The trouble with Badge Man

[Ron Ecker]

I have two major problems with Badge Man, both having to do with coincidences. I hate coincidences. When these two are taken together, the odds seem prohibitive that he is what he appears to be (a man, whether or not dressed as a policeman, in the act of firing a rifle).

Coincidence number one is that Mary Moorman took her famous photo at the very instant that a muzzle flash was visible on the knoll, so that the flash is seen in what appears to be full bloom, not just starting or not just fading but a big white blotch, in the photo.

I don’t know much about photography, but I would be willing to bet that you could go to the knoll with a Polaroid camera and a man with a rifle, and take pictures of the man shooting all day long without once catching a muzzle flash in a photo. The timing would simply have to be too exquisite between the two human beings with the camera and rifle. But I could be wrong.

Coincidence number two is that there is in fact not one “muzzle flash” in the photo, but two side by side. There is a slightly larger one to the right (our right) of what is considered to be Badge Man’s muzzle flash. Other than the slight difference in size, they look like the same phenomenon. So how is one a muzzle flash and the other isn’t?

In fact, there are at least four of these “muzzle flashes” in the photo. There is a third one above and slightly to the right of the aforementioned second one, and there is a fourth over in the top left-center of the photo. How can only one of these be a muzzle flash, with all four looking virtually identical (varying only in size) only by “coincidence”? What are the other three?

Edited March 10, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[Jack White]

Ron..."muzzle flash" is incorrect terminology. When Gary Mack and I

showed this to computer scientists at MIT, they said it represented

a "puff of smoke"...NOT A MUZZLE FLASH. I am not opposed to your

skepticism...I am opposed to incorrect terminology.

Jack

[Ron Ecker]

Jack,

I stand corrected. There are at least four "puffs of smoke" in the photo, but only one is to be considered a puff of smoke. The other three, whatever they really are, are just coincidences.

Ron

[Bill Miller]

"Coincidence number one is that Mary Moorman took her famous photo at the very instant that a muzzle flash was visible on the knoll, so that the flash is seen in what appears to be full bloom, not just starting or not just fading but a big white blotch, in the photo."

Moorman took her photo in reation to a shot going off - just as Willis said happened to him ... this is not hard to understand IMO.

"Coincidence number two is that there is in fact not one “muzzle flash” in the photo, but two side by side. There is a slightly larger one to the right (our right) of what is considered to be Badge Man’s muzzle flash. Other than the slight difference in size, they look like the same phenomenon. So how is one a muzzle flash and the other isn’t? "

Unless someone else did it too - your examples look like the ones I did when I tested the images to see if they'd separate from the tree foliage. It is the turning up the contrast that has caused the other areas to become so bright looking. Because it was a B&W image to start with with limited color tones ... it is difficult enough to separate alike colors. Adding contrast only pushed the light pathches closer together on the intensity scale. Try this with any B&W image and you will see a similar result.

Bill

Edited March 11, 2006 by Bill Miller

[John Dolva]

"Coincidence number one is that Mary Moorman took her famous photo at the very instant that a muzzle flash was visible on the knoll, so that the flash is seen in what appears to be full bloom, not just starting or not just fading but a big white blotch, in the photo."

Moorman took her photo in reation to a shot going off - just as Willis said happened to him ... this is not hard to understand IMO.

"Coincidence number two is that there is in fact not one “muzzle flash” in the photo, but two side by side. There is a slightly larger one to the right (our right) of what is considered to be Badge Man’s muzzle flash. Other than the slight difference in size, they look like the same phenomenon. So how is one a muzzle flash and the other isn’t? "

Unless someone else did it too - your examples look like the ones I did when I tested the images to see if they'd separate from the tree foliage. It is the turning up the contrast that has caused the other areas to become so bright looking. Because it was a B&W image to start with with limited color tones ... it is difficult enough to separate alike colors. Adding contrast only pushed the light pathches closer together on the intensity scale. Try this with any B&W image and you will see a similar result.

Bill

Herer graysacale value 111 is where 'smoke' first is separated from other values below 111. All values above this to 256 are brighter.

The 'smoke' is surrounded by some of the darkest parts of the image. One reason why it stands out to the eye while in fact it is quite dark itself.

