Badgeman people sizes and locations

[Jack White]

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?

Thanks, Dean. Exactly correct. I have never claimed that Nigel's photo is an exact replication. It is not.

Jack

[Jack White]

Thanks, Monk, for the animation overlay showing the images do not match.

BUT...the figures ARE in the Moorman photo. I CANNOT EXPLAIN WHY THEY

DO NOT MATCH. Among the possibilities are that the images are not genuine.

Hey...I did not put the images in Mary's photo; they ARE THERE; I have

pointed them out. That is as far as I can go. People can argue all they want

about what the images indicate. I have done all I can do.

Jack

PS. Ken Holmes, the Gordon Arnold stand-in in Nigel's photo, is about 6'4"

tall; Gordon Arnold was about 5'8"...which would account for part of the

comparison difference. The other two figures appear to be farther back

from the fence in your comparison, or small in stature. Larry Harris and I

were both taller than 6' (I am 6'2"; Larry was about 6'). Height differences

play a big part in judging the images.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Jack White

[Greg Burnham]

Thanks, Monk, for the animation overlay showing the images do not match.

BUT...the figures ARE in the Moorman photo. I CANNOT EXPLAIN WHY THEY

DO NOT MATCH. Among the possibilities are that the images are not genuine.

Hey...I did not put the images in Mary's photo; they ARE THERE; I have

pointed them out. That is as far as I can go. People can argue all they want

about what the images indicate. I have done all I can do.

Jack

Hi Jack,

All I did was post the image from Page 5 of a different topic. It was suggested earlier in this thread. I thought folks wouldn't have to try to find it there if I posted it here. It's not my work. Sorry for the confusion.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[David Josephs]

Dean -

Why? because the authenticity of the moorman images is extremely important and Jack is recognized as one of a few experts on this subject. One of the places to start is to position people just behind the fence where they would need to be so a shot could be possible (surely GMack has a good idea where that might be) and place the camera in the same location (maybe a bit tougher given the "in the street" argument but close enough) and take a photo. and then judge for oneself if the moorman images are the correct sizes within reason and a margin of error.

From what I posted and from manipulating the 1989 image over the Moorman crop in Photoshop, the 1989 images are NOT the correct sizes at all, not even close. If Nigel really used this as his proof that Moorman had caught assassins on film, there's something wrong going on.

because Jack writes that it is indeed NOT an 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."

What I got thru my head the first time I looked at it is that this photo does NOT represent the correct sizes and approx location in Moorman - that if they are in the approx location then it proves the images in Moorman are either much farther away and much higher up in the air based on line of sight... or they simply are not real images of people and only tricks of light and shadow.

Jack hopes "these photos will answer all of your questions" and they do... they prove that the people sizes/approx locations do NOT match Moorman.

So if we're going to have a civilized discussion about the thread's topic, "Badgeman people sizes and locations" then we need to address the fact that the 1989 photo does not forward the cause but in fact refutes it.

Dean - I'm not trying to disuade you from your praise of Jack or Gary, or from your belief in Badgeman. I only ask that you do more than just take the images at face value especially when referred to as PROOF. If you would simply post an overlay gif like the one below showing an accurate representation of the "people sizes" so they match Moorman it would go a long way to prove the point. I realize we do not know the size of the people - except Arnold who we do know the size of and can be used as a baseline - but unless badgeman was Andre the Giant he should be relatively close to a normal sized person.

We see the Zapruder on the pedestal analysis http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman yet has no one in the past 47 years done an exact replication of Badgeman within Moorman? And if indeed she was in the street, the images behind the fence would have to be even higher up in the air since we'd be lowering the originating line of sight.

Ease up a bit Dean - I hadn't seen the 1989 photo before yet had seen and read much about the badgeman images, even watched all 9 episodes of TMHKK and was very convinced by Arnold's reaction to the photo enhancement. But I'd like a bit more proof thank you.

DJ

[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

[Jack White]

Gordon Arnold told Earl Golz that he was standing on a mound of dirt to get a higher viewpoint.

Other unknowns may also enter into this. It is being to presumptuous to expect the images to

match, since that was not the point of the photo. There are too many unknown variables to expect

a match.

