Badgeman people sizes and locations

[Jack White]

I just posted this on the Deep Politics Forum in response to a question about Badgeman's size and location.

........

I hope these photos will answer all of your questions.

They were NOT at attempt to replicate the exact image, but to determine

whether the people images were the correct sizes as seen from the location

of Mary Moorman across the street. The poses were done by memory, since

we did not have a print of Moorman we were attempting to match. I knew the

locations of the people, and posed them based on knowing where Gary Mack

and I had determined they needed to be based on the tree, the sidewalk

steps and the corner of the concrete wall.

This photo proved to Nigel that the people sizes and approximate locations

matched Moorman.

Jack

[Bernice Moore]

hi jack; they look about normal sized to me, but there is a group out there that will never accept such, but we have our own opinions don't we , and that is each person's perogative always...have a good day,and thanks for posting your research ...best b..

Edited April 28, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Dean Hagerman]

Wow

Jack I have never seen that picture of you Larry and Ken standing on a car bumper behind the fence!

The sizes look real good to me, in fact when I saw the picture the hair on my arms stood up because it was that close

I have always believed in your (and Garys) Badgeman theory Jack

This picture is great and further cements Badgeman as fact in my view

Thanks Jack I saved the image to my computer

Dean

[David Josephs]

This photo proved to Nigel that the people sizes and approximate locations

matched Moorman.

Jack

With the greatest respect for your work Jack I have always had concerns over the Badgeman, Hatman and Arnold images in Moorman.

I played with your images and find that I can neither get it to match vertically or hoizontally... that in each case the proportions don't provide a match when overlaid.

Can you provide an overlay which shows the actual positions in these two images are the same?

AS you can see, once I did a vertical orientation to "Ken" as Arnold and to the top of the wall, the other men are not even close.

and if you match horizontally the men are way to big.

Thanks

DJ

[David Josephs]

Bump....

Mr. White, Jack...

No disrepect intended - but in either orientation they are no where near the same sizes at all.

I can appreciate the comparison image was an approximation, but even an approximation has to be close...

there are numerous examples around the internet of the size argument leading to these men being many, many yards behind the fence so their relative sizes match.

Moving "Jack" and "Larry" left or right would not change the fact that they are MUCH LARGER than they appear in Moorman and simply could not be at the fence as you describe.

And finally, they way Jack holds the rifle, very similiar to badgeman, makes it even more difficult to understand how we would see the Badge behind his arm and how it would have even reflected any light.

I hope to understand this photo and your interpretation more fully after your reply.

Thank you

DJ

[Jack White]

With the greatest respect for your work Jack I have always had concerns over the Badgeman, Hatman and Arnold images in Moorman.

I played with your images and find that I can neither get it to match vertically or hoizontally... that in each case the proportions don't provide a match when overlaid.

Can you provide an overlay which shows the actual positions in these two images are the same?

AS you can see, once I did a vertical orientation to "Ken" as Arnold and to the top of the wall, the other men are not even close.

and if you match horizontally the men are way to big.

Thanks

DJ

With greatest respect, I would like to point out AGAIN that the photo Nigel shot WAS NOT AN ATTEMPT

TO REPLICATE THE MOORMAN IMAGE.

1. Nigel was not using a Moorman photo to pose the photo.

2. The 3 "models" were people of various heights who happened to be available.

3. The actual heights of Badgeman, Hardhatman, and Gordon Arnold are UNKNOWN.

4. Larry Harris and I stood on a car bumper to be at the approximate heights shown in Moorman.

5. The Nigel photo does not pretend to be a REPLICATION because so many factors are unknown.

The photo was Nigel's attempt to prove to himself that the images in Moorman were APPROXIMATELY CORRECT.

Your study ASSUMES that the heights of the three people are known and were replicated.

Your study ASSUMES that we know what the people were standing on.

Your study ASSUMES that Nigel's photo was an attempted replication.

Accept the Nigel photo for what it is. Comparing measurements to Moorman is futile because there are

TOO MANY UNKNOWNS.

Thanks for your persistent interest.

Jack

[Todd W. Vaughan]

With the greatest respect for your work Jack I have always had concerns over the Badgeman, Hatman and Arnold images in Moorman.

I played with your images and find that I can neither get it to match vertically or hoizontally... that in each case the proportions don't provide a match when overlaid.

Can you provide an overlay which shows the actual positions in these two images are the same?

