Jack White Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 (edited) I received this copy of correspondence from Gary Mack to Bill Miller. Gary's remembrance exactly corresponds with mine. QUOTE: Hi Bill, British photo scientist Geoff Crawley was hired by Nigel Turner to study the Badge Man photo, including Jack White's blowups. His expertise was the physics of camera lenses, and he was charged with determining whether or not Moorman's camera could clearly resolve an image of the Badge Man size and distance. By shooting test pictures with Moorman's camera and using very similar film (her film was no longer being manufactured), he found that it could. Crawley examined everything, including the original Moorman Polaroid photo, her camera, and two 8x10 prints of the Moorman photo made by United Press International from negatives they shot on 11-22-63. Those prints were the source of all the Badge Man images. He took the original Polaroid and the UPI prints back to England where he lives and made blowups, just like Jack did, and he got identical results. He had no doubts whatsoever that Jack's blowups were accurate reproductions of what is contained within the UPI prints. He understood precisely why Jack and I believed we were looking at three people beyond the wall, and he was especially impressed with the clarity of Badge Man. All of this happened in the late summer of 1988, but by the time TMWKK premiered in the UK that October, he had doubts about Badge Man's size and expressed them to show producer Nigel Turner. Geoff thought Badge Man might be too small to be a person immediately behind the fence. Unfortunately, Crawley never conducted any size tests in Dealey Plaza to determine whether or not his concern was valid. His opinion, therefore, remained just an educated theory. Geoff Crawley, whose ability and integrity are beyond question, raved about Jack's terrific ability in the dark room. He remarked several times over the two or three days he was in Dallas for the studies that Jack had exhibited some of the finest technical ability he had ever seen. He confirmed that Jack had not done any photo manipulation of any kind. He confirmed that Jack merely bracketed his copy exposures to obtain the maximum detail of Badge Man in dark shadow and Gordon Arnold in bright sunlight. (When you darken the picture to make Arnold less washed out, Badge Man turns very dark and loses detail; conversely, by brightening Badge Man, Arnold was washed out. Jack tried various aperture and printing combinations to bring out the best of both.) Jack did no "sharpening" or dodging of any kind, just blowups and careful printing of his best negatives. Most of his work was completed in 1982 from a copy slide provided by Robert Groden, but his best work came in 1984 from the two UPI prints I obtained from Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg. Several years later, at the suggestion of Nigel Turner, we made a colorized version to help others see what we had been looking at for four years. Sometimes, it is just easier to show something rather than to describe it. The shapes of three people appeared in Moorman's photo and the question was, and still is, if they aren't people, what are they? So far, no one has offered any proof that the shapes are not people. And I have seen nothing to make me change my mind that they are people. Gary Mack END QUOTE Gary failed to mention the later 1984 photocopying done by professional photographer Byrd Williams IV, from which the "colored" version was produced. Byrd's copy negatives were 8x10, using the finest equipment available for macro copying, and produced the best available images from the Thompson One 8x10 print. Unless either/both the original Moorman and the Thompson One print are faked, Byrd's copies represent the best available enlargement of Badgeman/ Badge Man. The "colored" version was done on a drum scan large print made from the best of Byrd's negatives by Global Graphics. The colors I used were transparent oil stains used by photo studios. Gary still has the large colored print. I have transparency copies of it. Jack PS...attached, the Byrd Williams copy (without the coloring). This print was a contact print from the original Byrd Williams 8x10 negative, and is not dodged nor manipulated in any way. Edited October 28, 2008 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 "The shapes of three people appeared in Moorman's photo and the question was, and still is, if they aren't people, what are they? So far, no one has offered any proof that the shapes are not people. And I have seen nothing to make me change my mind that they are people." Gary Mack The only footage I know of, that comes close to Moorman's LOS is the Couch movie. Since he films the same area as Moorman a little after the assassination, can the light coming through the tree's in Couch, be compared to the figures which appear in Moorman? chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 (edited) Since he films the same area as Moorman a little after the assassination, can the light coming through the tree's in Couch, be compared to the figures which appear in Moorman?chris To any truly interested parties: There have been several criticisms made of Jack White's work on the UPI prints and the bulk of the most accusatory and vicious criticisms have come via Mark Valenti. It wasn't hard for me to see that much of what Valenti was posting had come from assumption, rumor, and innuendo. So I got to thinking the other day that everyone should have a run down as to exactly what Crawley had done as far as duplicating Jack's work. One of Valenti's demands was that Jack make his prints available so anyone could reproduce Jack's work on the Badge Man images. I for one would be most interested to know if Mark Valenti even knows how to do dark room work and if he doesn't, then I do not know how he'd be able to understand what Jack had done ... let alone duplicate it. But never-the-less I wanted to get a breakdown of Crawley's (who is renown for exposing fakery in photos) test and findings as far as Jack doing any manipulations to the UPI prints. I have heard it accused that Jack had manipulated, altered, made people from nothing, sharpened, and etc., concerning the Badge Man images. Jack has now posted some of those details, which should put several the false accusations leveled against Jack in