Craig Lamson Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 (edited) what IS a blob made of?Here are some parts of a discussion that seems to indicate the use of 'grain' is inappropriate. Could someone who understands this explain in laypersons please? It seems to me 'resolution' is better, and with these digital copies, how much of the polaroids original resolution is in one pixel of the posted image? http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/update...y/m31-001.shtml The emulsion carries no useful information on scales smaller >>than the grain size. Yes effective image grain size and the >>silver halide crystal size are two different things. Usually >>with photo emulsions you are never looking at the actual >>individual crystal scale, even when you enlarge beyond the point >>of evident grain. The "grain" we usually mean - and presumably >>the also the grain referred to in the JSE paper - is the >>structure made by quite large clumps and filaments of silver >>halide particles. But this is the effective limit of resolution >>for images. And I don't think you can talk in terms of a >>"mosaic" at this scale, this is a three-dimensional random >>suspension with clumps of varying sizes all over the place, >>shadowing one another. This structure is the film noise level, >>like radio static. Below the nominal grain scale signal >>information is surely irrecoverable, not because it isn't >>"there" in some sense but just because you can't distinguish it >>from the random noise background. Indefinitely enlarging the >>scale will not pull the signal out of the noise; it will amplify >>the noise. ........... >I mostly agree with this, but just want to clarify the concept >of resolution a bit more. There are various types of resolution. >Usually it refers to the minimum distance between two things >such that they can still be discerned as separate instead of ............. Bob Shell then commented that strictly speaking these old >B&W Polaroids don't have any film grain, because the image is >transferred from the original photo paper to the print when you >pull the picture out of the camera. I'll take his word for it, >but even if they strictly don't have silver-halide grain, they >do have an ultimate resolution to them, and it seems to be good >enough to make out a suspension thread, even a low-contrast one, >as in my experiment. .............. An experiment with the same model Polaroid would be valuable, if the camera and film packs are still available anywhere. I know early investigators did reconstructions and tests with models using the same type camera but I'm not aware of the results of any microscopic searches for threads etc on such reconstructions using models. A test to compare with the JSE digital scan result would be ideal. (Of course there's still always the possibility that the "originals" are in fact first gen Polaroid copies of retouched prints. I don't know how you'd go about ruling this ----------------- "This structure is the film noise level, like radio static. Below the nominal grain scale signal information is surely irrecoverable, not because it isn't "there" in some sense but just because you can't distinguish it from the random noise background. Indefinitely enlarging the scale will not pull the signal out of the noise; it will amplify the noise." "strictly speaking these old B&W Polaroids don't have any film grain, because the image is transferred from the original photo paper to the print when you pull the picture out of the camera." These two quotes perhaps get to the point. I can understand the first one, but would like to know how big an area to look at in order to have less of the 'noise' contributing to what's really 'there'. I dont understand what the second one means in practical terms. out?) John, Sorry I missed your post. I'll attempt to answer your questions. First film grain varys in size depending on the filmstock. Some films are very fine grained like the new Kodax t-max films. Others have larger grains like the old Kodak Tri-x films. To further complicate things when you get to color films you have dye layers and dye clouds to muddy up the waters. But a general rule of thumb is that the slower the film speed the smaller and tighter the grain. When you take a negative and make a print in an enlarger some of the grain noise gets filtered out by the lens and somewhat by the paper...all lenses no matter how high the quality will degrade the sharpness of the image. It gets even more complicated if you are using lenses that are non aprochromatic...meaning that they focus the colors of light at different planes. THe bottom line is that the print is never as sharp as the negative. When you scan a negative with a common flatbed scanner it also filters out some of the grain noise, partly because most scanenrs have a lens and also because most scanners use a diffuse light source to illuminate the neg being scanned. When you scan a negative with a drum scanner you actually increase the appearence of film grain because the light source is highly directional and it casts "shadows" from the grain crystals. Nothing can match the sharpness of a drum scan, but, depending on the resolution selected, a drum