Copy of Moorman photo needed

[Paul Choor]

Wow Craig,

That's a lot better then Jack's/Robin's (or whatever)!

Thanks a lot also in name of Wim...

Gr. Paul.

[Jack White]

Lamson as usual is fulla crap.

His phony DRUM SCAN is a clever hoax, exposed when it is

closely examinined.

Attached is a comparison of the BADGEMAN AREA of the

DRUM SCAN compared to the same area in THOMPSON

PRINT NUMBER ONE.

Enough said.

Jack

[Paul Choor]

Lamson as usual is fulla crap.

His phony DRUM SCAN is a clever hoax, exposed when it is

closely examinined.

Attached is a comparison of the BADGEMAN AREA of the

DRUM SCAN compared to the same area in THOMPSON

PRINT NUMBER ONE.

Enough said.

Jack

Hey Jack,

Why don't you post a full high resolution then of that Thomson print number one?

I'm very interested in a high resolution copy of that one and NOT just that small "Badge man" comparison....

Give us the full picture (and in high resolution! Not the low resolution that Robin posted before...)

Gr. Paul.

[Craig Lamson]

Lamson as usual is fulla crap.

His phony DRUM SCAN is a clever hoax, exposed when it is

closely examinined.

Attached is a comparison of the BADGEMAN AREA of the

DRUM SCAN compared to the same area in THOMPSON

PRINT NUMBER ONE.

Enough said.

Jack

Not quite "enough said" there Jack. Its pretty FUNNY that when the image in question was the SMITH copy YOU had created it was the best thumbprint moorman around. Now when it NOT yours...its a "phoney" and a "clever hoax" What a load of crap old man. You got your hand caught in the cookie jar and now you are throwing crap trying to cover your sorry butt.

We have been over and over exactly WHY there is no "badgeman" image in the original Moorman and why your "clever alteration" of a many generational copy of the moorman produced the hoax of all hoaxs...badgeman.

But just for the record lets lay it out once again.

First the polaroid film used by Moorman does not have the required line pairs per millimeter of resolution to resolve the detail Jack shows in his hoax called badgeman. There is simply no way to get around this simple fact. Ask yourself this question. If Jack can find the detail shown in his badgeman image then were is the simillar level of detail in the men on the steps or even JFK? The answer iswthe detail is not there in part because the film will not record that level of detail.

Second the Moorman polaroid camera, while having the better glass lens, was defraction limited when used to take her famous photo. If you don't understand why a lens can get defraction limited see here:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials...hotography.htm#

Now you need to understand just how much the Moorman lens was diffraction limited. You start with the film which was ISO 3000 which is very fast film (more sensitive to light). Then you factor in the amount of light in the original scene...high noon, clear sky, bright daylight. Then you calulate the correct exposure for the film speed-lighting conditions. For years photographers have used the "sunny 16 rule" to calculate exposure. It says that in bright daylight your shutter speed is 1 over the film speed at f16. In this case that would translate to an exposure of 1/3000 at f16 for the Moorman photograph.

The problem is that the Moorman camera did not have adjustable shutter speeds. It had only two, 1/100 second and time exposure. So to get the correct exposure the lens needed to be stopped WAY down. How far down? How about to 1/100 sec. at f64 1/2! That means major sharpness loss due to diffraction. My own tests of a glass polariod lens of the same type mounted on a modern view camera and exposed to a very high resolution digital imaging device :

http://www.betterlight.com

shows the loss of sharpness to excessive. The bottom line is that the Moorman lens/film combo simply did not have the resolving power to produce the fabricated image Jack White calls badgeman.

So how doi White get his "badgeman" image? Simple. He used a photograph that was many generations removed from the original and simply threw away (false, grain created) detail by over exposing the film in his COPY until he produced the image he calls badgeman. Badgeman never existed in the original Moorman polariod. Thats why Jack had to look at MANY different copy versions to find the stuff he needed for his hoax. The reason you will not find the "badgeman" hoax image in the Thompson drum scan is that its TOO close to the original.

Badgeman is the real hoax.

Edited September 17, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Jack White]

Lamson is the real hoax. He produced the alleged "drum scan"

of an unknown version of the Moorman photo. This electronic

image was then manipulated to introduce a "gap" where none

existed in the original. This is easily demonstrated by this

comparison with the earliest known version of the photo.

