Coka Cola Man

[Bill Miller]

"Bill..I have asked Jack to confirm my claim that time was limited to produce the final Badgeman result as we know him in the studios concerned.If Jack chooses to answer or not that is his choice.We all know they had been looking at the possible figure for years,that point is noti n question."

Duncan, not that it matters, but you seem to have morphed your remarks a tad since your response in post #33 where you said, "What i am saying is that Gary and Jack did not study closely,if at all,the area which i studied.Their time was limited as far as i know,and the Badgeman area was top priority.If i am wrong then i'm sure Jack will say so." It was Jack who over time and close study of the area in question that he found Gordon Arnold and then later on he found the RR worker.

You have offered no source for saying that Jack and Gary were limited in time when it came to their work on the Moorman photograph. Badge Man was the first image found to be in Moorman's print by Gary Mack. Jack's discovery of Gordon Arnold and the RR worker came later on. It appears that what you are now attempting to do is open a door that allows Jack to say that he missed seeing your alleged image due to some sort of time retraints that he had to work on the Moorman print. As usual you have made a claim without first seeking verification for its accuracy and it has caused you to respond in the way that you are doing. Gary Mack said to me .... " Jack White and I studied the Badge Man images for more than two years beginning in 1982 and continuing ever since."

Gary went on to say, "The only shapes we believe are people in that area are best depicted in the colorized version seen in The Men Who Killed Kennedy."

Edited February 11, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

"A coke bottle was seen on the wall in Bond,now to me that tells me,using common sense that someone was drinking coke."

I agree with your obvious deduction.

Bill

.No one,exept the man at the top right who some say has a rifle (i don't buy that one) had gone to the wall area until the Towner photograph,agreed?Therefore the only answer can be that the bottle was always at the wall area being held by someone,or it belonged to the aforementioned alleged rifleman at top right of Towner.Agreed?

Duncan

There are at least two other people who could have deposited the bottle on the wall that are visible in the Towner 3 photo.

[Alan Healy]

Just a point of record here. Thompson did not have his "best print" "drum scanned". Jack is blowing smoke. Thompson had the copy NEGATIVE of the Moorman original print that was made for him in 1967 scanned on a drum scanner at 2400dpi. Its pretty clear that White has little or no knowelege of the drum scan process nor experience using materials created on the drum scanner. The drum scan of the Thompson Moorman negative is an excellent digital representation of the negative scanned to film grain level.

It was scanned without any post production applied to the resulting file and as such needs contrast and density modification to produce the best possible image. It should be noted that this is exactly what happens in a darkroom when a print is made from a negative. It should also be noted that the negative Thompson had drum scanned was the negative used to make the print that White and Mack examined and as such has the same information and details as the resulting print.

Another point of record. Gary Mack is concerned that I am somehow giving the impression that he and White used the print that was made from the drumscan negative as the source material for the badgeman alteration. As my post clearly states Mack/White did examine that print as part of their work. The print they actually worked from to make the badgeman alteration was a copy of the UPI moorman.

Craig,

please forgive me for attempting to break this down but I need too, for my own sake.

So the Thompson Drumscan, in theory, should be the best but, when we look at it to study details in the background it is severly lacking.

Here is another example of the difference in quality, a small gif made my Bill sometime back.

Tinkminushishatgif

Even what Thompson used in "SSID"(P128) shows a clear outline of the "hat",

the drumscan does not, why?

To me, as a layman, this is telling me that something went wrong with the drumscan.

Why would I use this Dscan to study whats behind that wall up there(if anything), when it missing details seen in the forty year old print in his book?

Your crop is not a clear and sharp Moorman print, but rather a darkroom manipulation that APPEARS to be sharp and clear. It is neither. During the copy and printing process Jack has increased the exposure and contrast until tones from the original have been blown away or compressed to give the appearence of sharpness and detail. To understand exactly how much detail has been lost simply look at the detail of the wall below the supposed figure of badgeman. It's gone. A full frame print of the Moorman exposed and printed like the badgeman crop would look horrible.