AS you can see, once I did a vertical orientation to "Ken" as Arnold and to the top of the wall, the other men are not even close.

and if you match horizontally the men are way to big.

Thanks

DJ

With greatest respect, I would like to point out AGAIN that the photo Nigel shot WAS NOT AN ATTEMPT

TO REPLICATE THE MOORMAN IMAGE.

1. Nigel was not using a Moorman photo to pose the photo.

2. The 3 "models" were people of various heights who happened to be available.

3. The actual heights of Badgeman, Hardhatman, and Gordon Arnold are UNKNOWN.

4. Larry Harris and I stood on a car bumper to be at the approximate heights shown in Moorman.

5. The Nigel photo does not pretend to be a REPLICATION because so many factors are unknown.

The photo was Nigel's attempt to prove to himself that the images in Moorman were APPROXIMATELY CORRECT.

Your study ASSUMES that the heights of the three people are known and were replicated.

Your study ASSUMES that we know what the people were standing on.

Your study ASSUMES that Nigel's photo was an attempted replication.

Accept the Nigel photo for what it is. Comparing measurements to Moorman is futile because there are

TOO MANY UNKNOWNS.

Thanks for your persistent interest.

Jack

"The photo was Nigel's attempt to prove to himself that the images in Moorman were APPROXIMATELY CORRECT."

But the point is that the images in Moorman are not "APPROXIMATELY CORRECT" for adults standing between the fence and the wall.

In the comarison photos, Moorman is enlarged much more than the Turner photo is.

What we need to see is the Moorman photo and the Turner photo scaled so that the retaining wall is the same size and fully visible as such in each photo.

[Dean Hagerman]

"The photo was Nigel's attempt to prove to himself that the images in Moorman were APPROXIMATELY CORRECT."

But the point is that the images in Moorman are not "APPROXIMATELY CORRECT" for adults standing between the fence and the wall.

In the comarison photos, Moorman is enlarged much more than the Turner photo is.

What we need to see is the Moorman photo and the Turner photo scaled so that the retaining wall is the same size and fully visible as such in each photo.

A better scaling comparison can be found on this old thread, page 5.

The Gordon Arnold Competition Thread

Thanks for the link Duncan thats a great thread!

Man Duncan you and Bill Miller went after each other like the world was going to end

[David Josephs]

Jack,

"This photo proved to Nigel that the people sizes and approximate locations matched Moorman"

and then you write

"Accept the Nigel photo for what it is. Comparing measurements to Moorman is futile because there are

TOO MANY UNKNOWNS."

So how, why would this prove anything to Nigel? that's a pretty definitive statement for a comparison that has "TOO MANY UNKNOWNS" and with which to say the images in the photo are actually people - but then again you've seen moorman in a way few have.

Whether or not Jack and Larry are in the exact spots or not they are simply too big, thereby too close to the camera for them to represent the images in Moorman. Move them back far enough to be the right size (height, width) and they are no longer at the fence.

Not trying to be difficult Jack but as you made clear, photographic size interpretation is an exact science... the people in the image have to be a certain distance based a certain focal length and lens to be represented in the image as a specific size. Recreation has to be exact to do an exact comparison BUT we can plainly see from the photo comparison that people standing behind the fence, right at the fence, are simply too big to represent people potentially seen in the moorman photo.

Surely in these past 40 years someone has taken a photo using the same type camera standing anywhere within 3 feet of where moorman is seen in Muchmore and Zapruder with people standing just behind the fence.... the photo you posted is pretty close - no? If there is a photo that proves it possible that the images in moorman are indeed the correct distance from the moorman camera... I'd like to see it please... thanks

DJ

I''ve always been very skeptical about the Arnold, badge and hatman images whereas this image matches to the sound evidence, muddy footprints and witness testimony. You think this shooter was in addition to badgeman or have you not given this image as much credibility?

[Jack White]

IF THE IMAGES in Moorman are authentic (the possibility must be considered that they are faked),

then they depict two persons behind the wooden fence and one person in front of the fence by the

top of the steps. These persons are of unknown height. Their precise locations are not known.

The persons behind the fence cannot be standing at ground level, because the fence is five feet

tall, and the men behind the fence are seen from just above the waist.

You may argue all you want, but you (nor I nor Gary Mack) do not know any of the measurements

necessary to replicate the photo exactly, so any of your arguments are purely speculation.