their proper light and to rest. We now have Jack White and Gary Mack's description of the test conducted and the results to consider. Because both men are telling what Crawley had done to test Jack's work and have told of Geoff's findings, then its pretty cut and dry unless someone wishes to call Crawley a hoaxer. You see, Jack and Gary are now committed to what Crawley had done, thus any truly interested parties can then follow-up with Crawley so see if Jack and Gary have recalled Geoff's test and findings correctly. If Crawley's test and findings pertaining to Jack's work and ability to create such sharp images from the Moorman print is true, then it debunks so much of the nasty negative things that have been said about Jack's work by a very selective few arm-chair critics who obviously never bothered to check the facts before leveling their accusations at Jack White's Badge Man work. Bill Miller Edited October 28, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Who was criticizing Jack's work? Eliminate as many variables as possible. Perhaps you can pass this photo onto an expert who knows nothing about the assassination, and ask what is on the wall? Or send it to Crawley for his opinion. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 29, 2008 Author Share Posted October 29, 2008 I for one wonder if Geoffrey is still alive. When he was here in the 1980s I would judge that he was much older than I. He was retired from his active job, as I recall, but still wrote a column for a prestigious British photography magazine. If still alive, he would be close to 100. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 29, 2008 Author Share Posted October 29, 2008 (edited) Who was criticizing Jack's work?Eliminate as many variables as possible. Perhaps you can pass this photo onto an expert who knows nothing about the assassination, and ask what is on the wall? Or send it to Crawley for his opinion. chris Thanks for that clear Wiegman frame, Chris. Compare it to this one at almost the same instant. I wonder if an expert can explain this. I can't. Jack Edited October 29, 2008 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 29, 2008 Author Share Posted October 29, 2008 Who was criticizing Jack's work?Eliminate as many variables as possible. Perhaps you can pass this photo onto an expert who knows nothing about the assassination, and ask what is on the wall? Or send it to Crawley for his opinion. chris Thanks for that clear Wiegman frame, Chris. Compare it to this one at almost the same instant. I wonder if an expert can explain this. I can't. Jack Enlarged and lightened with pseudocolor. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 The only footage I know of, that comes close to Moorman's LOS is the Couch movie.Since he films the same area as Moorman a little after the assassination, can the light coming through the tree's in Couch, be compared to the figures which appear in Moorman? chris Chris, that looks like Dave Wiegman running with the camera, so can you tell me how long has transpired since JFK's limo has entered the underpass? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Enlarged and lightened with pseudocolor.Jack Jack, you did good by posting the details of Crawley's testing of your work, so please don't ruin it by posting such nonsense from a terribly blurred image. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 29, 2008 Author Share Posted October 29, 2008 Enlarged and lightened with pseudocolor.Jack Jack, you did good by posting the details of Crawley's testing of your work, so please don't ruin it by posting such nonsense from a terribly blurred image. Bill Miller What's YOUR explanation for what the Wiegman frame shows? To me it looks like a man in a white shirt and black pants in an awkward position. What does it look like to you? And WHY is it not in other frames? Not nonsense at all. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 (edited) What's YOUR explanation for what the Wiegman frame shows? To me it looks likea man in a white shirt and black pants in an awkward position. What does it look like to you? And WHY is it not in other frames? Jack It looks like the result of a multi-copied film of poor quality and a bad interpretation brought about by severe blurring. What you are calling a white shirt is an opening in the tree foliage. That opening becomes visible as Wiegman runs west. I think the Museum has the original, so ask to see it when you are in Dallas again. Bill Edited October 29, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 29, 2008 Author Share Posted October 29, 2008 See post #6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 (edited) ...To any truly interested parties: ... Bill Miller "interested parties" ROTFLMFAO! We're not sure why you endlessly speak for Gary Mack? You STILL shilling for Gary and the 6th Floor Museum? If so, you're agenda, please? btw, in Group designator, right under your name and photo, you have Group: JFK, appears the rest of us have Group: Members. What's that all about? Just curious! Edited October 29, 2008 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 "interested parties" ROTFLMFAO! We're not sure why you endlessly speak for Gary Mack? You STILL shilling for Gary and the 6th Floor Museum? If so, you're agenda, please? David, the quote you use came from post #3. If you can, please read that post and tell me exactly where I spoke for Gary Mack. I hope you find it so people don't think you just woke up from a stupor and just spouted off once again about something you know nothing about. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 The only footage I know of, that comes close to Moorman's LOS is the Couch movie.Since he films the same area as Moorman a little after the assassination, can the light coming through the tree's in Couch, be compared to the figures which appear in Moorman? chris Chris, that looks like Dave Wiegman running with the camera, so can you tell me how long has transpired since JFK's limo has entered the underpass? Bill Miller Couldn't tell you, Bill. Too many cuts/stops in multiple films to put together a continuous timeline. But, since Wiegman's film contains the limo before the underpass and Wiegman appears in Bell, while Wiegman's film lasts a specific period of time, a reasonable guess could be created. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now