"During the copy and printing process Jack has increased the exposure and contrast until tones from the original have been blown away or compressed to give the appearence of sharpness and detail."

Craig,

that statement of yours,

how could you know that, unless you have seen a high quality blow-up of the area above the wall from "the original"?

What is the source of what you are using as a comparison to Jacks results?

"To understand exactly how much detail has been lost simply look at the detail of the wall below the supposed figure of badgeman. It's gone."

I have often tried to bring out details from a dark section of an image, during which time, the details of a sunlit portion of the photo, may become devoid of details.

I don't think the details going AWOL on the front of the wall has any baring on the quality of what has been brought out from the darkness above it.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

"A full frame print of the Moorman exposed and printed like the badgeman crop would look horrible."

Once again, this is irrelevant IMO.

Bringing out details from a dark portion of a print has negative effects on the well lit areas.

This is not a sign of bad workmanship.

Alan

Edited February 11, 2006 by Alan Healy

[Alan Healy]

No one,exept the man at the top right who some say has a rifle (i don't buy that one) had gone to the wall area until the Towner photograph,agreed?Therefore the only answer can be that the bottle was always at the wall area being held by someone,or it belonged to the aforementioned alleged rifleman at top right of Towner.Agreed?

Duncan

There are at least two other people who could have deposited the bottle on the wall that are visible in the Towner 3 photo.

Don't forget the other two by the tree & the one you think is laying on the ground holding a camera Bill!

Then there's the two sitting on the bench..........

Don't get me started!

Without better Bond or Willis6 prints, it is reasonable... at this time, to say that the bottle was placed there just before Towner took his third photo, by one, of at least four people seen in that very photo.

However, if Gary can pick it out on the wall in Willis6, I'm happy to change that statment.

Btw,

Lee's scan from "The Dark Days" isn't that bad.

It has a similarities(to my eyes) with what Jack & Gary worked with.

Was the source of it mentioned in the publication? Sorry if I missed it.

Alan

[Jack White]

QUOTE:

You have offered no source for saying that Jack and Gary were limited in time when it came to their work on the Moorman photograph. Badge Man was the first image found to be in Moorman's print by Gary Mack. Jack's discovery of Gordon Arnold and the RR worker came later on. It appears that what you are now attempting to do is open a door that allows Jack to say that he missed seeing your alleged image due to some sort of time retraints that he had to work on the Moorman print. As usual you have made a claim without first seeking verification for its accuracy and it has caused you to respond in the way that you are doing. Gary Mack said to me .... " Jack White and I studied the Badge Man images for more than two years beginning in 1982 and continuing ever since."

Gary went on to say, "The only shapes we believe are people in that area are best depicted in the colorized version seen in The Men Who Killed Kennedy."

UNQUOTE

I verify that Gary's statement is correct. We studied the Moorman image

for at least two years, with NO limitations on time. The statement is correct

that the three people identified are the ONLY ones we found, and despite

years of analysis, found nothing more of significance within the print.

At that time, in the early 80s, I believed the Moorman image to be entirely

genuine. However, since that time, I have come to believe that some alteration

took place in the area of the "Zapruder" pedestal.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

Just a point of record here. Thompson did not have his "best print" "drum scanned". Jack is blowing smoke. Thompson had the copy NEGATIVE of the Moorman original print that was made for him in 1967 scanned on a drum scanner at 2400dpi. Its pretty clear that White has little or no knowelege of the drum scan process nor experience using materials created on the drum scanner. The drum scan of the Thompson Moorman negative is an excellent digital representation of the negative scanned to film grain level.

It was scanned without any post production applied to the resulting file and as such needs contrast and density modification to produce the best possible image. It should be noted that this is exactly what happens in a darkroom when a print is made from a negative. It should also be noted that the negative Thompson had drum scanned was the negative used to make the print that White and Mack examined and as such has the same information and details as the resulting print.

Another point of record. Gary Mack is concerned that I am somehow giving the impression that he and White used the print that was made from the drumscan negative as the source material for the badgeman alteration. As my post clearly states Mack/White did examine that print as part of their work. The print they actually worked from to make the badgeman alteration was a copy of the UPI moorman.