Jack

Dean -

Why? because the authenticity of the moorman images is extremely important and Jack is recognized as one of a few experts on this subject. One of the places to start is to position people just behind the fence where they would need to be so a shot could be possible (surely GMack has a good idea where that might be) and place the camera in the same location (maybe a bit tougher given the "in the street" argument but close enough) and take a photo. and then judge for oneself if the moorman images are the correct sizes within reason and a margin of error.

From what I posted and from manipulating the 1989 image over the Moorman crop in Photoshop, the 1989 images are NOT the correct sizes at all, not even close. If Nigel really used this as his proof that Moorman had caught assassins on film, there's something wrong going on.

because Jack writes that it is indeed NOT an 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."

What I got thru my head the first time I looked at it is that this photo does NOT represent the correct sizes and approx location in Moorman - that if they are in the approx location then it proves the images in Moorman are either much farther away and much higher up in the air based on line of sight... or they simply are not real images of people and only tricks of light and shadow.

Jack hopes "these photos will answer all of your questions" and they do... they prove that the people sizes/approx locations do NOT match Moorman.

So if we're going to have a civilized discussion about the thread's topic, "Badgeman people sizes and locations" then we need to address the fact that the 1989 photo does not forward the cause but in fact refutes it.

Dean - I'm not trying to disuade you from your praise of Jack or Gary, or from your belief in Badgeman. I only ask that you do more than just take the images at face value especially when referred to as PROOF. If you would simply post an overlay gif like the one below showing an accurate representation of the "people sizes" so they match Moorman it would go a long way to prove the point. I realize we do not know the size of the people - except Arnold who we do know the size of and can be used as a baseline - but unless badgeman was Andre the Giant he should be relatively close to a normal sized person.

We see the Zapruder on the pedestal analysis http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman yet has no one in the past 47 years done an exact replication of Badgeman within Moorman? And if indeed she was in the street, the images behind the fence would have to be even higher up in the air since we'd be lowering the originating line of sight.

Ease up a bit Dean - I hadn't seen the 1989 photo before yet had seen and read much about the badgeman images, even watched all 9 episodes of TMHKK and was very convinced by Arnold's reaction to the photo enhancement. But I'd like a bit more proof thank you.

DJ

[David Josephs]

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?

Maybe if you read the original post instead of jumping all up and down like a little kid you'd see that Jack did: "This photo proved to Nigel that the people sizes and approximate locations matched Moorman." Another way of saying this is that the photo was PROOF to Nigel that Moorman's people were correctly sized

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

Once again it is you who does not know what he is talking about. The footprints on the bumper were not related to badgeman at all but to the image of the person in my post... farther west and along a different portion of the fence. Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool....

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

so you've seen no more proof that these images are real than anyone else save Jack (and GMack) who in this thread swear the images are there but are still skeptical about their origin. Plus I don't need to go there as the photo Jack posted was taken from Moorman's location with people standing right behind the fence - saying that does not represent badgeman doesn't change the fact that is really does and can be used by people like Nigel Turner to PROVE Moorman photographed an assassinfiring a rifle

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

it's more than obvious you do not need to prove what you believe to be true - you need only believe it. The Lone Nut Theory and Single Bullet Theory work that way - they are believed to be true regardless of the evidence or the proof against such nonsense.

Thanks for your close attention to my posts and taking the time to show me the error of my ways.

But don't take my word for it, Jack makes it plain as day:

"BUT...the figures ARE in the Moorman photo. I CANNOT EXPLAIN WHY THEY

DO NOT MATCH. Among the possibilities are that the images are not genuine."

[Greg Burnham]

I just realized something Dean! Nobody has ever considered the possibility that Jack IS Badgeman! Are you just trying to protect him? Lol --jk of course, but I couldn't resist...I've long suspected Jack was involved!

Gordon Arnold told Earl Golz that he was standing on a mound of dirt to get a higher viewpoint.

Other unknowns may also enter into this. It is being to presumptuous to expect the images to

match, since that was not the point of the photo. There are too many unknown variables to expect

a match.

Jack

Dean -

Why? because the authenticity of the moorman images is extremely important and Jack is recognized as one of a few experts on this subject. One of the places to start is to position people just behind the fence where they would need to be so a shot could be possible (surely GMack has a good idea where that might be) and place the camera in the same location (maybe a bit tougher given the "in the street" argument but close enough) and take a photo. and then judge for oneself if the moorman images are the correct sizes within reason and a margin of error.