What can be said with certainty is that the Moorman photo shows a human face just above the

wooden fence. Gary Mack, who discovered him, called him Badge Man. I did all the clarification of

the photo, and I call him Badgeman. Like it or not, he is there. He appears to be wearing a police

uniform and firing a rifle. Your not believing it does not make him disappear.

Jack

Jack,

"This photo proved to Nigel that the people sizes and approximate locations matched Moorman"

and then you write

"Accept the Nigel photo for what it is. Comparing measurements to Moorman is futile because there are

TOO MANY UNKNOWNS."

So how, why would this prove anything to Nigel? that's a pretty definitive statement for a comparison that has "TOO MANY UNKNOWNS" and with which to say the images in the photo are actually people - but then again you've seen moorman in a way few have.

Whether or not Jack and Larry are in the exact spots or not they are simply too big, thereby too close to the camera for them to represent the images in Moorman. Move them back far enough to be the right size (height, width) and they are no longer at the fence.

Not trying to be difficult Jack but as you made clear, photographic size interpretation is an exact science... the people in the image have to be a certain distance based a certain focal length and lens to be represented in the image as a specific size. Recreation has to be exact to do an exact comparison BUT we can plainly see from the photo comparison that people standing behind the fence, right at the fence, are simply too big to represent people potentially seen in the moorman photo.

Surely in these past 40 years someone has taken a photo using the same type camera standing anywhere within 3 feet of where moorman is seen in Muchmore and Zapruder with people standing just behind the fence.... the photo you posted is pretty close - no? If there is a photo that proves it possible that the images in moorman are indeed the correct distance from the moorman camera... I'd like to see it please... thanks

DJ

I''ve always been very skeptical about the Arnold, badge and hatman images whereas this image matches to the sound evidence, muddy footprints and witness testimony. You think this shooter was in addition to badgeman or have you not given this image as much credibility?

[Jack White]

IF THE IMAGES in Moorman are authentic (the possibility must be considered that they are faked),

then they depict two persons behind the wooden fence and one person in front of the fence by the

top of the steps. These persons are of unknown height. Their precise locations are not known.

The persons behind the fence cannot be standing at ground level, because the fence is five feet

tall, and the men behind the fence are seen from just above the waist.

You may argue all you want, but you (nor I nor Gary Mack) do not know any of the measurements

necessary to replicate the photo exactly, so any of your arguments are purely speculation.

What can be said with certainty is that the Moorman photo shows a human face just above the

wooden fence. Gary Mack, who discovered him, called him Badge Man. I did all the clarification of

the photo, and I call him Badgeman. Like it or not, he is there. He appears to be wearing a police

uniform and firing a rifle. Your not believing it does not make him disappear.

Jack

[Dean Hagerman]

Not trying to be difficult Jack

Well you are being difficult

How many times does Jack have to tell you that this photo was not an exact re-creation of Moorman?

I got it through my head the first time Jack posted the picture that it was simply taken by Nigel Turner to satisfy his decision to use the Badgeman theory in his program TMWKK

Thats what it is, why do you keep trying to make it into something that its not?

[Jack White]

This is a very clear image of the face of the man behind the fence. It is there. Make of it whatever

you want...but it looks like a man's head to me.

Jack

IF THE IMAGES in Moorman are authentic (the possibility must be considered that they are faked),

then they depict two persons behind the wooden fence and one person in front of the fence by the

top of the steps. These persons are of unknown height. Their precise locations are not known.

The persons behind the fence cannot be standing at ground level, because the fence is five feet

tall, and the men behind the fence are seen from just above the waist.

You may argue all you want, but you (nor I nor Gary Mack) do not know any of the measurements

necessary to replicate the photo exactly, so any of your arguments are purely speculation.

What can be said with certainty is that the Moorman photo shows a human face just above the

wooden fence. Gary Mack, who discovered him, called him Badge Man. I did all the clarification of

the photo, and I call him Badgeman. Like it or not, he is there. He appears to be wearing a police

uniform and firing a rifle. Your not believing it does not make him disappear.

Jack

[Greg Burnham]

From Page 5 of the old "Gordon Arnold Competition Thread"

Edited May 4, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Jack White]

The importance of badgeman has diminished greatly since the image was discovered, because:

1. The Moorman photo is legally useless as evidence since the Polaroid has been shown to be retouched.

2. It has not been established that badgeman's shot hit the president, but more likely was a miss.

However, it does remain as part of the overall happening IF AUTHENTIC (not a part of the photo

which was retouched).

Jack