Craig,

please forgive me for attempting to break this down but I need too, for my own sake.

So the Thompson Drumscan, in theory, should be the best but, when we look at it to study details in the background it is severly lacking.

Here is another example of the difference in quality, a small gif made my Bill sometime back.

Tinkminushishatgif

Even what Thompson used in "SSID"(P128) shows a clear outline of the "hat",

the drumscan does not, why?

To me, as a layman, this is telling me that something went wrong with the drumscan.

Why would I use this Dscan to study whats behind that wall up there(if anything), when it missing details seen in the forty year old print in his book?

Your crop is not a clear and sharp Moorman print, but rather a darkroom manipulation that APPEARS to be sharp and clear. It is neither. During the copy and printing process Jack has increased the exposure and contrast until tones from the original have been blown away or compressed to give the appearence of sharpness and detail. To understand exactly how much detail has been lost simply look at the detail of the wall below the supposed figure of badgeman. It's gone. A full frame print of the Moorman exposed and printed like the badgeman crop would look horrible.

"During the copy and printing process Jack has increased the exposure and contrast until tones from the original have been blown away or compressed to give the appearence of sharpness and detail."

Craig,

that statement of yours,

how could you know that, unless you have seen a high quality blow-up of the area above the wall from "the original"?

What is the source of what you are using as a comparison to Jacks results?

"To understand exactly how much detail has been lost simply look at the detail of the wall below the supposed figure of badgeman. It's gone."

I have often tried to bring out details from a dark section of an image, during which time, the details of a sunlit portion of the photo, may become devoid of details.

I don't think the details going AWOL on the front of the wall has any baring on the quality of what has been brought out from the darkness above it.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

"A full frame print of the Moorman exposed and printed like the badgeman crop would look horrible."

Once again, this is irrelevant IMO.

Bringing out details from a dark portion of a print has negative effects on the well lit areas.

This is not a sign of bad workmanship.

Alan

Alan, let me try and break this down. First, IMHO all of this "enhancement" folks are trying to do on these images is nothing more than a fools errand. In a word it's just crap. Just a silly game. The bottom line is that you cant create details where none exists. Most of the "enhancements" you see involve increasing contrast and exposure either with film and paper or using a computer. When you do it by either method you are simply throwing things away and creating new stuff. Now this will not appy to say taking an original negative and making different prints at different times or contrasts to open up shadows. The limiting factor in this case is the original exposure of the film and how the dark tones fall on the threshold of exposure for that film. The same applies to original sildes. However doing this to copy negs made from prints or slides made from prints of other slides ia hopeless. Why? Because the original detail has been tossed out or changed.

The Moorman drumscan is the closest thing to the original that is in existance in digital form to my knowlege. It has made only one pass through a len/film system, and then on to digital form. The scan was created without any curves, sharpening or tonal adjustment being applied and as such it is linear in nature. Why is this important? Because any of those adjustments make changes to edge detail. Increase the contrast and the actual edge detail of a point in the image changes...in other words it moves from its original position to a new position. How can you make judgements on some detail in an image when what you are looking at has been changed?

Next lets consider the problem with the photographic copy and printing process. When you take a picture of a picture the resulting negative is different than the original photograph. This happens due to exposure, film curves, development, film type, grain buildup and sharpness losses cause by the copy camera lens. So right off the bat your copy is flawed. Details from the original get lost due to contrast build or loss, grain and lens softness. Now when we take that negative to the printing stage even more chages happen that take it even further away from the original. The person making the print has to make paper exposure and contrast choices both of which can throw away details that can never be recovered. You further add changes in the print processing stage when the the print maker makes even more choices on development time and processing chemicals. And finally we have additional image changes due to an additional lens in the system (the enlarger, unless the image is a contact print), possible focus errors by the print maker, possible plane of focus errors due to improper equipment setup and finally what type of light source was used to make he print.