From what I posted and from manipulating the 1989 image over the Moorman crop in Photoshop, the 1989 images are NOT the correct sizes at all, not even close. If Nigel really used this as his proof that Moorman had caught assassins on film, there's something wrong going on.

because Jack writes that it is indeed NOT an 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."

What I got thru my head the first time I looked at it is that this photo does NOT represent the correct sizes and approx location in Moorman - that if they are in the approx location then it proves the images in Moorman are either much farther away and much higher up in the air based on line of sight... or they simply are not real images of people and only tricks of light and shadow.

Jack hopes "these photos will answer all of your questions" and they do... they prove that the people sizes/approx locations do NOT match Moorman.

So if we're going to have a civilized discussion about the thread's topic, "Badgeman people sizes and locations" then we need to address the fact that the 1989 photo does not forward the cause but in fact refutes it.

Dean - I'm not trying to disuade you from your praise of Jack or Gary, or from your belief in Badgeman. I only ask that you do more than just take the images at face value especially when referred to as PROOF. If you would simply post an overlay gif like the one below showing an accurate representation of the "people sizes" so they match Moorman it would go a long way to prove the point. I realize we do not know the size of the people - except Arnold who we do know the size of and can be used as a baseline - but unless badgeman was Andre the Giant he should be relatively close to a normal sized person.

We see the Zapruder on the pedestal analysis http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman yet has no one in the past 47 years done an exact replication of Badgeman within Moorman? And if indeed she was in the street, the images behind the fence would have to be even higher up in the air since we'd be lowering the originating line of sight.

Ease up a bit Dean - I hadn't seen the 1989 photo before yet had seen and read much about the badgeman images, even watched all 9 episodes of TMHKK and was very convinced by Arnold's reaction to the photo enhancement. But I'd like a bit more proof thank you.

DJ

Edited May 5, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[David Josephs]

Jack,

doesn't it bother you that the images do not match... that we do not have a single photo reconstruction that can actually place people of the right size in the correct location to prove Moorman authentic? If anything but to prove or disprove what you and Gary have been saying all these years.

Did you not place people back there when you and Jim Fetzer were doing the Zapruder analysis of Moorman? I have not been able to find any reference to a reinactment but will keep looking until I get the opportunity to do one myself someday.

and thanks again for making your work available to students of the subject like me who can't hop a plane to Dallas. I have been to the Plaza, and was amazed at how small it really is, and how eerie it felt. Yours and the work of so many others keeps the subject fresh and interesting. I may not agree with everything you present but greatly appreciate the opportunity to review and learn from it.

DJ

[Bernice Moore]

Hi Jack ;

I believe this is your work, it may show clearer the distances between the subjects...thanks..take care...b

[Jack White]

Hi Jack ;

I believe this is your work, it may show clearer the distances between the subjects...thanks..take care...b

No...that is NOT my work...but it is approximately correct.

Jack

[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?

Maybe if you read the original post instead of jumping all up and down like a little kid you'd see that Jack did: "This photo proved to Nigel that the people sizes and approximate locations matched Moorman." Another way of saying this is that the photo was PROOF to Nigel that Moorman's people were correctly sized

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

Once again it is you who does not know what he is talking about. The footprints on the bumper were not related to badgeman at all but to the image of the person in my post... farther west and along a different portion of the fence. Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool....

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

so you've seen no more proof that these images are real than anyone else save Jack (and GMack) who in this thread swear the images are there but are still skeptical about their origin. Plus I don't need to go there as the photo Jack posted was taken from Moorman's location with people standing right behind the fence - saying that does not represent badgeman doesn't change the fact that is really does and can be used by people like Nigel Turner to PROVE Moorman photographed an assassinfiring a rifle

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

it's more than obvious you do not need to prove what you believe to be true - you need only believe it. The Lone Nut Theory and Single Bullet Theory work that way - they are believed to be true regardless of the evidence or the proof against such nonsense.

Thanks for your close attention to my posts and taking the time to show me the error of my ways.

But don't take my word for it, Jack makes it plain as day:

"BUT...the figures ARE in the Moorman photo. I CANNOT EXPLAIN WHY THEY

DO NOT MATCH. Among the possibilities are that the images are not genuine."

Edited May 5, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Jack White]

Jack,

doesn't it bother you that the images do not match... that we do not have a single photo reconstruction that can actually place people of the right size in the correct location to prove Moorman authentic? If anything but to prove or disprove what you and Gary have been saying all these years.

