Badgeman people sizes and locations

[Todd W. Vaughan]

I only ask that you do more than just take the images at face value especially when referred to as PROOF.

Who referred to the Turner image as PROOF?

You have no idea of what you are talking about, I am interested in the photo because it shows Jack and Larry on the bumper of a car standing behing the fence

This is important to me because of what Skinny Holland saw (Puff of smoke, mud on the bumper, footprints) and I have never seen a picture with anyone standing on the bumper behind the fence

I know that the Turner picture is not a re-creation as Jack has told you over and over yet you keep thinking we have to compare the Turner image to the Moorman image to see if the sizes fit, I could care lees about your GIF, it is useless! The Turner picture is not accurate!

Why dont you go to Dallas with 3 friends and do an accurate re-creation yourself? You keep asking why it hasnt been done in 40s years, go do it yourself

I dont need that for me to back the Badgeman theory as I have for 20+ years

“You keep asking why it hasnt been done in 40s years, go do it yourself”

It HAS been done.

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman.htm

…specifically at…

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_3.htm

[Dean Hagerman]

I only ask that you do more than just take the images at face value especially when referred to as PROOF.

Who referred to the Turner image as PROOF?

You have no idea of what you are talking about, I am interested in the photo because it shows Jack and Larry on the bumper of a car standing behing the fence

This is important to me because of what Skinny Holland saw (Puff of smoke, mud on the bumper, footprints) and I have never seen a picture with anyone standing on the bumper behind the fence

I know that the Turner picture is not a re-creation as Jack has told you over and over yet you keep thinking we have to compare the Turner image to the Moorman image to see if the sizes fit, I could care lees about your GIF, it is useless! The Turner picture is not accurate!

Why dont you go to Dallas with 3 friends and do an accurate re-creation yourself? You keep asking why it hasnt been done in 40s years, go do it yourself

I dont need that for me to back the Badgeman theory as I have for 20+ years

“You keep asking why it hasnt been done in 40s years, go do it yourself”

It HAS been done.

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman.htm

…specifically at…

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_3.htm

Todd I cant save those pictures

Can you Email them to me?

I think I gave you my Email addy before but I will PM it to you just in case

Thanks Todd

[Todd W. Vaughan]

I only ask that you do more than just take the images at face value especially when referred to as PROOF.

Who referred to the Turner image as PROOF?

You have no idea of what you are talking about, I am interested in the photo because it shows Jack and Larry on the bumper of a car standing behing the fence

This is important to me because of what Skinny Holland saw (Puff of smoke, mud on the bumper, footprints) and I have never seen a picture with anyone standing on the bumper behind the fence

I know that the Turner picture is not a re-creation as Jack has told you over and over yet you keep thinking we have to compare the Turner image to the Moorman image to see if the sizes fit, I could care lees about your GIF, it is useless! The Turner picture is not accurate!

Why dont you go to Dallas with 3 friends and do an accurate re-creation yourself? You keep asking why it hasnt been done in 40s years, go do it yourself

I dont need that for me to back the Badgeman theory as I have for 20+ years

“You keep asking why it hasnt been done in 40s years, go do it yourself”

It HAS been done.

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman.htm

…specifically at…

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_3.htm

Todd I cant save those pictures

Can you Email them to me?

I think I gave you my Email addy before but I will PM it to you just in case

Thanks Todd

I don't have the pictures Dean.

[Dean Hagerman]

I only ask that you do more than just take the images at face value especially when referred to as PROOF.

Who referred to the Turner image as PROOF?

You have no idea of what you are talking about, I am interested in the photo because it shows Jack and Larry on the bumper of a car standing behing the fence

This is important to me because of what Skinny Holland saw (Puff of smoke, mud on the bumper, footprints) and I have never seen a picture with anyone standing on the bumper behind the fence

I know that the Turner picture is not a re-creation as Jack has told you over and over yet you keep thinking we have to compare the Turner image to the Moorman image to see if the sizes fit, I could care lees about your GIF, it is useless! The Turner picture is not accurate!

Why dont you go to Dallas with 3 friends and do an accurate re-creation yourself? You keep asking why it hasnt been done in 40s years, go do it yourself

I dont need that for me to back the Badgeman theory as I have for 20+ years

“You keep asking why it hasnt been done in 40s years, go do it yourself”

It HAS been done.

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman.htm

…specifically at…

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_3.htm

Todd I cant save those pictures

Can you Email them to me?

I think I gave you my Email addy before but I will PM it to you just in case

Thanks Todd

I don't have the pictures Dean.

Ok

Its hard to compare without using my editing software, and if I dont have the pictures saved to my computer I cant do that

Thats why I asked

Dean

[Craig Lamson]

Use this Dean.