So in the case of the Badgeman lets says that White/Mack used the UPI copy of the moorman. I'm not usre of the actual image they used...was it a first print from the original UPI negative? Or was it a print made from a copy negative of the UPI print which was made from a copy negative of the original Moorman polaroid? Or was the copy chain even longer?

In a best case the it was the print from the original copy negative the UPI made from the Moorman original. Even if this is the case, the image is different that the original. Details have changed due to all or some of the reasons stated above. In this best case they want us to believe that an area in the original moorman image that was about 1/69 of an inch or .368 mm contains enough detail to show "badgeman" and that this minute detail will survive the copy and print process multipule times. Never gonna happen.

And that assumes that the moorman lens/film/distance combo could even record the detail in the first place. I await some proof from the badgeman supporters that it was possible, but I'm not holding my breath that they can provide it. All the of efforts to do so to this date have failed.

So, is the image of hatman you posted really sharper and more detailed than the drumscan. NO! It actually shows less detail and what sharpness it does show is simply made up out of thin air by altering the print. In other words it is useless.

All of this is simply foolishness.

[Jack White]

As usual, Lamson is full of xxxx. He implies I used some sort of

underhanded manipulation to alter the badgeman image. That is

unadulterated crap.

As a "pro" photographer, surely he has heard of BRACKETING.

Most photographers practice bracketing to find the PERFECT

exposure. This is especially important in copystand work, when

as little as a half-stop finds the critical balance for optimum

exposure capturing the full range of tones between white

and black.

In all of my copystand work I nearly always included a 20-step

grayscale at the edge of the image for proper controls in

development and printing. If the grayscale reproduced right,

I knew the image would be right.

In copying the original image obtained from Groden, all I did

to bring out the best image was to BRACKET the exposures in

HALF-STOP INCREMENTS between F4.5 and F22. A contact

print of my original negative is attached. NO MANIPULATION

OF THE IMAGE WAS DONE. NO MANIPULATION OF CONTRAST

WAS DONE. THERE WAS NOTHING NEFARIOUS DONE. All l did

was bracket the exposures to get a good negative. To use

his favorite phrase, Lamson is just blowing smoke...out his

ass. Speculation is no substitute for research or truth.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

As usual, Lamson is full of xxxx. He implies I used some sort of

underhanded manipulation to alter the badgeman image. That is

unadulterated crap.

As a "pro" photographer, surely he has heard of BRACKETING.

Most photographers practice bracketing to find the PERFECT

exposure. This is especially important in copystand work, when

as little as a half-stop finds the critical balance for optimum

exposure capturing the full range of tones between white

and black.

In all of my copystand work I nearly always included a 20-step

grayscale at the edge of the image for proper controls in

development and printing. If the grayscale reproduced right,

I knew the image would be right.

In copying the original image obtained from Groden, all I did

to bring out the best image was to BRACKET the exposures in

HALF-STOP INCREMENTS between F4.5 and F22. A contact

print of my original negative is attached. NO MANIPULATION

OF THE IMAGE WAS DONE. NO MANIPULATION OF CONTRAST

WAS DONE. THERE WAS NOTHING NEFARIOUS DONE. All l did

was bracket the exposures to get a good negative. To use

his favorite phrase, Lamson is just blowing smoke...out his

ass. Speculation is no substitute for research or truth.

Jack

Exacty who do you think you can fool with this bullxxxx Jack? I'm sure there are some folks ignorant of the photographic process who might find your crap amusing or even possible but those with actual experience will find it for what it is. Bullxxxx.

For the record. Increases in exposure is manipulation. Contrast chages with copy and development of film. Contrast changes based on the paper/developer/processing time chosen by the printmaker. This is manipulation. The grain added by the copy process is manipulation.

Bottom line is that "bagdeman" is an alteration and no amount of bullxxxx by White will ever change that fact.

BTW, exactly where is that step wedge in this set of copies Jack?