Jack

[Chris Davidson]

Lamson is the real hoax. He produced the alleged "drum scan"

of an unknown version of the Moorman photo. This electronic

image was then manipulated to introduce a "gap" where none

existed in the original. This is easily demonstrated by this

comparison with the earliest known version of the photo.

Jack

The blemishes that are circled in red, would they be in the original Moorman photo?

Or, is this version a dirty reproduction?

I notice what appears to be the faint outline of the fingerprint, yet the motorcycle windshield closest to Moorman, contains none of the fingerprint.

thanks

chris

[Jack White]

Lamson is the real hoax. He produced the alleged "drum scan"

of an unknown version of the Moorman photo. This electronic

image was then manipulated to introduce a "gap" where none

existed in the original. This is easily demonstrated by this

comparison with the earliest known version of the photo.

Jack

The blemishes that are circled in red, would they be in the original Moorman photo?

Or, is this version a dirty reproduction?

I notice what appears to be the faint outline of the fingerprint, yet the motorcycle windshield closest to Moorman, contains none of the fingerprint.

thanks

chris

Don't know, Chris. I would take a lot of study of all versions.

However, I can say that

1. Zippo copy was first copy made

2. Gordon Smith copy was last made

3. Any other copies were made in between these two.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

Lamson is the real hoax. He produced the alleged "drum scan"

of an unknown version of the Moorman photo. This electronic

image was then manipulated to introduce a "gap" where none

existed in the original. This is easily demonstrated by this

comparison with the earliest known version of the photo.

Jack

Nice try old man. Too bad your limited skill set is showing. Its always so much fun to watch you grasping at straws while your reputation lies in tatters the floor.

First of all "I" produced nothing. Tink Thompson had the drum scan made, I simply made copies that were sent to fellow reearchers, INCLUDING those who were on the opposite side of the Moorman in the street debate. The orignal negative still exists. Prints from this negative exist. Scans of the print from this negative have been posted on the web for years. And all of the images match. So either I "retouched" all of the copies of the Thompson thumbprint Moorman YEARS AGO, including "retouching" the original copy negative BEFORE it was even scanned...or this is simply a case of Jack being a poor loser and telling tales that are simply not true. However I am more than happy to review any and all studies that claim show the "retouching" on the actual drum scan file.

The tale of the drum scan is here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/drum_scan_gap.html

Here is a quick tutorial on drum scanning for those of you who dont understand the process:

http://photography.about.com/library/weekly/aa060203e.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_scanner#Drum_scanners

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dru...atbed-scanners/

The scan is not from "an unknown version of the Moorman photo" We know EXACTLY where it came from. The flatbed scan from the print version of this negative has been posted many times on the web over quite a few years, including many times at Jacks favorite walled garden..the JFK Research forum. Jack has also had the print from this negative in his hands and reviewed it during the process of creating his altered Moorman that he says shows "badgeman". He also made a copy negative of this print at that time if I remember correctly.

Given the fact that the drum scan image, while sharper since it has been scanned down to film grain level, matches all the other extant copies of the moorman in existance when it comes to the area of the pedestal, "retouching" is proven not to have occured. The drum scan of theg Thompson thumbprint Moorman even matches Jacks miserable 35mm copy and scan of the zippo when one takes into account the asevere image softness and massive grain buildup of the zippo. Even Jack's buddy Costella agrees that the zippo does indeed match all the other Moormans.

The bottom line is pretty simple here. Jack used a really POOR image (the zippo) to try and build his case that Mary Moorman was in the street when she took her polaroid of JFK. He was shown to be totally wrong on this count. However Jack is not intellectually honest. He has disregarded all of the evidence that his study was wrong and has NOW decided that the Moorman has been ALTERED to prove him wrong. Never mind that ALL of the Moorman images show the same thing...even his crappy zippo.

Its simply a case of an old man grasping at straws.

Edited September 18, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Bernice Moore]

Craig:

What you have stated in your posts, in regard to a few statements re Badgeman and Mary Moorman, appear to me to be in error..

Post # 19...Craig Lamson

""So how doi White get his "badgeman" image? Simple. He used a photograph that was many generations removed from the original and simply threw away (false, grain created) detail by over exposing the film in his COPY until he produced the image he calls badgeman. Badgeman never existed in the original Moorman polariod. Thats why Jack had to look at MANY different copy versions to find the stuff he needed for his hoax. ""

*****************************

Badgeman was not Jack's..find originally....