Edited March 11, 2006 by John Dolva

[Ron Ecker]

It is the turning up the contrast that has caused the other areas to become so bright looking.

Do you mean that you turned up the contrast only on the other areas and not on the puff of smoke, so that the other areas became as bright as the puff of smoke?

In any case, the four objects I referred to all seem to be the same phenomenon ("puffs of smoke"), only varying in size and shape (and originally, depending on how many you turned up the contrast on, in brightness). Seems to me that your contrast work does not explain these objects away.

[Lee Forman]

I would like to understand the process used by Jack White. Jack - Badgeman was the result of performing some photographic enlargement techniques upon the Moorman photo - is that correct? Who has the Moorman photo now - and why is no one interested in performing the same process for the fenceline by the tree? Robin Unger and I worked from the same source material - although Robin's enhancements were far superior to what I was able to come up with [attached]. In multiple scans of printed material, I was able to confirm what Robin had demonstrated, using a variety of sources - but again - not of the quality Robin achieved.

I see, a man wearing a Police Hat, with a rifle, a man on a radio, and another man with a camera wearing a hat.

Why isn't anyone interested in pursuing the same technique used by Jack to confirm Badgeman, and examine the grassy knoll shooter by the tree? Who holds the 'original' Moorman photo today? Isn't anyone interested in using the same technique Jack used on the rest of the photo?

This is baffling to me.

- lee

[John Dolva]

I would like to understand the process used by Jack White. Jack - Badgeman was the result of performing some photographic enlargement techniques upon the Moorman photo - is that correct? Who has the Moorman photo now - and why is no one interested in performing the same process for the fenceline by the tree? Robin Unger and I worked from the same source material - although Robin's enhancements were far superior to what I was able to come up with [attached]. In multiple scans of printed material, I was able to confirm what Robin had demonstrated, using a variety of sources - but again - not of the quality Robin achieved.

I see, a man wearing a Police Hat, with a rifle, a man on a radio, and another man with a camera wearing a hat.

Why isn't anyone interested in pursuing the same technique used by Jack to confirm Badgeman, and examine the grassy knoll shooter by the tree? Who holds the 'original' Moorman photo today? Isn't anyone interested in using the same technique Jack used on the rest of the photo?

This is baffling to me.

- lee

Lee, I would be very interested in repeating the process. Unfortunately is spite of requesting it there has only been posted inferior copies of the material used. Withourt the starting point it seems to me pointless

Another consideration with regards to 'smoke' is that the area marked red on the image I posted remains the main bright spot for a number of ramping up of brightness untill suddenly a large number of area are brightened. In other words that which illuminates the 'smoke' remains constant and then becomes the laerger area Ron is mentioning. So if it's smoke illuminated by the sun then there is a more solid object in the centre which is more illuminated, ie not smoke.

The other way to see it is that it is a small bit of sky glinting through a break in the leaves. This then makes the other illumination properties easily explained as corona or foliage illuminated by a point source of light.

[Bill Miller]

"Do you mean that you turned up the contrast only on the other areas and not on the puff of smoke, so that the other areas became as bright as the puff of smoke? "

I turned up the contrast equally for the entire image. If you'll just test this on another B&W image as I suggested - you'll see that some areas will brighten to a certain point while others will increase to a point of catching up to those that reached their limits. The end result is multiple places on the image that have the same intensity that did not start out the same on the original image.

"In any case, the four objects I referred to all seem to be the same phenomenon ("puffs of smoke"), only varying in size and shape (and originally, depending on how many you turned up the contrast on, in brightness). Seems to me that your contrast work does not explain these objects away."

On the Moorman photo as it is - Jackie's pink suit is the same color as the Dallas sky, not to mention other objects in the photo ... this is what happens to images with limited color tones to work with. Because they can all be contrasted equally does not mean they are all the same intensity even though they can all reach a point that they will cause them to appear that way.

Bill

[Jack White]

I would like to understand the process used by Jack White. Jack - Badgeman was the result of performing some photographic enlargement techniques upon the Moorman photo - is that correct? Who has the Moorman photo now - and why is no one interested in performing the same process for the fenceline by the tree? Robin Unger and I worked from the same source material - although Robin's enhancements were far superior to what I was able to come up with [attached]. In multiple scans of printed material, I was able to confirm what Robin had demonstrated, using a variety of sources - but again - not of the quality Robin achieved.