[Ron Ecker]

Here's a theory on the Coke bottle. There was a black couple eating lunch and drinking Cokes on the bench behind the retaining wall. The evidence: Sitzman said that she saw them doing this and saw them run away after the shooting; and Black Dog Man (BDM), which suggests that this black couple (Cokes still in hand) moved to the front end of the wall as the president approached and thus formed this BDM image. (I believe that Bill has also stated that he has met or is aware of a relative of this couple who was behind the wall.)

During the shooting, including a shot from behind them, the couple ducked straight down behind the wall, which is why they are not seen in any photo. Then, as Sitzman stated, they ran away after the last shot.

Sitzman said they "threw down their Cokes" and ran. She said that she heard the sound of the smash on the walkway, but she may have actually heard only one bottle break. One of the Coke bottles may have been left on the wall, as the black couple, having risen from behind the wall, hesitated for a moment before deciding to get out of there.

Edited March 2, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[Robin Unger]

Here's a theory on the Coke bottle. There was a black couple eating lunch and drinking Cokes on the bench behind the retaining wall. The evidence: Sitzman said that she saw them doing this and saw them run away after the shooting; and Black Dog Man (BDM), which suggests that this black couple (Cokes still in hand) moved to the front end of the wall as the president approached and thus formed this BDM image. (I believe that Bill has also stated that he has met or is aware of a relative of this couple who was behind the wall.)

During the shooting, including a shot from behind them, the couple ducked straight down behind the wall, which is why they are not seen in any photo. Then, as Sitzman stated, they ran away after the last shot.

Sitzman said they "thrown down their Cokes" and ran. She said that she heard the sound of the smash on the walkway, but she may have actually heard only one bottle break. One of the Coke bottles may have been left on the wall, as the black couple, having risen from behind the wall, hesitated for a moment before deciding to get out of there.

Ron.

From memory Sitzman said the black couple were about 21-years old.

The image below shows the lunch bag still sitting on the bench, and standing in front of the bench is a young black couple. ?

The original black couple may be in that crowd some where.

Edited February 11, 2006 by Robin Unger

[Jack White]

As usual, Lamson is full of xxxx. He implies I used some sort of

underhanded manipulation to alter the badgeman image. That is

unadulterated crap.

As a "pro" photographer, surely he has heard of BRACKETING.

Most photographers practice bracketing to find the PERFECT

exposure. This is especially important in copystand work, when

as little as a half-stop finds the critical balance for optimum

exposure capturing the full range of tones between white

and black.

In all of my copystand work I nearly always included a 20-step

grayscale at the edge of the image for proper controls in

development and printing. If the grayscale reproduced right,

I knew the image would be right.

In copying the original image obtained from Groden, all I did

to bring out the best image was to BRACKET the exposures in

HALF-STOP INCREMENTS between F4.5 and F22. A contact

print of my original negative is attached. NO MANIPULATION

OF THE IMAGE WAS DONE. NO MANIPULATION OF CONTRAST

WAS DONE. THERE WAS NOTHING NEFARIOUS DONE. All l did

was bracket the exposures to get a good negative. To use

his favorite phrase, Lamson is just blowing smoke...out his

ass. Speculation is no substitute for research or truth.

Jack

Exacty who do you think you can fool with this bullxxxx Jack? I'm sure there are some folks ignorant of the photographic process who might find your crap amusing or even possible but those with actual experience will find it for what it is. Bullxxxx.

For the record. Increases in exposure is manipulation. Contrast chages with copy and development of film. Contrast changes based on the paper/developer/processing time chosen by the printmaker. This is manipulation. The grain added by the copy process is manipulation.

Bottom line is that "bagdeman" is an alteration and no amount of bullxxxx by White will ever change that fact.

BTW, exactly where is that step wedge in this set of copies Jack?

So...according to "Mr. Light"...ANY copying process is MANIPULATION. I have to

agree that EVERYTHING is manipulation. The original exposure itself is manipulation,

since every photographer MANIPULATES his camera by choosing shutter speeds,

f-stops, focus, etc. How does this general definition advance our understanding. NONE.

So this is totallly meaningless.

