Copy of Moorman photo needed

[Wim Dankbaar]

Here's a very large picture of Moorman (credit to Craig Lamson)

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/66990161/original

Copy it to your harddrive and zoom in on the badgeman area. You'll see that it's all completely consistent with treeleaves, light and shadows.

Maybe someone could cut and paste that area here from that picture.

The real clincher is when you draw in the sizes of the three "figures" (alledgedly Gordon Arnold, Badgeman and "Helmet man") so you can compare them with the rest of the picture. That shows irrefutably that the alledged figures are too small to be humans, unless they were kids, standing on a stool.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/moorman-drawing2.JPG

Note for example that Badgeman and Helmetman are supposed to be standing behind the picket fence, yet their torsos are aboved it up to the nipples. Anyone familiar with Dealey Plaza, knows that the picket fence is too high for that.

Also, "Gordon Arnold" is supposed to be standing behind the retaining wall, closer to the camera, yet only half of his torso sticks over the wall, his legs and waist hidden by the concrete. The retaining wall however is much lower than that. Finally, ompare the size of this "figure" with Zapruder.

How much proof do you want to accept thse 3 figures are not human?

I know, it's hard to accept something is not true, when you have believed it all your life, especially when the experts and the community said so. How long did we take to accept the world is not flat?

The question that intrigues me: Has Jack ever done this size analysis?

Wim

PS: What is "Go Frogs"?

Edited September 18, 2006 by Wim Dankbaar

[Jack White]

Here's a very large picture of Moorman:

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/66990161/original

Copy it to your harddrive and zoom in on the badgeman area. You'll see that it's all completely consistent with treeleaves, light and shadows.

Maybe someone could cut and paste that area here from that picture.

The real clincher is when you draw in the sizes of the three "figures" (alledgedly Gordon Arnold, Badgeman and "Helmet man") so you can compare them with the rest of the picture. That shows irrefutably that the alledged figures are too small to be humans, unless they were kids, standing on a stool.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/moorman-drawing2.JPG

Note for example that Badgeman and Helmetman are supposed to be standing behind the picket fence, yet their torsos are aboved it up to the nipples. Anyone familiar with Dealey Plaza, knows that the picket fence is too high for that.

Also, "Gordon Arnold" is supposed to be standing behind the retaining wall, closer to the camera, yet only half of his torso sticks over the wall, his legs and waist hidden by the concrete. The retaining wall however is much lower than that. Finally, ompare the size of this "figure" with Zapruder.

How much proof do you want to accept thse 3 figures are not human?

I know, it's hard to accept something is not true, when you have believed it all your life, especially when the experts and the community said so. How long did we take to accept the world is not flat?

The question that intrigues me: Has Jack ever done this size analysis?

Wim

PS: What is "Go Frogs"?

Like Lamson, Dankbaar is also fulla crap.

In 1989 when working with Nigel Turner on TMWKK, Nigel took a

comparison photo (attached) to compare with the "badgeman group".

Nigel parked his car with the rear bumper next to the picket fence.

I stood on the rear bumper and posed as badgeman. The late Larry

Ray Harris stood beside me in the hardhat man position. Another

researcher stood in the Gordon Arnold position. Nigel's photo shows

that the three figures discovered in the Moorman photo are the

correct size and in the correct location.

Which do you believe...the comparison photo or misinformation

spread by those who speculate instead of doing research?

Jack

Edited September 18, 2006 by Jack White

[Wim Dankbaar]

Well, at least Jack acknowledges that both Badgeman and HH man had to stand on an elevation, in his imagination a car bumper. Why would HH man do that if he was not even a shooter? He liked to expose himself to the public? Why would Badgeman do it? Great stability on standing on car bumper. His elbow leaning on the fence , right? Not to mention the sizes of these figures.

Secondly, let's face it, Jack's enhanced color picture is fictional and deceiving because in reality much less of "Arnold's" torso is above the wall, plus in the real Moorman picture "he" is much smaller. Plus he is not visible in any other picture of the knoll.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/moorman-drawing2.JPG

One of the serious problems of this case is that some "experts" are not capable of admitting errors.

What does "Go Frogs" mean?

