowers, the HSCA acoustics tests, witness accounts, and the puff of smoke from under the large tree, seen by at least three witnesses, like Sam Holland and co-workers. But most of all, Badgeman negates the laws of physics. But if you don't believe your eyes or think I tricked them, be my guest , take a big copy of the Moorman picture and go through the exercise yourself.

Wim

Wim,

with respect, you are not drawing from the "original", you are using Thompson's drumscan.

The high res' version of it that Craig Lamson made available again not too long ago, is probably the best we mere mortals have available but, I have doubts that that was as good as one of the best prints that Gary Mack got to choose from.

I don't know exactly what Thompon & Co did to the print they had at the time of "SSID" but, if it was just honest enhancement, simply to bring out the shape at the fence("Hatman"), then it was a far better print than what was drumscanned.

Edited December 6, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Bill Miller]

That's because that is one of Jack's "enhancements", and I rather draw from the original.

Badgeman negates all credibe evidence, like Lee Bowers, the HSCA acoustics tests, witness accounts, and the puff of smoke from under the large tree, seen by at least three witnesses, like Sam Holland and co-workers. But most of all, Badgeman negates the laws of physics. But if you don't believe your eyes or think I tricked them, be my guest , take a big copy of the Moorman picture and go through the exercise yourself.

Wim

First of all - how can someone named Mark have "WIM" posting under their name???

Secondly, the comment above about 'drawing from the original' is inaccurate for the image being used here is not one of the original prints, but rather a print that is either multi-generational or degraded from the original images clarity for other reasons. Jack White used one of the best and clearest early prints for his work as any responsible person would do. For someone to wish to post a degraded miserable likeness of Moorman's photo and then try to work backwards is irresponsible IMO.

[Bill Miller]

That would be nice, Jack. If only the moderators would come through with some assitance to regain my password.

Wim

I lost my password once and John Simkin gave me a new one ... it was a pretty simple matter.

[Alan Healy]

, the comment above about 'drawing from the original' is inaccurate for the image being used here is not one of the original prints, but rather a print that is either multi-generational or degraded from the original images clarity for other reasons. Jack White used one of the best and clearest early prints for his work as any responsible person would do. For someone to wish to post a degraded miserable likeness of Moorman's photo and then try to work backwards is irresponsible IMO.[/b]

What Wim posted is exactly what is seen in the drumscan, is that "multi-generational or degraded"?

No.

It might not be as sharp around the BM area as one would like but it's not the piece of cra* you are making it out to be.

No one can use the clearest, sharpest print because they were never published in full.

So what Wim posted was the best available to him, you or I.

[Bill Miller]

What Wim posted is exactly what is seen in the drumscan, is that "multi-generational or degraded"?

No.

It might not be as sharp around the BM area as one would like but it's not the piece of cra* you are making it out to be.

No one can use the clearest, sharpest print because they were never published in full.

So what Wim posted was the best available to him, you or I.

Are you thick or what??? The drum scan is not one of Josiah's best prints ... Josiah and Gary Mack would be one of the first to tell you this and I believe that information has been posted before. I have left a message with Mack to email some data on the drum scan and I will post it once I have received it.

And I agree that the Moorman image Wim refers to is the best that he can probably get his hands on, but who cares! That's like saying 'I have this dirty window in my house that I cannot get any cleaner and it doesn't offer the sharper view that someone else had looking through it before it became so dirty, thus what is seen through it now is the most reliable view.' To take that position is one of the most irresponsible approaches I have witnessed from anyone to date. Jack White and Josiah Thompson had the best prints and they have shared crops from them. In other words - they had the clean glass to see through many years ago while the prints we have today are the dirty ones. It seems that the Badge Man critics prefer to work backwards. So to those who think the drum scan is so great ... then recreate Jack's Badge Man or the Hat Man image from it!!! It cannot be done. It is impossible to use a print that has lost its clarity and by merely adjusting the lighting or contrasting of the print that this will somehow create something out of nothing.