By the way, Lamson insinuates that I should have had a 20-step tone strip in

my badgeman bracketed exposures. As a photographer, he should know that

a SLIDE COPIER like a Repronar or Chromapro is incapable of including a

step-strip. The copies from Groden's slide (which Groden made from a Thompson

print) were made on a Repronar slide copier, which uses a backlighted strobe

exposure of constant intensity, therefore the main control ("manipulation") is

varying the f-stop to optimize exposure. The other variable is magnification, a

function of the bellows extension. The greater the magnification, the more exposure

is required. In this case I used 4X magnification, making exact calculation of

exposure even more difficult. Using the Repronar, it is always wise to bracket,

since otherwise the exact exposure cannot be determined without use of a

densitometer and magnification calculations. It is easier just to bracket, since

film is cheap.

Quit blowing smoke, Lamson. You may fool the uneducated, but not the rest

of us.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

As usual, Lamson is full of xxxx. He implies I used some sort of

underhanded manipulation to alter the badgeman image. That is

unadulterated crap.

As a "pro" photographer, surely he has heard of BRACKETING.

Most photographers practice bracketing to find the PERFECT

exposure. This is especially important in copystand work, when

as little as a half-stop finds the critical balance for optimum

exposure capturing the full range of tones between white

and black.

In all of my copystand work I nearly always included a 20-step

grayscale at the edge of the image for proper controls in

development and printing. If the grayscale reproduced right,

I knew the image would be right.

In copying the original image obtained from Groden, all I did

to bring out the best image was to BRACKET the exposures in

HALF-STOP INCREMENTS between F4.5 and F22. A contact

print of my original negative is attached. NO MANIPULATION

OF THE IMAGE WAS DONE. NO MANIPULATION OF CONTRAST

WAS DONE. THERE WAS NOTHING NEFARIOUS DONE. All l did

was bracket the exposures to get a good negative. To use

his favorite phrase, Lamson is just blowing smoke...out his

ass. Speculation is no substitute for research or truth.

Jack

Exacty who do you think you can fool with this bullxxxx Jack? I'm sure there are some folks ignorant of the photographic process who might find your crap amusing or even possible but those with actual experience will find it for what it is. Bullxxxx.

For the record. Increases in exposure is manipulation. Contrast chages with copy and development of film. Contrast changes based on the paper/developer/processing time chosen by the printmaker. This is manipulation. The grain added by the copy process is manipulation.

Bottom line is that "bagdeman" is an alteration and no amount of bullxxxx by White will ever change that fact.

BTW, exactly where is that step wedge in this set of copies Jack?

So...according to "Mr. Light"...ANY copying process is MANIPULATION. I have to

agree that EVERYTHING is manipulation. The original exposure itself is manipulation,

since every photographer MANIPULATES his camera by choosing shutter speeds,

f-stops, focus, etc. How does this general definition advance our understanding. NONE.

So this is totallly meaningless.

By the way, Lamson insinuates that I should have had a 20-step tone strip in

my badgeman bracketed exposures. As a photographer, he should know that

a SLIDE COPIER like a Repronar or Chromapro is incapable of including a

step-strip. The copies from Groden's slide (which Groden made from a Thompson

print) were made on a Repronar slide copier, which uses a backlighted strobe

exposure of constant intensity, therefore the main control ("manipulation") is

varying the f-stop to optimize exposure. The other variable is magnification, a

function of the bellows extension. The greater the magnification, the more exposure

is required. In this case I used 4X magnification, making exact calculation of

exposure even more difficult. Using the Repronar, it is always wise to bracket,

since otherwise the exact exposure cannot be determined without use of a

densitometer and magnification calculations. It is easier just to bracket, since

film is cheap.

Quit blowing smoke, Lamson. You may fool the uneducated, but not the rest

of us.

Jack

Nice try White too bad its such a poor attempt to save your ignorant butt.

Lets cut right through Whites bs and cut to the chase. He manipulated this image. His contact sheet offers the proof. By increasing EXPOSURE he threw away details until he had a NEW IMAGE that fit his needs.