Free Screen Capture Software

No software needed. On a PC just hit control>PrtScn

Open a new document in Photoshop and hit paste.

Done.

[Dean Hagerman]

Use this Dean.

Free Screen Capture Software

Duncan

Thank you, but will a screen capture be abel to give me the same quailty as saving the hard image?

I will give it a shot

[Bernice Moore]

JACK AM POSTING A FEW MORE ...FOR THOSE INTERESTED...B

[David Josephs]

Thanks Todd,

I was aware of Dale's recreation and knew of his conclusions - I had hoped to find analysis in support of the theory to balance all the evidence against it.

From the Dale Myer site http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_6.htm

"The only photographic expert to allegedly confirm the existence of Badge Man was British photographic technician Geoffrey CRAWLEY. Yet, in a 2001 interview, CRAWLEY revealed that producer Nigel TURNER falsified the true results of his 1988 study in the hopes that his documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, might lead to a reopening of the assassination case. In reality, CRAWLEY concluded that the Badge Man figure, if human, would had to have been standing considerably behind the stockade fence in an elevated position - both of which seemed unreasonable to CRAWLEY under the circumstances. CRAWLEY concluded that MACK and WHITE had misinterpreted background foliage for the three figures."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/mack.htm

Discovery Program Sparks Controversy Among Theorists

By W. Tracy Parnell

On February 26 2003, the Discovery Channel featured a documentary entitled “Death at Dealey Plaza” ...... As Mack explains, “The show was produced for a general audience, not conspiracy researchers. It was simply about the photographers and what they captured on film. The discussion about who killed JFK is another subject for another day.”

{note: we all know the problems with this show... the point of pasting this here is Gary's response to the question below. If his position has changed since this statement I am not aware of it at this moment}

Q: Why did the program imply that there was no assassin visible in the Moorman photo? Was Gary involved in the Moorman recreation?

Gary Mack: “I was fully involved in the restaging and no claim was made that there was not an assassin in the Moorman photo. The photo expert concluded only that if someone was there, the camera could not photograph him clearly enough to identify. I agree, and that is the same conclusion that Geoff Crawley and several other photo scientists have told me over the years based on the physics involved.”

Gary may be referring to the identification of the person himself rather than someone in a police uniform. Either way it shows that Crawley has maintained his position over the 15 years between 1988 and 2003.

I am not 100% in agreement with all of Dale's conclusions or statements yet the analysis that places these images 40-50 yards beyond the fence based on size, or not even there at all, seems logically presented and well supported. As with the image of the "person" in the SWest 6th floor window in Dillard, I had hoped there was something that would effectively illustrate support of the Badgeman theory - but as of yet, I haven't been able to find any.

Bernice's post helps us see that the illusion is very convincing - but IF that person is actually 120+ feet from the fence and 10+ feet up in the air (or even higher if Moorman was actually in the street) what we "see" and even conclude is based on a faulty foundation.

IF he is actually at the fence, you'd think the analysis would support rather than contradict the fact.

DJ

[Greg Burnham]

Thanks Todd,

I was aware of Dale's recreation and knew of his conclusions - I had hoped to find analysis in support of the theory to balance all the evidence against it.

From the Dale Myer site http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_6.htm

"The only photographic expert to allegedly confirm the existence of Badge Man was British photographic technician Geoffrey CRAWLEY. Yet, in a 2001 interview, CRAWLEY revealed that producer Nigel TURNER falsified the true results of his 1988 study in the hopes that his documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, might lead to a reopening of the assassination case. In reality, CRAWLEY concluded that the Badge Man figure, if human, would had to have been standing considerably behind the stockade fence in an elevated position - both of which seemed unreasonable to CRAWLEY under the circumstances. CRAWLEY concluded that MACK and WHITE had misinterpreted background foliage for the three figures."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/mack.htm

Discovery Program Sparks Controversy Among Theorists

By W. Tracy Parnell

On February 26 2003, the Discovery Channel featured a documentary entitled “Death at Dealey Plaza” ...... As Mack explains, “The show was produced for a general audience, not conspiracy researchers. It was simply about the photographers and what they captured on film. The discussion about who killed JFK is another subject for another day.”

{note: we all know the problems with this show... the point of pasting this here is Gary's response to the question below. If his position has changed since this statement I am not aware of it at this moment}

Q: Why did the program imply that there was no assassin visible in the Moorman photo? Was Gary involved in the Moorman recreation?

Gary Mack: “I was fully involved in the restaging and no claim was made that there was not an assassin in the Moorman photo. The photo expert concluded only that if someone was there, the camera could not photograph him clearly enough to identify. I agree, and that is the same conclusion that Geoff Crawley and several other photo scientists have told me over the years based on the physics involved.”