scan will really show the grain. A side note: Drum scans were the standard method of taking a film based image (usually a transparency) and converting it to digital form for ues in offset printing. As a rule we photographers used the largest film size reasonablly possibe to keep the degree of enlargement(and therefore grain noise) as small as possible. Nowdays the professional photography world is mostly digital and the current crop of digital is so good in regards to no film grain (and the digital equal...color noise) that we are using small camers in place of the bigger ones an actuall seeing an increase in the resolution. We are finding that much of what we thought of as "detail" with scanned film was actually just grain noise. Polaroid prints are grain free. As a professional advertising photographer I used polaroid film BY THE CASE LOT as a proofing medium during the film days. It was not uncommon to shoot 15-20 sheets of polaroid film before ever shooting real film on a big shot...just because it was the only way to check lighting and composition and to get client approval. Notice I did not include checking focus. The reason is that the nature of a polaroid print (peel apart films) is such that the image itself is not sharp and crisp. Its comprised of what I will call silver "clumps"...the print looks ok at arms length but put it under a loupe and it is worthless. Resolution is generally considered the ability to resolve two distinct items. It is generally tested by photographing a USAF resolution test chart with a lens/lims combination and then counting the number of line pairs the lens/film can resolve . It is possible to test a lens or a film alone and arrive at a resolution figure. However the only way to arrive at a figre for a lens/film combination is to test them together. Resolution testing of a len/film combo is almost always higher that real world results for two main reasions. Fisrt high contrast is generally used for testing. Real world is much lower contrast and lower resolution. Second, most real world photography is done with a camera hand held as opposed to being on a tripod. Hand holding robs resolution. One of the suprises we professional photographers found when we went digital (along with our new found ability to pixel peep...view our images at very high magnification onscreen) is that the old rules of thumb for safe hand holding shutter speeds were all wrong. The pro photographer forums are full of posts from photographers upset with the soft images they are getting with their new $10,000 digital cameras...all because they are hand holding their cameras. The bottom line: If the lens/film does not have the resolving power the subect (badgeman) will not berecored on the film with visable detail. Every pass through a lens will degrade the image even further...camera lens-copy camera lens-enlarger lens-copy camera lens-copy camera lens-enlarger-copy camera lens-copy camera lens. Every copy negative or slide will impart new film grain noise to the image. For example the film grain we see in the drumscan moorman is not from the actual moorman print but rather the film the copy was made with. Everytime you dupe the film or make another copy you add new grain on top of the old. Edited September 19, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 Every copy negative or slide will impart new film grain noise to the image. For example the film grain we see in the drumscan moorman is not from the actual moorman print but rather the film the copy was made with. Everytime you dupe the film or make another copy you add new grain on top of the old. John, This was a point I attempted to drive home in a Zfilm altreration thread. Below is a link to a web page showing some examples of what Craig has just stated. Bill Miller http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/students...tometric6.jhtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Craig Lamson Today, 04:19 PM Post #55 Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 533 Joined: 15-November 04 Member No.: 1913 Bernice, Take or leave my remarks, I really don't care, but please dont tell us you deal in facts and evidence because it is clear from your post that you do not. You deal with things from the perspective of your worldview...period. I know the history of the "badgman" fraud very well...in depth if you will. It's nothing but pure poppycock. You believe it because it FITS YOUR WORLDVIEW. Cut through all of the crap and ct garbage and lies and ONE SIMPLE FACT REMAINS and this SIMPLE FACT cannot be challenged...the MOORMAN CAMERA/LENS/FILM did not have the required resolution to produce the fradulent image known as "badgeman" The image known as "badgeman" is simply an artifact created from repeated copying and them additional alteration by Jack White. Those are the simple facts, everything else is PURE BULLxxxx. Now it is plain to see you are ignorant of these simple facts. Should you deside to live your life in ignorance, fine by me. However your ignorance, nor the ignorance of those who believe in the fraud that is known as badgeman CANNOT ERASE THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE MOORMAN CAMERA/LENS/FILM (and a