And thanks for pointing out that this contact sheet is a copy of a slide which is a copy of a print which is a copy of (another print or) the Moorman original. It totally destroys your silly claim that this is "badgeman"! In other words, the details of the original Moorman in this 1/69 of an inch area has been changed beyond repair. IN other words....its notihng near what the orignal Moorman might have shown. Its simply a FABRICATION .

White, its been perfectly clear for many years that you are among the ignorant when it comes to photography. Its a real shame your mis and disinformation has spoiled the minds of so many uninformed folks for so long. You should be ashamed of yourself.

BTW, calculating the proper exposure based on the length of a bellows is a very simply math calculation. Its not difficult at all...FOR AN EXPERIENCED PHOTOGRAPHER. I'm not suprised you found it difficult.

Edited February 11, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Bill Miller]

I verify that Gary's statement is correct. We studied the Moorman image

for at least two years, with NO limitations on time. The statement is correct

that the three people identified are the ONLY ones we found, and despite

years of analysis, found nothing more of significance within the print.

Jack, thanks for finally putting Duncan out of his misery on this one. The work you and Gary Mack did pertaining to Moorman's photo was not only good, but it was "damned good!" You two did the responsible thing as researchers when you spent considerable time first trying to obtain the best prints available to work with, then you two spent considerable time studying those prints, and then as responsible researchers you two sought a reliable outside source to peer review and validate what you had found. For some unknown reason to me ... that process has become a dying technique by many in the research community.

I agree with Craig that the process you used was a form of manipulation to Moorman's image, but you are also correct in saying that anything you do in the process of developing a photo could be considered a manipulation. A simple example of this would be when one walks into a dimly lit room and turns on a light - he has manipulated is surrounding area by making things easier to see without changing anything that already wasn't there. I do not believe for a single minute that your Badge Man work was a creation of mere manipulation, nor do I think Craig is suggesting that this was the case persay.

At that time, in the early 80s, I believed the Moorman image to be entirely

genuine. However, since that time, I have come to believe that some alteration

took place in the area of the "Zapruder" pedestal.

Jack

There is nothing that I can see about the area around Zapruder's pedestal in the Moorman photo that isn't reflected in the Betzner, Willis, Bronson, and Nix images.

Bill

[David G. Healy]

Lamson dronned on....

Nice try White too bad its such a poor attempt to save your ignorant butt.

Lets cut right through Whites bs and cut to the chase. He manipulated this image. His contact sheet offers the proof. By increasing EXPOSURE he threw away details until he had a NEW IMAGE that fit his needs.

hmm, where have i heard THIS before?

And thanks for pointing out that this contact sheet is a copy of a slide which is a copy of a print which is a copy of (another print or) the Moorman original. It totally destroys your silly claim that this is "badgeman"!

Does that mean Gary Macks' silly "bageman" claim goes up in smoke? It was Gary and Jack that made the discovery, correcto-mundo, Lamson? You guys need to get your act together

In other words, the details of the original Moorman in this 1/69 of an inch area has been changed beyond repair. IN other words....its notihng near what the orignal Moorman might have shown. Its simply a FABRICATION .

keep going like this and those in the Z-film alteration crowd will allow you to do their work -- LOL

White, its been perfectly clear for many years that you are among the ignorant when it comes to photography. Its a real shame your mis and disinformation has spoiled the minds of so many uninformed folks for so long. You should be ashamed of yourself.

must be time for Lone Neuter gold star handouts... What institution did you say houses your work Craig? I think there's someone in this thread that has had that honor bestowed -- t'aint you

BTW, calculating the proper exposure based on the length of a bellows is a very simply math calculation. Its not difficult at all...FOR AN EXPERIENCED PHOTOGRAPHER. I'm not suprised you found it difficult.

this guys' a hatchet job for the anti-Zfilm alteration MALCONTENT crowd.

Edited February 11, 2006 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

BMiller wrote:

[...]

nor do I think Craig is suggesting that this was the case persay.

[...]

persay? roflmao -- baloney! Follow Lamsons' bouncing ball, if JWhites work re badgeman was a farce, so was GMacks!