He did not use a photograph that was many generations away from the original...and did not throw away detail until he produced the image BDM..

Neither did he look at MANY different copy versions to find the stuff he needed for his hoax..

In 1982 KFK researcher Gary Mack noticed what he thought to be the image of a gunman behind the fence on the knoll in a Moorman slide copy given to him by Robert Groden...Gary then asked Jack if he could copy the image, enlarge and enhance it ....They worked on BDGM together..with Groden's input of the slide......

The image was later confirmed by computer photoanalysis at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Jet Propulsion Lab...

If you need corrroberation then you will need to email Gary Mack as well as Robert Groden.

***************************

" Quote" Post # 23..Craig Lamson

""The bottom line is pretty simple here. Jack used a really POOR image (the zippo) to try and build his case that Mary Moorman was in the street when she took her polaroid of JFK. He was shown to be totally wrong on this count.""

Jack did not need to use a really POOR image (the zippo) to try to build his case that Mary Moorman was in the street when she took her polaroid........

Mary has stated she WAS in the street , when she took her polaroid.....

She was interviewed by KRLD in 1997....The interview was originally, and kindly provided by Debra Conway.....

Moorman: " UH, just immediately before the presidential car came into view, we were, you know, there was just tremendous excitement. And my friend who was with me ( Jean Hill ) we were right ready to take the picture. And she's not timid. She, as the car approached us, she did hollar for the president . " Mr.President, look this way !

AND I'D STEPPED OUT OFF THE CURB INTO THE STREET TO TAKE THE PICTURE. AND SNAPPED IT IMMEDIATELY..And that evidently was the first shot . You know I could hear the sound.And."

Jones: "Now, when you heard the sound, did you immediately think 'rifle shot'..?"

Moorman: "Oh no. A firecracker, maybe. There was another one just immediately following which I still thought was a firecracker. And then I stepped back up on to the grassy area. I guess just, people were falling around us, you know.

Knowing something was wrong . I cetainly didn't know what was wrong. "

If you need further confirmation, then you will need to contact Debra Conway..

Within the assassination of President John F. Kennedy ""the bottom line is NEVER pretty simple here....""..

B..

[Lee Forman]

Within the assassination of President John F. Kennedy ""the bottom line is NEVER pretty simple here....""..

I have trouble with the Moorman. There are many areas which don't seem to make sense. Lucky for me I'm no expert.

a. vs b. is the one Craig posted vs one Jack posted in the past - looking at the face of the unknown man on the stairs in the red shirt - whom I believe would fit the description and the details provided by Hudson as the man that he was standing / sitting with -- Why is it so different?

The other insets are comparisons from the one Craig posted. Why is it that the individuals behind the fence have more relative to facial detail than the men on the stairs? Shouldn't it be the opposite?

I've often said that I believe the 3rd man on the steps to be a phony. The fact that the man crouching on the steps is all but invisible in the drumscan is troubling - especially since he is present in the original published copy of the Moorman.

I'm starting to wonder if the 3 men behind the fence aren't nonsense as well.

I don't know that I trust any version of the Moorman - but again, no expert here.

- lee

[Craig Lamson]

Craig:

What you have stated in your posts, in regard to a few statements re Badgeman and Mary Moorman, appear to me to be in error..

Post # 19...Craig Lamson

""So how doi White get his "badgeman" image? Simple. He used a photograph that was many generations removed from the original and simply threw away (false, grain created) detail by over exposing the film in his COPY until he produced the image he calls badgeman. Badgeman never existed in the original Moorman polariod. Thats why Jack had to look at MANY different copy versions to find the stuff he needed for his hoax. ""

*****************************

Badgeman was not Jack's..find originally....

He did not use a photograph that was many generations away from the original...and did not throw away detail until he produced the image BDM..

Neither did he look at MANY different copy versions to find the stuff he needed for his hoax..

In 1982 KFK researcher Gary Mack noticed what he thought to be the image of a gunman behind the fence on the knoll in a Moorman slide copy given to him by Robert Groden...Gary then asked Jack if he could copy the image, enlarge and enhance it ....They worked on BDGM together..with Groden's input of the slide......

The image was later confirmed by computer photoanalysis at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Jet Propulsion Lab...

If you need corrroberation then you will need to email Gary Mack as well as Robert Groden.