handheld...panning camera/lens/film at that) IS UNABLE TO RECORD THE DETAIL FOUND IN THE FRAUDLENT BADGEMAN IMAGE. And that is the SIMPLE FACT. Try your BS on someone else.. ""P.S. By the way, nice "selective" quoting in your post. It was so nice to see you leave out the parts that trash the badgeman works..... This post has been edited by Craig Lamson: Today, 04:22 PM"" ********************* Craig: You protest to much. Isn't it interesting how worked up you can get when someone disagrees? If the camera had had sufficient resolution power, there would be no doubt, one way or the other. Because it did not, to provide a clear image of a person-sized object, there is controversy. Blurred images caught in photographs may constitute evidence. You present "your" world-view and then you become offensive and obnoxious when there is disagreement. On the other hand, in the past you...have backed up the fact that Zapruder and Sitzman are seen on the pedestal, filming, even though their images are extremely blurred.....?? I do wish you would slow down, and read more comprehensively, as you can reread below, I copied and pasted the information pertaining : Quote: " to read the documentation, the story of the BDGM""..end quote.....not someones after thoughts....the members do have the ability to make up their own minds, not by what Myers says, he did some years after the facts...nor what you nor anyone else tells them to believe.....it is expected that they are able to click the link and read all, I posted the story of the Bdgm studies....as I stated..below.. Quote: ""Perhaps it would be enlightening, to read the DOCUMENTATION, the STORYof the BDGM, and how all went down and came about....and the many studies, by many parties, that were involved through the years.....With reference numbers, working at site link..it is much more complicated than some apparently want others to perceive..."" ******************************* It is absolutely sad.......to read your post, in which you knowingly, and for the sake of argument, put yourself upon a pedestal higher, than the British photo expert Geoff CRAWLEY..as well as MIT....and ITEK.as well it seems of many other true researchers. ""CRAWLEY also shot 3D photographs with "his special camera" and made measurements to determine whether the MOORMAN camera lens could resolve an image clearly from that distance. "" ""CRAWLEY determined It could because Her Camera had a Glass Lens Rather than a Plastic lens available in similar cameras. .."" Gary Mack :2000,In defending the Badge Man theory, MACK often cited the work of British photographic expert Geoffrey CRAWLEY telling his critics in 2000, "Check out British photo scientist Geoff CRAWLEY's credentials, and then find someone who is better who can debunk his findings. He did the appropriate scientific work [60] and was satisfied the size and shape was consistent with a person at that position. [61] CRAWLEY proved that the shapes were consistent with the size and shape of real people at that real location as photographed with that camera. It was a classic, simple, scientific study. [62] That's the scientific corroboration Geoff CRAWLEY provided independent of what Jack WHITE and I found earlier in similar studies. CRAWLEY reviewed all of Jack [WHITE]'s work, including the negatives, and was extremely impressed with his photographic skills. We can't prove Badge Man was a shooter - the picture just isn't clear enough. But we did prove the object is a person [63] at or close to the fence. [64] Without that, there'd be no reason to continue." [65] http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_2.htm#42 "Check out British photo scientist Geoff CRAWLEY's credentials, and then find someone who is better who can debunk his findings."" Gary MACK, currently the curator for the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, seems to have completely backed off, his BDGM findings, as it was not mentioned in the last T.V. special .........as well as other findings, he did some great work before he obtained this position.... ************************************** P.S. I just read your newest post, and Meyers as we well know, from the past contacted Geoffrey Crawley, in 2001...though there is no written verification....as with Gary Mack, and Jack White, there is no written verification, there is verbal...as to his actual words.........Myers states that he , Crowley,did not agree with the findings presented within..TMWKK " Forces of Darkness" reiterated on Oct. 25/88.........But I gather he did not renege on his findings nor statements to Gary Mack and Jack White, in July of 1988.?? nor to his quote in an article Gary wrote in 1993..?? I do not know,but then again neither do you.. ""CRAWLEY took the original print and two extremely sharp 1963 prints back to England where MACK later claimed that CRAWLEY "duplicated Jack [WHITE]'s work using his own techniques." In a 1993 article, MACK wrote that the "Badge Man images passed every test [CRAWLEY] devised." [38] Five years later, MACK, offered a caveat, "Did Geoffrey confirm Badge Man? Not quite, for there just isn't enough detail in the original or 1963 copies to know with 100% certainty. But he was unable to conceive of any other explanation and found that the size, shape and clarity of both images were certainly consistent with two people in the poses and positions Jack and I measured." [39]"" You state in your posting, to me, " Try your B/S on someone else"........ You do not seem to comprehend, this is not my research......it is a small part of my studies.... The work, began and continued with a published photo from, David Lifton, to Raymond Marcus, to Josiah Thompson, to F.Peter Model, to Robert J.Groden, to Gary Mack and Jack White, to Gordon Arnold,(to Bill Miller, re his research on Arnold) , to MIT, Nigel Turner, pre 2001 statements possibley of Geoffrey Crawley, to ITEK,.....you are calling their work, and research b/s, not mine..many of these men saw what they thought was a shooter within the Moorman photograph...you wallow in your deliberate non-comprehension. And that is entirely up to you, but then again, you don't care, as you have already made very clear..and to return a wish..... "Why don't you take your LNr ,B/S and yada yada" B.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Thank you Craig and Bill, it'll take some re-reading and digesting. Later I'll start another thread just on this technical aspect for reference and will copy all this to there. My hope is to end up is possible with a guide to a benchmark at which to say 'this degree of magnification and interpretation has some validity, beyond this is too much looking at 'noise'. What I understand so far is that the number of times the image passes through a lens is more important than I previously thought. So knowing the history of any particular copy is very important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 (edited) Craig LamsonToday, 04:19 PM Post #55 Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 533 Joined: 15-November 04 Member No.: 1913 Bernice, Take or leave my remarks, I really don't care, but please dont tell us you deal in facts and evidence because it is clear from your post that you do not. You deal with things from the perspective of your worldview...period. I know the history of the "badgman" fraud very well...in depth if you will. It's nothing but pure poppycock. You believe it because it FITS YOUR WORLDVIEW. Cut through all of the crap and ct garbage and lies and ONE SIMPLE FACT REMAINS and this SIMPLE FACT cannot be challenged...the MOORMAN CAMERA/LENS/FILM did not have the required resolution to produce the fradulent image known as "badgeman" The image known as "badgeman" is simply an artifact created from repeated copying and them additional alteration by Jack White. Those are the simple facts, everything else is PURE BULLxxxx. Now it is plain to see you are ignorant of these simple facts. Should you deside to live your life in ignorance, fine by me. However your ignorance, nor the ignorance of those who believe in the fraud that is known as badgeman CANNOT ERASE THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE MOORMAN CAMERA/LENS/FILM (and a handheld...panning camera/lens/film at that) IS UNABLE TO RECORD THE DETAIL FOUND IN THE FRAUDLENT BADGEMAN IMAGE. And that is the SIMPLE FACT. Try your BS on someone else.. ""P.S. By the way, nice "selective" quoting in your post. It was so nice to see you leave out the parts that trash the badgeman works..... This post has been edited by Craig Lamson: Today, 04:22 PM"" ********************* Craig: You protest to much. Isn't it interesting how worked up you can get when someone disagrees? If the camera had had sufficient resolution power, there would be no doubt, one way or the other. Because it did not, to provide a clear image of a person-sized object, there is controversy. Blurred images caught in photographs may constitute evidence. You present "your" world-view and then you become offensive and obnoxious when there is disagreement. On the other hand, in the past you...have backed up the fact that Zapruder and Sitzman are seen on the pedestal, filming, even though their images are extremely blurred.....?? I do wish you would slow down, and read more comprehensively, as you can reread below, I copied and pasted the information pertaining : Quote: " to read the documentation, the story of the BDGM""..end quote.....not someones after thoughts....the members do have the ability to make up their own minds, not by what Myers says, he did some years after the facts...nor what you nor anyone else tells them to believe.....it is expected that they are able to click the link and read all, I posted the story of the Bdgm studies....as I stated..below.. Quote: ""Perhaps it would be enlightening, to read the DOCUMENTATION, the STORYof the BDGM, and how all went down and came about....and the many studies, by many parties, that were involved through the years.....With reference numbers, working at site link..it is much more complicated than some apparently want others to perceive..."" ******************************* It is absolutely sad.......to read your post, in which you knowingly, and for the sake of argument, put yourself upon a pedestal higher, than the British photo expert Geoff CRAWLEY..as well as MIT....and ITEK.as well it seems of many other true researchers. ""CRAWLEY also shot 3D photographs