Gary may be referring to the identification of the person himself rather than someone in a police uniform. Either way it shows that Crawley has maintained his position over the 15 years between 1988 and 2003.

I am not 100% in agreement with all of Dale's conclusions or statements yet the analysis that places these images 40-50 yards beyond the fence based on size, or not even there at all, seems logically presented and well supported. As with the image of the "person" in the SWest 6th floor window in Dillard, I had hoped there was something that would effectively illustrate support of the Badgeman theory - but as of yet, I haven't been able to find any.

Bernice's post helps us see that the illusion is very convincing - but IF that person is actually 120+ feet from the fence and 10+ feet up in the air (or even higher if Moorman was actually in the street) what we "see" and even conclude is based on a faulty foundation.

IF he is actually at the fence, you'd think the analysis would support rather than contradict the fact.

DJ

DJ,

I appreciate your well reasoned, IMO, post.

[Jack White]

SCREEN CAPTURE on a Macintosh is simple; no software needed.

Hold down COMMAND and SHIFT; press 3. This will take a photo of everything on the screen,

which will be saved as an image titled PICTURE 1 (etc) as a JPG, which can then be used

as any other image. The quality is identical to the image on the screen.

Jack

Use this Dean.

Free Screen Capture Software

Duncan

Thank you, but will a screen capture be abel to give me the same quailty as saving the hard image?

I will give it a shot

[Jack White]

Thanks Todd,

I was aware of Dale's recreation and knew of his conclusions - I had hoped to find analysis in support of the theory to balance all the evidence against it.

From the Dale Myer site http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_6.htm

"The only photographic expert to allegedly confirm the existence of Badge Man was British photographic technician Geoffrey CRAWLEY. Yet, in a 2001 interview, CRAWLEY revealed that producer Nigel TURNER falsified the true results of his 1988 study in the hopes that his documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, might lead to a reopening of the assassination case. In reality, CRAWLEY concluded that the Badge Man figure, if human, would had to have been standing considerably behind the stockade fence in an elevated position - both of which seemed unreasonable to CRAWLEY under the circumstances. CRAWLEY concluded that MACK and WHITE had misinterpreted background foliage for the three figures."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/mack.htm

Discovery Program Sparks Controversy Among Theorists

By W. Tracy Parnell

On February 26 2003, the Discovery Channel featured a documentary entitled “Death at Dealey Plaza” ...... As Mack explains, “The show was produced for a general audience, not conspiracy researchers. It was simply about the photographers and what they captured on film. The discussion about who killed JFK is another subject for another day.”

{note: we all know the problems with this show... the point of pasting this here is Gary's response to the question below. If his position has changed since this statement I am not aware of it at this moment}

Q: Why did the program imply that there was no assassin visible in the Moorman photo? Was Gary involved in the Moorman recreation?

Gary Mack: “I was fully involved in the restaging and no claim was made that there was not an assassin in the Moorman photo. The photo expert concluded only that if someone was there, the camera could not photograph him clearly enough to identify. I agree, and that is the same conclusion that Geoff Crawley and several other photo scientists have told me over the years based on the physics involved.”

Gary may be referring to the identification of the person himself rather than someone in a police uniform. Either way it shows that Crawley has maintained his position over the 15 years between 1988 and 2003.

I am not 100% in agreement with all of Dale's conclusions or statements yet the analysis that places these images 40-50 yards beyond the fence based on size, or not even there at all, seems logically presented and well supported. As with the image of the "person" in the SWest 6th floor window in Dillard, I had hoped there was something that would effectively illustrate support of the Badgeman theory - but as of yet, I haven't been able to find any.

Bernice's post helps us see that the illusion is very convincing - but IF that person is actually 120+ feet from the fence and 10+ feet up in the air (or even higher if Moorman was actually in the street) what we "see" and even conclude is based on a faulty foundation.

IF he is actually at the fence, you'd think the analysis would support rather than contradict the fact.

DJ

I consider any quote of Geoff Crawley similar to the above A FALSEHOOD. I spent much time with

Geoff and everything he said to me (and also to Gary Mack), were objective and JUST THE OPPOSITE

of what is claimed above.

Jack

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Thanks Todd,

I was aware of Dale's recreation and knew of his conclusions - I had hoped to find analysis in support of the theory to balance all the evidence against it.