***************************

" Quote" Post # 23..Craig Lamson

""The bottom line is pretty simple here. Jack used a really POOR image (the zippo) to try and build his case that Mary Moorman was in the street when she took her polaroid of JFK. He was shown to be totally wrong on this count.""

Jack did not need to use a really POOR image (the zippo) to try to build his case that Mary Moorman was in the street when she took her polaroid........

Mary has stated she WAS in the street , when she took her polaroid.....

She was interviewed by KRLD in 1997....The interview was originally, and kindly provided by Debra Conway.....

Moorman: " UH, just immediately before the presidential car came into view, we were, you know, there was just tremendous excitement. And my friend who was with me ( Jean Hill ) we were right ready to take the picture. And she's not timid. She, as the car approached us, she did hollar for the president . " Mr.President, look this way !

AND I'D STEPPED OUT OFF THE CURB INTO THE STREET TO TAKE THE PICTURE. AND SNAPPED IT IMMEDIATELY..And that evidently was the first shot . You know I could hear the sound.And."

Jones: "Now, when you heard the sound, did you immediately think 'rifle shot'..?"

Moorman: "Oh no. A firecracker, maybe. There was another one just immediately following which I still thought was a firecracker. And then I stepped back up on to the grassy area. I guess just, people were falling around us, you know.

Knowing something was wrong . I cetainly didn't know what was wrong. "

If you need further confirmation, then you will need to contact Debra Conway..

Within the assassination of President John F. Kennedy ""the bottom line is NEVER pretty simple here....""..

B..

What I've posted is NOT in error, but what you have posted is.

And this ALL VERY SIMPLE regardless of the CT's attempts to make it otherwise.

First Mary was NOT in the street when she took number 5 and she has stated that fact. She has given differing accounts of the events that day like many of the witnesses... however science comes to the rescue...

Second the simple line of sight facts show Moorman was on the GRASS exactly where the Zapruder film shows her. Simple, elegant and FOOLPROOF fact. PERIOD. EVERY version of the Moorman photograph CONFIRMS this simple fact. Jack White chose the poorest version of the Moorman to use in his attempt to FOOL the ignorant....I guess that includes you.

Third, Jack and Gary DID look at every copy of the Moorman they could find during the course of the the badgeman project and JACK used a slide from Groden to make his badgeman alteration. This image was at LEAST three generations if not four away from the Moorman original and worst of all it was a reduction down to 35mm.. In fact he used the slide instead of the print it was made from BECAUSE the slide contained false detail not found in the print. A SLIGHT of hand by Jack that fooled many ignorant people...of which you must be one.

Forth, the image was not "confirmed" by JPL or MIT. There were some who THOUGHT it might be what Jack and Gary CLAIMED but to say the findings were'confirmed" is just silly.

Finally, Jack DID throw away detail in his alteration of the Moorman to creat the illusion called badgeman. He grossly OVEREXPOSED his copy negative to throw away highlight detail UNTIL he had the image he wanted. This is a SIMPLE fact.

Its also a SIMPLE fact that the Moorman camera/lens/film could not provide the level of resolution that Jack shows in Badgeman.

All of this IS quite SIMPLE, Jack has been hoaxing the world. Lots of ignorant people have fallen for it. You must be one of them.

Edited September 18, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Wim Dankbaar]

All of this IS quite SIMPLE, Jack has been hoaxing the world. Lots of ignorant people have fallen for it. You must be one of them.

*********************

This is probably bad for my poplularity here, but regarding "Badgeman" I'll have to agree to that statement.

It can be proven quite simply

Wim

[Thomas Graves]

Its also a SIMPLE fact that the Moorman camera/lens/film could not provide the level of resolution that Jack shows in Badgeman.

_______________________________________________________

Even though both Mr. White and I attended T.C.U. (Go "Froggies!"), I must say that I do tend to agree with this statement by Mr. Lamson. ("Circles of confusion" and all of that, if you know what I mean.....)

Sincerely,

--Thomas

(class of "71," Although I didn't graduate, at least my buddies and I went to "The Cellar" (it really is below ground level) very late one weekday night during "finals week" my freshman year. Talk about an education!

P.S. Texas Christian University's mascot is the "Horned Frog," a type of reptile that is indigenous to the Fort Worth area.

_______________________________________________________

Edited September 20, 2006 by Thomas Graves

[Jack White]

Its also a SIMPLE fact that the Moorman camera/lens/film could not provide the level of resolution that Jack shows in Badgeman.