Wim

[Steve Thomas]

Craig,

For those interested a downsampled and levels corrected copy of the drum scan 1967 Thompson copy negative of the moorman is available here for a limited time. The file is 16"x13" at 300dpi. It is saved in lossless PNG format and is 17mb uncompressed. The file image can be found here:

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/66990161/original

What is this?

Steve Thomas

[John Kennedy White]

Well, at least Jack acknowledges that both Badgeman and HH man had to stand on an elevation, in his imagination a car bumper. Why would HH man do that if he was not even a shooter? He liked to expose himself to the public? Why would Badgeman do it? Great stability on standing on car bumper. His elbow leaning on the fence , right? Not to mention the sizes of these figures.

Secondly, let's face it, Jack's enhanced color picture is fictional and deceiving because in reality much less of "Arnold's" torso is above the wall, plus in the real Moorman picture "he" is much smaller. Plus he is not visible in any other picture of the knoll.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/moorman-drawing2.JPG

One of the serious problems of this case is that some "experts" are not capable of admitting errors.

What does "Go Frogs" mean?

Wim

If HH man was a spotter/radio man, he had to be elevated. The shooter would have stood on the bumper behind the fence, instead of in front of the fence, to ensure safe flight. I'd like to see the configuation of the rear bumper of the car to see if it was large enough to hold a shooter...

The Arnold figure would likely not appear in photos given the alleged tone of clothing that would have blended in with the background.

I'm no sniper, but I would imagine that the arm positioning as represented by the badgeman photo would provide the right combination of stability and stealth that close to the target and the chance for quick flight out of the kill zone. Our sniper members could refute/confirm that assumption...

I'm thinking the frogs are the team nickname from the school mentioned in the first post to Jack.

Go Bombers!

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

For those interested a downsampled and levels corrected copy of the drum scan 1967 Thompson copy negative of the moorman is available here for a limited time. The file is 16"x13" at 300dpi. It is saved in lossless PNG format and is 17mb uncompressed. The file image can be found here:

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/66990161/original

What is this?

Steve Thomas

What is what? Care to explain where you are going with this?

[Jack White]

Well, at least Jack acknowledges that both Badgeman and HH man had to stand on an elevation, in his imagination a car bumper. Why would HH man do that if he was not even a shooter? He liked to expose himself to the public? Why would Badgeman do it? Great stability on standing on car bumper. His elbow leaning on the fence , right? Not to mention the sizes of these figures.

Secondly, let's face it, Jack's enhanced color picture is fictional and deceiving because in reality much less of "Arnold's" torso is above the wall, plus in the real Moorman picture "he" is much smaller. Plus he is not visible in any other picture of the knoll.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/moorman-drawing2.JPG

One of the serious problems of this case is that some "experts" are not capable of admitting errors.

What does "Go Frogs" mean?

Wim

If HH man was a spotter/radio man, he had to be elevated. The shooter would have stood on the bumper behind the fence, instead of in front of the fence, to ensure safe flight. I'd like to see the configuation of the rear bumper of the car to see if it was large enough to hold a shooter...

The Arnold figure would likely not appear in photos given the alleged tone of clothing that would have blended in with the background.

I'm no sniper, but I would imagine that the arm positioning as represented by the badgeman photo would provide the right combination of stability and stealth that close to the target and the chance for quick flight out of the kill zone. Our sniper members could refute/confirm that assumption...

I'm thinking the frogs are the team nickname from the school mentioned in the first post to Jack.

Go Bombers!

Correct. The TCU HORNED FROGS football team has the nation's

longest winning streak right now, is 3-0, and ranked 15th in NCAA.

Go Frogs!

Jack

[Jack White]

Well, at least Jack acknowledges that both Badgeman and HH man had to stand on an elevation, in his imagination a car bumper. Why would HH man do that if he was not even a shooter? He liked to expose himself to the public? Why would Badgeman do it? Great stability on standing on car bumper. His elbow leaning on the fence , right? Not to mention the sizes of these figures.

Secondly, let's face it, Jack's enhanced color picture is fictional and deceiving because in reality much less of "Arnold's" torso is above the wall, plus in the real Moorman picture "he" is much smaller. Plus he is not visible in any other picture of the knoll.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/moorman-drawing2.JPG

One of the serious problems of this case is that some "experts" are not capable of admitting errors.

What does "Go Frogs" mean?