I see, a man wearing a Police Hat, with a rifle, a man on a radio, and another man with a camera wearing a hat.

Why isn't anyone interested in pursuing the same technique used by Jack to confirm Badgeman, and examine the grassy knoll shooter by the tree? Who holds the 'original' Moorman photo today? Isn't anyone interested in using the same technique Jack used on the rest of the photo?

This is baffling to me.

- lee

Lee...as I have explained dozens of times, I did not use "photographic enlargement techniques"

to bring out badgeman. All I did was simply bracket exposures. I did no darkroom manipulation

at all. It was simple in-camera bracketing, much as you might bracket a landscape scene for

best exposure. Here again are my bracketed negs.

On the fence area by the tree, I did weeks of work on that area WITHOUT RESULTS, which

is why you have not seen everything I did. It was INCONCLUSIVE.

Jack

[Jack White]

Lee...here is one of the studies I did of that area which was plausible,

but I considered it inconclusive. Like badgeman, it involves a PUFF OF SMOKE

coming from under the trees. Only a puff of smoke could BE IN FRONT OF

THE TREE TRUNK. Also, this "person" is to proper scale. BTW, this person

is in the location of one of the HSCA acoustics shots.

Jack

Edited March 11, 2006 by Jack White

[Lee Forman]

Lee...here is one of the studies I did of that area which was plausible,

but I considered it inconclusive. Like badgeman, it involves a PUFF OF SMOKE

coming from under the trees. Only a puff of smoke could BE IN FRONT OF

THE TREE TRUNK. Also, this "person" is to proper scale. BTW, this person

is in the location of one of the HSCA acoustics shots.

Jack

Thanks Jack.

I still see the same thing. Man in DPD type Cop's Hat, weapon, cloud of smoke. The image at left came from Robin's manipulation of an alleged 'drumscan' png file. The middle, a bookscan I did at high res - I think it was 4 Dark Days. At right is a crop from your study.

I worked with Robin's enhancement to the point where I still believe there is a very good resemblance between this individual and the man standing across the street at the pick-up truck later on. And using imagination - I'd say he matches the description at a minimum of 'Suit Man' seen by Ed Hoffman. Middle Aged, white or grey hair, black DPD hat, heavy set.

I wish I could scan the original directly, or have the opportunity to use the bracket technique you are talking about - I'm afraid I am clueless as to what that means. I am not an expert in photography by any means. It does occur to me, however, that the first time I was able to find your Badgeman image was with the scan performed on the 4 Dark Days Moorman. However, it isn't good enough usinmg that technique to replicate the quality you have reached. This is why I was asking. I think that another study should be made of the fenceline. If Robin can get that kind of quality from a scan, then I wonder about the difference in quality in using other techniques on the original. For example, a 2400dpi scan of just the fenceline area. Of use of an enlarger, with the original as the negative.

- lee

Lee...here is one of the studies I did of that area which was plausible,

but I considered it inconclusive. Like badgeman, it involves a PUFF OF SMOKE

coming from under the trees. Only a puff of smoke could BE IN FRONT OF

THE TREE TRUNK. Also, this "person" is to proper scale. BTW, this person

is in the location of one of the HSCA acoustics shots.

Jack

Thanks Jack.

I still see the same thing. Man in DPD type Cop's Hat, weapon, cloud of smoke. The image at left came from Robin's manipulation of an alleged 'drumscan' png file. The middle, a bookscan I did at high res - I think it was 4 Dark Days. At right is a crop from your study.

I worked with Robin's enhancement to the point where I still believe there is a very good resemblance between this individual and the man standing across the street at the pick-up truck later on. And using some imagination - I'd say he matches the description at a minimum of 'Suit Man' seen by Ed Hoffman. Middle Aged, white or grey hair, black DPD hat, heavy set.