_______________________________________________________

Even though both Jack and I attended T.C.U. (Go "Froggies!"), I must say that I do tend to agree with this statement. "Circles of confusion" and all of that, if you know what I mean.....

Sincerely,

--Thomas (class of "71," did not graduate... But at least my buddies and I went to Kirkwood's place very late one weekday night during "finals week." Talk about an education!

Ironically, several years later I gave Neil Armstrong a ride in my taxi in Scotsdale. Sorry Jack.

_______________________________________________________

Hi fellow Frog...

Let me first say that Lamson is fulla crap.

Attached is my original discovery of Badgman in Moorman. Lamson is

simply wrong about the resolving power of the Polaroid lens and film.

Lamson says I fabricated the image. But the actual facts: Gary Mack

discovered in a copy slide of the the Polaroid what seemed to be a man;

he asked me to copy it and see what I could find. Using a Repronar

slide copier, I used half-stop increments and made exposures from

f4.5 to f22 at 4X. The mid-range exposures turned out to be optimal.

Despite Lamson's ignorant ravings, the lens and film captured a

very crisp image of what has become known as Badgeman.

That the Polaroid captured the man reveals Lamson's ignorance.

Go Frogs!

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

Its also a SIMPLE fact that the Moorman camera/lens/film could not provide the level of resolution that Jack shows in Badgeman.

_______________________________________________________

Even though both Jack and I attended T.C.U. (Go "Froggies!"), I must say that I do tend to agree with this statement. "Circles of confusion" and all of that, if you know what I mean.....

Sincerely,

--Thomas (class of "71," did not graduate... But at least my buddies and I went to Kirkwood's place very late one weekday night during "finals week." Talk about an education!

Ironically, several years later I gave Neil Armstrong a ride in my taxi in Scotsdale. Sorry Jack.

_______________________________________________________

Hi fellow Frog...

Let me first say that Lamson is fulla crap.

Attached is my original discovery of Badgman in Moorman. Lamson is

simply wrong about the resolving power of the Polaroid lens and film.

Lamson says I fabricated the image. But the actual facts: Gary Mack

discovered in a copy slide of the the Polaroid what seemed to be a man;

he asked me to copy it and see what I could find. Using a Repronar

slide copier, I used half-stop increments and made exposures from

f4.5 to f22 at 4X. The mid-range exposures turned out to be optimal.

Despite Lamson's ignorant ravings, the lens and film captured a

very crisp image of what has become known as Badgeman.

That the Polaroid captured the man reveals Lamson's ignorance.

Go Frogs!

Jack

Once again White spews even more disinformation about his work. First his exposures of "badgeman" were GROSS overexposures. Take a look at the retaining wall under the "badgeman" figure in White's alteration of Moorman. There is simply NO detail left in the retaining wall, it is rendered as pure white. There IS NO DOUBT that White OVER EXPOSED the original slide to throw away enough detail to "create" badgeman. This is very SIMPLE...badgeman does not exist in Moorman. How do we know that? Because the Moorman camera/lens/film simply cannot resolve the level of detail shown in badgeman.

A few SIMPLE facts that Jack White CANNOT refute.

Modern day Polaroid 3000 speed film has a lp/mm resolution of 14-17 AT 1000/1 contrast! It is highly unlikely that the 1963 version had MORE resolving power and it is likely that it had LESS based on the the advances that have been made in film technology.

Tests done with the Moorman camera and tri-x film do not show the level of detail as the "badgeman" image. Tri_x film has a lp/mm resolution of 50-60.

Tests done with the Moorman camera and Vericolor negative film do not show the level of detail as the "badgeman" image. Vericolor film has a lp/mm resloution of 50-60.

Films with a much higher resolving power cannot match what White says is contained in the Moorman. And NONE of these tests were done with the Moorman lens being highly diffraction limited STOPPED DOWN to F64.5.

So unless Mary Moorman was able to BREAK THE LAWS OF PHYSICS with her super duper polaroid camera, what we have here is VERY SIMPLE...once again JACK WHITE shows his utter lack of photographic knowlege and continues to spew disinformation.

The simple bottom line is that the Moorman polaroid camera/film/lens could only AT BEST render a person at the badgeman position as a detailess blob. It simply CANNOT resolve the level of detail shown in the 'badgeman" alteration.

Edited September 18, 2006 by Craig Lamson