From the Dale Myer site http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_6.htm

"The only photographic expert to allegedly confirm the existence of Badge Man was British photographic technician Geoffrey CRAWLEY. Yet, in a 2001 interview, CRAWLEY revealed that producer Nigel TURNER falsified the true results of his 1988 study in the hopes that his documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, might lead to a reopening of the assassination case. In reality, CRAWLEY concluded that the Badge Man figure, if human, would had to have been standing considerably behind the stockade fence in an elevated position - both of which seemed unreasonable to CRAWLEY under the circumstances. CRAWLEY concluded that MACK and WHITE had misinterpreted background foliage for the three figures."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/mack.htm

Discovery Program Sparks Controversy Among Theorists

By W. Tracy Parnell

On February 26 2003, the Discovery Channel featured a documentary entitled “Death at Dealey Plaza” ...... As Mack explains, “The show was produced for a general audience, not conspiracy researchers. It was simply about the photographers and what they captured on film. The discussion about who killed JFK is another subject for another day.”

{note: we all know the problems with this show... the point of pasting this here is Gary's response to the question below. If his position has changed since this statement I am not aware of it at this moment}

Q: Why did the program imply that there was no assassin visible in the Moorman photo? Was Gary involved in the Moorman recreation?

Gary Mack: “I was fully involved in the restaging and no claim was made that there was not an assassin in the Moorman photo. The photo expert concluded only that if someone was there, the camera could not photograph him clearly enough to identify. I agree, and that is the same conclusion that Geoff Crawley and several other photo scientists have told me over the years based on the physics involved.”

Gary may be referring to the identification of the person himself rather than someone in a police uniform. Either way it shows that Crawley has maintained his position over the 15 years between 1988 and 2003.

I am not 100% in agreement with all of Dale's conclusions or statements yet the analysis that places these images 40-50 yards beyond the fence based on size, or not even there at all, seems logically presented and well supported. As with the image of the "person" in the SWest 6th floor window in Dillard, I had hoped there was something that would effectively illustrate support of the Badgeman theory - but as of yet, I haven't been able to find any.

Bernice's post helps us see that the illusion is very convincing - but IF that person is actually 120+ feet from the fence and 10+ feet up in the air (or even higher if Moorman was actually in the street) what we "see" and even conclude is based on a faulty foundation.

IF he is actually at the fence, you'd think the analysis would support rather than contradict the fact.

DJ

I consider any quote of Geoff Crawley similar to the above A FALSEHOOD. I spent much time with

Geoff and everything he said to me (and also to Gary Mack), were objective and JUST THE OPPOSITE

of what is claimed above.

Jack

I've heard the recording of Dale's telephone interviews with Crawley. Everything is exactly as reported at...

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_3.htm

Edited May 6, 2010 by Todd W. Vaughan

[Dean Hagerman]

Use this Dean.

Free Screen Capture Software

No software needed. On a PC just hit control>PrtScn

Open a new document in Photoshop and hit paste.

Done.

I cant believe I didnt remember this but Duncan gave me a link to dowload an awesome (IMO) software called Photoscape and it has a Screen Capture option that works great

I used it to capture all the images

Thanks for the tips

[David Josephs]

Thank you Greg....

Not normally my style to quote/use Myers' or McAdams' websites in support of my theories so i tend to be overly cautious about information from those sources - in this case though they seem to make a lot of sense.

Interesting that Myers does not address the other image to the west behind the tree and three men - I'd be interested to see th results of the same analysis for that image.

and Jack, not so much what Crawley said or didn't say (obviously you'd know better than anyone what his representations were to you and Gary) as much as how the conclusion has not been proven wrong, nor has Dale's, nor GMack agreeing with the "other photo scientists" that the physics do not work.

Bottom line to me at least is that there is very little evidence we can trust, much less than I had ever thought was possible to alter, change, replace, etc.... just to keep us wrapped in the minutia while the real issue of power and control is kept at arm's length.

DJ

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Thank you Greg....

Not normally my style to quote/use Myers' or McAdams' websites in support of my theories so i tend to be overly cautious about information from those sources - in this case though they seem to make a lot of sense.

Interesting that Myers does not address the other image to the west behind the tree and three men - I'd be interested to see th results of the same analysis for that image.

and Jack, not so much what Crawley said or didn't say (obviously you'd know better than anyone what his representations were to you and Gary) as much as how the conclusion has not been proven wrong, nor has Dale's, nor GMack agreeing with the "other photo scientists" that the physics do not work.

Bottom line to me at least is that there is very little evidence we can trust, much less than I had ever thought was possible to alter, change, replace, etc.... just to keep us wrapped in the minutia while the real issue of power and control is kept at arm's length.

DJ

"Interesting that Myers does not address the other image to the west behind the tree and three men - I'd be interested to see th results of the same analysis for that image."

Are you refering to the image Josiah Thompson talks about in Six Seconds in Dallas?