The trouble with Badge Man

[Bill Miller]

"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 "

Why make another idiotic resxponse instead of just asking someone what their darkroom experience is?

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

I believe Gary stands behind he and Jack's study.

[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

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!

David...Lampoon's modus operandi is to use hair-splitting definitions

to confuse the unknowing.

If I crop a photo, he calls it a photographic enlargement technique.

If I use a long lens for magnification, he calls it alteration.

If I bracket exposures to get optimal tones, he calls it alteration.

If I increase or decrease contrast or brightness, he calls it manipulation.

If I use a strobe light to intensify lighting, he says I am changing the image.

All of the above are methods of properly studying photo images. To imply otherwise

indicates ignorance...or an agenda.

The unsophticated lay person is taken in by his "expertise".

Jack

[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!

David...Lampoon's modus operandi is to use hair-splitting definitions

to confuse the unknowing.

If I crop a photo, he calls it a photographic enlargement technique.

If I use a long lens for magnification, he calls it alteration.

If I bracket exposures to get optimal tones, he calls it alteration.

If I increase or decrease contrast or brightness, he calls it manipulation.

If I use a strobe light to intensify lighting, he says I am changing the image.

All of the above are methods of properly studying photo images. To imply otherwise

indicates ignorance...or an agenda.

The unsophticated lay person is taken in by his "expertise".

Jack

evidently Jack, he believes is film/photo alteration.... how quaint!

[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.

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!

David...Lampoon's modus operandi is to use hair-splitting definitions

to confuse the unknowing.

If I crop a photo, he calls it a photographic enlargement technique.

If I use a long lens for magnification, he calls it alteration.

If I bracket exposures to get optimal tones, he calls it alteration.

If I increase or decrease contrast or brightness, he calls it manipulation.

If I use a strobe light to intensify lighting, he says I am changing the image.

All of the above are methods of properly studying photo images. To imply otherwise

indicates ignorance...or an agenda.

The unsophticated lay person is taken in by his "expertise".

Jack

Who is trying to hoodwink the unsuspecting laymen here Jack? Why I think it would be you. Not only did you do EXACTLY what you said you did not do, you failed to be honest about it even when caught. Just like in the Apollo thread.

The world is on to your disinformation Jack, and it's made you look rather foolish and downright stupid. Its a shame. You should have stopped years ago before you became the laughing stock of the research world.

And btw, boosting exposure to blow out detail to MAKE NEW DETAIL is not "optimizing exposure". Its photo manipulation. That Jack is a fact.

Edited March 12, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Bill Miller]

And btw, boosting exposure to blow out detail to MAKE NEW DETAIL is not "optimizing exposure". Its photo manipulation. That Jack is a fact.

Craig, technically you are correct, but I think the difference lies in whether one is merely creating an image that never really existed or allowing an image to be better seen. I have taken many images and backlit them which allowed otherwise dark areas where nothing could be seen only to then light them enough to see what was really there. One such example might be a photo that is dark in the background and when lightened we can see the details of a wall ... it seems some autopsy photos may have been done that was if I remember correctly. I mean - even taking a negative and exposing it at different levels and then making prints is a form of manipulation if one wants to make a case for it, but the question lies "Did it only create detail that was not really present in the photo or did it help better bring it out?"

Bill

Edited March 12, 2006 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

Craig, technically you are correct...

[...]

____________

now who the hell cares whether he's 'technically' correct or not? Does one think alterationsist gave a damn if anybody found out about film alteration, after-the-fact? 40+ years AFTER the fact?

IF any film/photo alteration job was performed, it DID, in fact, THE job; the WC did not argue the SBT as baseless - therefore, any argument against Z-film alteration is a waste of time .... end of story...

Edited March 12, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

" now who the hell cares whether he's 'technically' correct or not? Does one think alterationsist gave a damn if anybody found out about film alteration, after-the-fact? 40+ years AFTER the fact?

IF any film/photo alteration job was performed, it DID, in fact, THE job; the WC did not argue the SBT as baseless - therefore, any argument against Z-film alteration is a waste of time .... end of story..."