with "his special camera" and made measurements to determine whether the MOORMAN camera lens could resolve an image clearly from that distance. "" ""CRAWLEY determined It could because Her Camera had a Glass Lens Rather than a Plastic lens available in similar cameras. .."" Gary Mack :2000,In defending the Badge Man theory, MACK often cited the work of British photographic expert Geoffrey CRAWLEY telling his critics in 2000, "Check out British photo scientist Geoff CRAWLEY's credentials, and then find someone who is better who can debunk his findings. He did the appropriate scientific work [60] and was satisfied the size and shape was consistent with a person at that position. [61] CRAWLEY proved that the shapes were consistent with the size and shape of real people at that real location as photographed with that camera. It was a classic, simple, scientific study. [62] That's the scientific corroboration Geoff CRAWLEY provided independent of what Jack WHITE and I found earlier in similar studies. CRAWLEY reviewed all of Jack [WHITE]'s work, including the negatives, and was extremely impressed with his photographic skills. We can't prove Badge Man was a shooter - the picture just isn't clear enough. But we did prove the object is a person [63] at or close to the fence. [64] Without that, there'd be no reason to continue." [65] http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_2.htm#42 "Check out British photo scientist Geoff CRAWLEY's credentials, and then find someone who is better who can debunk his findings."" Gary MACK, currently the curator for the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, seems to have completely backed off, his BDGM findings, as it was not mentioned in the last T.V. special .........as well as other findings, he did some great work before he obtained this position.... ************************************** P.S. I just read your newest post, and Meyers as we well know, from the past contacted Geoffrey Crawley, in 2001...though there is no written verification....as with Gary Mack, and Jack White, there is no written verification, there is verbal...as to his actual words.........Myers states that he , Crowley,did not agree with the findings presented within..TMWKK " Forces of Darkness" reiterated on Oct. 25/88.........But I gather he did not renege on his findings nor statements to Gary Mack and Jack White, in July of 1988.?? nor to his quote in an article Gary wrote in 1993..?? I do not know,but then again neither do you.. ""CRAWLEY took the original print and two extremely sharp 1963 prints back to England where MACK later claimed that CRAWLEY "duplicated Jack [WHITE]'s work using his own techniques." In a 1993 article, MACK wrote that the "Badge Man images passed every test [CRAWLEY] devised." [38] Five years later, MACK, offered a caveat, "Did Geoffrey confirm Badge Man? Not quite, for there just isn't enough detail in the original or 1963 copies to know with 100% certainty. But he was unable to conceive of any other explanation and found that the size, shape and clarity of both images were certainly consistent with two people in the poses and positions Jack and I measured." [39]"" You state in your posting, to me, " Try your B/S on someone else"........ You do not seem to comprehend, this is not my research......it is a small part of my studies.... The work, began and continued with a published photo from, David Lifton, to Raymond Marcus, to Josiah Thompson, to F.Peter Model, to Robert J.Groden, to Gary Mack and Jack White, to Gordon Arnold,(to Bill Miller, re his research on Arnold) , to MIT, Nigel Turner, pre 2001 statements possibley of Geoffrey Crawley, to ITEK,.....you are calling their work, and research b/s, not mine..many of these men saw what they thought was a shooter within the Moorman photograph...you wallow in your deliberate non-comprehension. And that is entirely up to you, but then again, you don't care, as you have already made very clear..and to return a wish..... "Why don't you take your LNr ,B/S and yada yada" B.. No "protesting" Bernice, I just tell the SIMPLE TRUTH. The SIMPLE TRUTH, regardless of the pages of bullxxxx you care to selectively quote from the web and regardless of the "experts" you quote is that the IMAGE WHITE HAS CREATED BY ALTERING THE MOORMAN SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST IN THE ORIGINAL. PERIOD. FULL STOP. END OF STORY. Why? Because physics will not allow it. If you want to argue that the BLOB that is seen in MOORMAM is a person, fine, join the rest in this fools errand. However if you are arguing that the image White created was actually in the original Moorman, well then you are simply not intellectually honest. I'm betting on you being intellectually dishonest. I suggest YOU bone up on your reading skills because you cannot seem to grasp this simple fact. The Moorman camera/lens/film can not resolve the detail shown in the badgeman image. That makes those who say it can dishonest. Are White, Lifton, Mack et all wrong? Yes. If they disagree with my statement of FACT then bring them on. It will be as much fun as watching you squirm around like a worn on a fishing hook...trying to defend that which cannot be defended. You