I wish I could scan the original directly, or have the opportunity to use the bracket technique you are talking about - I'm afraid I am clueless as to what that means. I am not an expert in photography by any means. It does occur to me, however, that the first time I was able to find your Badgeman image was with the scan performed on the 4 Dark Days Moorman. However, it isn't good enough usinmg that technique to replicate the quality you have reached. This is why I was asking. I think that another study should be made of the fenceline. If Robin can get that kind of quality from a scan, then I wonder about the difference in quality in using other techniques on the original. For example, a 2400dpi scan of just the fenceline area. Of use of an enlarger, with the original as the negative.

- lee

[Craig Lamson]

I would like to understand the process used by Jack White. Jack - Badgeman was the result of performing some photographic enlargement techniques upon the Moorman photo - is that correct? Who has the Moorman photo now - and why is no one interested in performing the same process for the fenceline by the tree? Robin Unger and I worked from the same source material - although Robin's enhancements were far superior to what I was able to come up with [attached]. In multiple scans of printed material, I was able to confirm what Robin had demonstrated, using a variety of sources - but again - not of the quality Robin achieved.

I see, a man wearing a Police Hat, with a rifle, a man on a radio, and another man with a camera wearing a hat.

Why isn't anyone interested in pursuing the same technique used by Jack to confirm Badgeman, and examine the grassy knoll shooter by the tree? Who holds the 'original' Moorman photo today? Isn't anyone interested in using the same technique Jack used on the rest of the photo?

This is baffling to me.

- lee

Lee...as I have explained dozens of times, I did not use "photographic enlargement techniques"

to bring out badgeman. All I did was simply bracket exposures. I did no darkroom manipulation

at all. It was simple in-camera bracketing, much as you might bracket a landscape scene for

best exposure. Here again are my bracketed negs.

On the fence area by the tree, I did weeks of work on that area WITHOUT RESULTS, which

is why you have not seen everything I did. It was INCONCLUSIVE.

Jack

What a line of crap Jack. "badgeman' is about .3mm on the original moorman polaroid. You post some exposures that show that area of the moorman at 24mm x 36mm and you tell the world that you did not use "photographic enlargment techniques"? ROFLMAO!

Now that is just pure disinformation...or pure bullxxxx. You choose.

Edited March 11, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

I would like to understand the process used by Jack White. Jack - Badgeman was the result of performing some photographic enlargement techniques upon the Moorman photo - is that correct? Who has the Moorman photo now - and why is no one interested in performing the same process for the fenceline by the tree? Robin Unger and I worked from the same source material - although Robin's enhancements were far superior to what I was able to come up with [attached]. In multiple scans of printed material, I was able to confirm what Robin had demonstrated, using a variety of sources - but again - not of the quality Robin achieved.

I see, a man wearing a Police Hat, with a rifle, a man on a radio, and another man with a camera wearing a hat.

Why isn't anyone interested in pursuing the same technique used by Jack to confirm Badgeman, and examine the grassy knoll shooter by the tree? Who holds the 'original' Moorman photo today? Isn't anyone interested in using the same technique Jack used on the rest of the photo?

This is baffling to me.

- lee

Lee...as I have explained dozens of times, I did not use "photographic enlargement techniques"

to bring out badgeman. All I did was simply bracket exposures. I did no darkroom manipulation

at all. It was simple in-camera bracketing, much as you might bracket a landscape scene for

best exposure. Here again are my bracketed negs.

On the fence area by the tree, I did weeks of work on that area WITHOUT RESULTS, which

is why you have not seen everything I did. It was INCONCLUSIVE.

Jack

What a line of crap Jack. "badgeman' is about .3mm on the original moorman polaroid. You post some exposures that show that area of the moorman at 24mm x 36mm and you tell the world that you did not use "photographic enlargment techniques"? ROFLMAO!

Now that is just pure disinformation...or pure bullxxxx. You choose.

looks like the old WANKER-yanker found a way out of the snow - hopefully he'll be able to follow the bouncing ball and read the entire thread -- hell, we don't even know if this guy owns a camera, much less has "darkroom experience"..... that's okay

Oh, what's GaryM have to say about Badgeman these day's?

Been reading the Zavada report lately? LOL!

[Mark Stapleton]

FWIW, I think Lee Forman's idea about another scan of the fenceline might be worth trying. There's nothing to lose and it might yield something.