David, I really do not know what goes through your mind .... your reply had nothing to do with what I had said to Craig. I also have to tell you that your comment makes absolutely no sense. You first state that "If" alteration was performed .... only to then imply that the alteration job worked. In other words, if there was no alteration performed, then how could it have done the job?

Bill

[Lee Forman]

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.

Thanks Mark.

Again, we devolve into something ugly and unprofessional here instead of making progress. It's absurd.

I wonder if enlargement techniques used in the traditional sense are any different from using scanners? But a scan of 'print' is already poor starting ground. Case in point is the attached. This was an original print. I was able to do much with it - and still believe there is a large resemblance between the man in Robin's enhancement [who appears to have quite a long rifle, IMO] and 'Pick-up Man.' And I still wonder if the man standing next to him might fill the bill for the young man seen by Mercer.

But, I guess I'll be wondering for awhile longer.

- lee

[Mark Stapleton]

Lee,

I agree. It's unfortunate that this thread has degenerated into name calling.

I have to confess I have little knowledge of the processes involved in photo enhancement. Fortunately there are some here with the technical skills. The original you posted is a good example of what can be done. I think your suggestion would be well worth trying if originals can be found.

p.s. Wouldn't Mary Moorman's family have the originals--or did someone buy them?

[David G. Healy]

Lee,

I agree. It's unfortunate that this thread has degenerated into name calling.

I have to confess I have little knowledge of the processes involved in photo enhancement. Fortunately there are some here with the technical skills. The original you posted is a good example of what can be done. I think your suggestion would be well worth trying if originals can be found.

p.s. Wouldn't Mary Moorman's family have the originals--or did someone buy them?

might call the 6th floor Museum. the Zapruder family donated one of the three original optical prints to the museum -- evidently when we, the American citizenry paid 16million dollars for the original - we forgot to include in the deal, the Z-film copyright -- how convenient... The Zapruder family still controls use of the Z-film imagery through their front, the 6th Floor Museum.

As for Moorman imagery, the 6th floor has that too! I doubt Mary talks to anyone without the blessings of The Sixth Floor Museum

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Thanks Mark.

Again, we devolve into something ugly and unprofessional here instead of making progress. It's absurd.

I wonder if enlargement techniques used in the traditional sense are any different from using scanners? But a scan of 'print' is already poor starting ground. Case in point is the attached. This was an original print. I was able to do much with it - and still believe there is a large resemblance between the man in Robin's enhancement [who appears to have quite a long rifle, IMO] and 'Pick-up Man.' And I still wonder if the man standing next to him might fill the bill for the young man seen by Mercer.

But, I guess I'll be wondering for awhile longer.

- lee

To be quite blunt here Lee there is nothing that even remotely resembles "professional" here. What is going on is wacko land.

This stuff is akin to the 7 year olds in the schoolyard seeing bunnies in the clouds....and just about as "professional"

"Photo enhancement" of 4th ot 5th generation copies of poor originals then scanned on who knows what? Please. Or how about seeing men in the trees in a many generational image scanned FROM A BOOK that still includes the halftone screen.

"Professional"? No ... delusional...yes.

[David G. Healy]

" now who the hell cares whether he's 'technically' correct or not? Does one think alterationsist gave a damn if anybody found out about film alteration, after-the-fact? 40+ years AFTER the fact?

IF any film/photo alteration job was performed, it DID, in fact, THE job; the WC did not argue the SBT as baseless - therefore, any argument against Z-film alteration is a waste of time .... end of story..."

David, I really do not know what goes through your mind .... your reply had nothing to do with what I had said to Craig. I also have to tell you that your comment makes absolutely no sense. You first state that "If" alteration was performed .... only to then imply that the alteration job worked. In other words, if there was no alteration performed, then how could it have done the job?

Bill

______________________

Come on now, Bill. If you were a newbie to this debate I'd grant your point -- what you fail to understand is this: I deal with probables, and what if. As I stated, IFthe film was altered, then it did its job -- simple! Your not going to suggest the Warren Commission didn't base their conc;usion on the Z-film are you? Did you hear any noise from the Warren Commission when the SBT was discussed? What other DP imagery did the Warren Commission discuss before their final report was rendered? What was their conclusion? eh? "LHO, the Lone *derranged, amongst other names* Gunman, did it!"