Did you not place people back there when you and Jim Fetzer were doing the Zapruder analysis of Moorman? I have not been able to find any reference to a reinactment but will keep looking until I get the opportunity to do one myself someday.

and thanks again for making your work available to students of the subject like me who can't hop a plane to Dallas. I have been to the Plaza, and was amazed at how small it really is, and how eerie it felt. Yours and the work of so many others keeps the subject fresh and interesting. I may not agree with everything you present but greatly appreciate the opportunity to review and learn from it.

DJ

The only attempts THAT I KNOW OF to replicate the figures seen in Moorman were taken

during the filming of The Men Who Killed Kennedy.

You seem to think that I should have done all the things you suggest. You do not realize

that for me to do that would not be worth the time, expense, and effort. It would be

a 70 mile round trip for me, with high gasoline prices. I would have to pay $6 or more

to park my car. I would have to arrange for 3 models to pose as Arnold, badgeman,

and hardhatman. They should be the approximate correct size. The traffic between

FW and Dallas is INCREDIBLE. It would take the better part of a day to do this, and

for what? So that people like you can tell me what I did wrong. No, thanks.

Jack

[Dean Hagerman]

I just realized something Dean! Nobody has ever considered the possibility that Jack IS Badgeman! Are you just trying to protect him? Lol --jk of course, but I couldn't resist...I've long suspected Jack was involved!

Greg you know im trying to protect Jack!

Shhhhhhhh dont tell David Josephs he might complain about the fact that nobody has done a Moorman re-creation to see if Jacks height matches Badgeman in the last 40 years

[Jack White]

If you consider Arnold's statement THAT HE WAS STANDING ON A PILE OF DIRT, this animated gif is a pretty good match!

I just realized something Dean! Nobody has ever considered the possibility that Jack IS Badgeman! Are you just trying to protect him? Lol --jk of course, but I couldn't resist...I've long suspected Jack was involved!

Gordon Arnold told Earl Golz that he was standing on a mound of dirt to get a higher viewpoint.

Other unknowns may also enter into this. It is being to presumptuous to expect the images to

match, since that was not the point of the photo. There are too many unknown variables to expect

a match.

Jack

Dean -

Why? because the authenticity of the moorman images is extremely important and Jack is recognized as one of a few experts on this subject. One of the places to start is to position people just behind the fence where they would need to be so a shot could be possible (surely GMack has a good idea where that might be) and place the camera in the same location (maybe a bit tougher given the "in the street" argument but close enough) and take a photo. and then judge for oneself if the moorman images are the correct sizes within reason and a margin of error.

From what I posted and from manipulating the 1989 image over the Moorman crop in Photoshop, the 1989 images are NOT the correct sizes at all, not even close. If Nigel really used this as his proof that Moorman had caught assassins on film, there's something wrong going on.

because Jack writes that it is indeed NOT an 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."

What I got thru my head the first time I looked at it is that this photo does NOT represent the correct sizes and approx location in Moorman - that if they are in the approx location then it proves the images in Moorman are either much farther away and much higher up in the air based on line of sight... or they simply are not real images of people and only tricks of light and shadow.

Jack hopes "these photos will answer all of your questions" and they do... they prove that the people sizes/approx locations do NOT match Moorman.

So if we're going to have a civilized discussion about the thread's topic, "Badgeman people sizes and locations" then we need to address the fact that the 1989 photo does not forward the cause but in fact refutes it.

Dean - I'm not trying to disuade you from your praise of Jack or Gary, or from your belief in Badgeman. I only ask that you do more than just take the images at face value especially when referred to as PROOF. If you would simply post an overlay gif like the one below showing an accurate representation of the "people sizes" so they match Moorman it would go a long way to prove the point. I realize we do not know the size of the people - except Arnold who we do know the size of and can be used as a baseline - but unless badgeman was Andre the Giant he should be relatively close to a normal sized person.

We see the Zapruder on the pedestal analysis http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman yet has no one in the past 47 years done an exact replication of Badgeman within Moorman? And if indeed she was in the street, the images behind the fence would have to be even higher up in the air since we'd be lowering the originating line of sight.

Ease up a bit Dean - I hadn't seen the 1989 photo before yet had seen and read much about the badgeman images, even watched all 9 episodes of TMHKK and was very convinced by Arnold's reaction to the photo enhancement. But I'd like a bit more proof thank you.

DJ