Wim

If HH man was a spotter/radio man, he had to be elevated. The shooter would have stood on the bumper behind the fence, instead of in front of the fence, to ensure safe flight. I'd like to see the configuation of the rear bumper of the car to see if it was large enough to hold a shooter...

The Arnold figure would likely not appear in photos given the alleged tone of clothing that would have blended in with the background.

I'm no sniper, but I would imagine that the arm positioning as represented by the badgeman photo would provide the right combination of stability and stealth that close to the target and the chance for quick flight out of the kill zone. Our sniper members could refute/confirm that assumption...

I'm thinking the frogs are the team nickname from the school mentioned in the first post to Jack.

Go Bombers!

Correct. The TCU HORNED FROGS football team has the nation's

longest winning streak right now, is 3-0, and ranked 15th in NCAA.

Go Frogs!

Jack

WHY DOES THE FORUM SOMETIMES DO DUPLICATE POSTINGS?

Edited September 18, 2006 by Jack White

[Steve Thomas]

Craid,

What is what? Care to explain where you are going with this?

I think I see something sticking out over the edge of the concrete wall.

To me, it doesn't appear to be part of the foliage.

I wondered how you interprted it.

Steve Thomas

[Wim Dankbaar]

Okay this is the Badgeman area from that high resolution Moorman copy:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/badgemanarea.bmp

As you can see, there is no way near the detail that Jack portrays in his enhancements.

In fact, there is nothing that even suggest human beings in there, let alone the arms, faces , eyes , cameras that Jack wants to see.

Below I have once more drawn in the contours of the alledged figures:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/badg...areafigures.bmp

As you can see these contours (in a real high quailty Moorman copy, mind you) are no way near the color "enhancements" that Jack uses. But again, the most important clue is that their sizes do not match up with the dimensions of grown-up adults. Not only the height of Arnold is way too short, but the volumes of all three are too small.

Sorry, but Badgeman is in the same category as "Greer shot JFK". But there also are folks who refuse to accept the opposite.

Wim

Edited September 18, 2006 by Wim Dankbaar

[John Dolva]

If one looks carefully I think one can see branches criss crossing a possible figure wearing a hat.

I've taken liberties for sake of illustration and separated SOME of these branches and leaves on the left copy.

This would place the hat somewhere behind the fence. Is this scale OK?

EDIT: reply to below: I'm very happy for you, Wim. (I would have thought Zorro more apt.) Forgive me for butting in.

Edited September 18, 2006 by John Dolva

[Wim Dankbaar]

If one looks carefully I think one can see branches criss crossing a possible figure wearing a hat.

I've taken liberties for sake of illustration and separated SOME of these branches and leaves on the left copy.

This would place the hat somewhere behind the fence. Is this scale OK?

I have a great contact in Hollywood!

Oh yeah? Who's that?

Donald Duck.

[Dave Weaver]

If one looks carefully I think one can see branches criss crossing a possible figure wearing a hat.

I've taken liberties for sake of illustration and separated SOME of these branches and leaves on the left copy.

This would place the hat somewhere behind the fence. Is this scale OK?

I have a great contact in Hollywood!

Oh yeah? Who's that?

Donald Duck.

Say Wim,

how much did Donald pay you for this masterpiece of yours ?

Btw. this is the best shot of Files near the crimescene folks, save it as long as it is hot.

A classic IMO, and Mr. Whites and Macks Badgeman stinks compared

to this masterpiece of artistic impression.

Mr. White,Mr. Mack, I hope you forgive me.

Wim,

Edited September 18, 2006 by Dave Weaver

[Craig Lamson]

Craid,

What is what? Care to explain where you are going with this?

I think I see something sticking out over the edge of the concrete wall.

To me, it doesn't appear to be part of the foliage.

I wondered how you interprted it.

Steve Thomas

I'm sorry Steve, I don't play "lets guess what this blob is".

[Len Colby]

Craid,

What is what? Care to explain where you are going with this?

I think I see something sticking out over the edge of the concrete wall.

To me, it doesn't appear to be part of the foliage.

I wondered how you interprted it.

Steve Thomas

I'm sorry Steve, I don't play "lets guess what this blob is".

A lot of assassination "photo analysis" is like a Rorschach Test, what people see has more to do with their imaginations than what's there.

Len