Edited March 13, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

"Come on now, Bill. If you were a newbie to this debate I'd grant your point -- what you fail to understand is this: I deal with probables, and what if. As I stated, IFthe film was altered, then it did its job -- simple! Your not going to suggest the Warren Commission didn't base their conc;usion on the Z-film are you?"

David, you never respond with anything of substance. To say "If someone altered a film, then it did the job" is a senseless statement. The only way anything can do its job is if it really happened. In other words there can be nothing that did its job if it never really happened. If you deal in probables, then you should know that without a shred of any proof of alteration, then it is not probable that anyone got away with doing anything, unbless of course you consider making you paranoid was an accomplishment.

Bill

[Lee Forman]

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.

Thanks Mark.

Again, we devolve into something ugly and unprofessional here instead of making progress. It's absurd.

I wonder if enlargement techniques used in the traditional sense are any different from using scanners? But a scan of 'print' is already poor starting ground. Case in point is the attached. This was an original print. I was able to do much with it - and still believe there is a large resemblance between the man in Robin's enhancement [who appears to have quite a long rifle, IMO] and 'Pick-up Man.' And I still wonder if the man standing next to him might fill the bill for the young man seen by Mercer.

But, I guess I'll be wondering for awhile longer.

- lee

To be quite blunt here Lee there is nothing that even remotely resembles "professional" here. What is going on is wacko land.

This stuff is akin to the 7 year olds in the schoolyard seeing bunnies in the clouds....and just about as "professional"

"Photo enhancement" of 4th ot 5th generation copies of poor originals then scanned on who knows what? Please. Or how about seeing men in the trees in a many generational image scanned FROM A BOOK that still includes the halftone screen.

"Professional"? No ... delusional...yes.

Understood Craig - and agreed. It is always best to start with as close to 'original' source material as is possible. Manipulation of a jpeg can often lead to dubious results.

Speaking as someone with literally no credentials at all - to whom should we apply to resolve the matter? I use a variety of pc programs and do what I can with what I've got. I did not personally scan the 'original.' I used a variety of interpolation tool kits, and enhancing using Adobe, HP Photoshop, etc, on the best quality images I could source. The source for this crop and enhancement was the .png drumscan.

So where would one go from here? What would be your recommendation? Is there a difference between using computer based programs and photographic enlargement techniques? How would someone improve on the quality of the image? I'd very much like the opportunity to see Jack's Badgeman myself - I can't get as clear an image. To my unprofessional thinking, he would have had to have been using a technique superior to the methods I was using, based upon what I am able to achieve. If that is the case, I would very much like to see a similar technique used on the fence by the tree, and compare the results.

- lee

[David G. Healy]

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.

Thanks Mark.

Again, we devolve into something ugly and unprofessional here instead of making progress. It's absurd.

I wonder if enlargement techniques used in the traditional sense are any different from using scanners? But a scan of 'print' is already poor starting ground. Case in point is the attached. This was an original print. I was able to do much with it - and still believe there is a large resemblance between the man in Robin's enhancement [who appears to have quite a long rifle, IMO] and 'Pick-up Man.' And I still wonder if the man standing next to him might fill the bill for the young man seen by Mercer.

But, I guess I'll be wondering for awhile longer.

- lee

To be quite blunt here Lee there is nothing that even remotely resembles "professional" here. What is going on is wacko land.

This stuff is akin to the 7 year olds in the schoolyard seeing bunnies in the clouds....and just about as "professional"

"Photo enhancement" of 4th ot 5th generation copies of poor originals then scanned on who knows what? Please. Or how about seeing men in the trees in a many generational image scanned FROM A BOOK that still includes the halftone screen.

"Professional"? No ... delusional...yes.

Professionalism? You'll have no problem posting, say a Moorman 5 study for your recently won convert will you, Lampoon ? -- why not post something with your expertise all over it? Oops, you have -- Nothing!

For someone bent on calling this 'whacko land', you sure spend a lot of time in the "schoolyard", checking the pulse of the troops and looking under your pillow every morning? roflmao!