By the way - people can use the clearest images of the Badge Man and Hat Man area because people like Jack, Groden, and Thompson provided the images so many years ago. Would it be nice to see the entire image from the best prints - sure it would, but Badge Man is the issue and he is only in one location on the Moorman photo and we have been given a view of the best print showing his features. Complaining about not seeing the remaining print doesn't take away from the information these men have provided us concerning these key areas even though some are trying to pretend that it does.

Bill Miller

[Jack White]

, the comment above about 'drawing from the original' is inaccurate for the image being used here is not one of the original prints, but rather a print that is either multi-generational or degraded from the original images clarity for other reasons. Jack White used one of the best and clearest early prints for his work as any responsible person would do. For someone to wish to post a degraded miserable likeness of Moorman's photo and then try to work backwards is irresponsible IMO.[/b]

What Wim posted is exactly what is seen in the drumscan, is that "multi-generational or degraded"?

No.

It might not be as sharp around the BM area as one would like but it's not the piece of cra* you are making it out to be.

No one can use the clearest, sharpest print because they were never published in full.

So what Wim posted was the best available to him, you or I.

You are wrong. The "drumscan" is made from a very clear

print (Thompson #1). Comparison of the drumscan with the

better copy reveals this. Even Gary Mack recently wrote

(posted here by someone) that the drumscan was from an

inferior print.

Indeed, someone connected with producing the drumscan

altered the pedestal area for their own purposes, as can be

easily shown.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

, the comment above about 'drawing from the original' is inaccurate for the image being used here is not one of the original prints, but rather a print that is either multi-generational or degraded from the original images clarity for other reasons. Jack White used one of the best and clearest early prints for his work as any responsible person would do. For someone to wish to post a degraded miserable likeness of Moorman's photo and then try to work backwards is irresponsible IMO.[/b]

What Wim posted is exactly what is seen in the drumscan, is that "multi-generational or degraded"?

No.

It might not be as sharp around the BM area as one would like but it's not the piece of cra* you are making it out to be.

No one can use the clearest, sharpest print because they were never published in full.

So what Wim posted was the best available to him, you or I.

You are wrong. The "drumscan" is made from a very clear

print (Thompson #1). Comparison of the drumscan with the

better copy reveals this. Even Gary Mack recently wrote

(posted here by someone) that the drumscan was from an

inferior print.

Indeed, someone connected with producing the drumscan

altered the pedestal area for their own purposes, as can be

easily shown.

Jack

What a crock of XXXXX.

Since you seem to keep forgetting the truth lets tell it once again.

The drumscan is NOT made from a copy print. It is the original copy NEGATIVE the Thompson had made from the ORIGINAL Moorman Polaroid. This was done in 1967 I believe. The scan was made DIRECTLY from this negative and was forwarded to all interested parties unaltered. A copy of the scan was also forwarded to Gary Mack directly on the original disk which includes the signature of the scanner tech.

You have made this false claim about the alleged "alteration" ofd the pedestal, but to this date you have not been able to back up this claim with fact. Oh you have posted what is perhaps the poorest example of a Moorman to date..your badly scanned zippo. But that image is so poor it is impossible to compare with ANYTHING.

So its time to you to finally put up or shut up Jack. Post a QUALITY Moorman scanned to the level of the drumscan and lets see this "alteration". If you can't ... please go away.

Edited for language.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[Bill Miller]

Indeed, someone connected with producing the drumscan

altered the pedestal area for their own purposes, as can be

easily shown.

Jack

Jack, your message would have more impact if you'd leave out the alteration nonsense. As I recall, it was your claim that the drum scan invented the gap which other prints do not show, but when asked to provide such a print - you posted nothing! All the Moorman prints that I have seen show the gap, the original Moorman image shown on NBC the day of the assassination show the gap and Zapruder and Sitzman standing on the pedestal. So why not just stick with the drum scan not being the best print ... that it was a good scan of an inferior or degraded source.

Bill

Edited December 7, 2007 by Bill Miller