can't help yourself...thats what you get when you work from a position of ignorance. Truck on there Bernice, I love watching nutjobs in action. When you are ready to actually DEAL with the facts get back to me..... Edited September 20, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 (edited) double post Edited September 20, 2006 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 (edited) Craig Lamson Today, 04:19 PM Post #55 Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 533 Joined: 15-November 04 Member No.: 1913 Bernice, Take or leave my remarks, I really don't care, but please dont tell us you deal in facts and evidence because it is clear from your post that you do not. You deal with things from the perspective of your worldview...period. I know the history of the "badgman" fraud very well...in depth if you will. It's nothing but pure poppycock. You believe it because it FITS YOUR WORLDVIEW. Cut through all of the crap and ct garbage and lies and ONE SIMPLE FACT REMAINS and this SIMPLE FACT cannot be challenged...the MOORMAN CAMERA/LENS/FILM did not have the required resolution to produce the fradulent image known as "badgeman" The image known as "badgeman" is simply an artifact created from repeated copying and them additional alteration by Jack White. Those are the simple facts, everything else is PURE BULLxxxx. Now it is plain to see you are ignorant of these simple facts. Should you deside to live your life in ignorance, fine by me. However your ignorance, nor the ignorance of those who believe in the fraud that is known as badgeman CANNOT ERASE THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE MOORMAN CAMERA/LENS/FILM (and a handheld...panning camera/lens/film at that) IS UNABLE TO RECORD THE DETAIL FOUND IN THE FRAUDLENT BADGEMAN IMAGE. And that is the SIMPLE FACT. Try your BS on someone else.. ""P.S. By the way, nice "selective" quoting in your post. It was so nice to see you leave out the parts that trash the badgeman works..... This post has been edited by Craig Lamson: Today, 04:22 PM"" ********************* Craig: You protest to much. Isn't it interesting how worked up you can get when someone disagrees? If the camera had had sufficient resolution power, there would be no doubt, one way or the other. Because it did not, to provide a clear image of a person-sized object, there is controversy. Blurred images caught in photographs may constitute evidence. You present "your" world-view and then you become offensive and obnoxious when there is disagreement. On the other hand, in the past you...have backed up the fact that Zapruder and Sitzman are seen on the pedestal, filming, even though their images are extremely blurred.....?? I do wish you would slow down, and read more comprehensively, as you can reread below, I copied and pasted the information pertaining : Quote: " to read the documentation, the story of the BDGM""..end quote.....not someones after thoughts....the members do have the ability to make up their own minds, not by what Myers says, he did some years after the facts...nor what you nor anyone else tells them to believe.....it is expected that they are able to click the link and read all, I posted the story of the Bdgm studies....as I stated..below.. Quote: ""Perhaps it would be enlightening, to read the DOCUMENTATION, the STORYof the BDGM, and how all went down and came about....and the many studies, by many parties, that were involved through the years.....With reference numbers, working at site link..it is much more complicated than some apparently want others to perceive..."" ******************************* It is absolutely sad.......to read your post, in which you knowingly, and for the sake of argument, put yourself upon a pedestal higher, than the British photo expert Geoff CRAWLEY..as well as MIT....and ITEK.as well it seems of many other true researchers. ""CRAWLEY also shot 3D photographs with "his special camera" and made measurements to determine whether the MOORMAN camera lens could resolve an image clearly from that distance. "" ""CRAWLEY determined It could because Her Camera had a Glass Lens Rather than a Plastic lens available in similar cameras. .."" Gary Mack :2000,In defending the Badge Man theory, MACK often cited the work of British photographic expert Geoffrey CRAWLEY telling his critics in 2000, "Check out British photo scientist Geoff CRAWLEY's credentials, and then find someone who is better who can debunk his findings. He did the appropriate scientific work [60] and was satisfied the size and shape was consistent with a person at that position. [61] CRAWLEY proved that the shapes were consistent with the size and shape of real people at that real location as photographed with that camera. It was a classic, simple, scientific study. [62] That's the scientific corroboration Geoff CRAWLEY provided independent of what Jack WHITE and I found earlier in similar studies. CRAWLEY reviewed all of Jack [WHITE]'s work, including the negatives, and was extremely impressed with his photographic skills. We can't prove Badge Man was a shooter - the picture just isn't clear enough. But we did prove the object is a person [63] at or close to the fence. [64] Without that, there'd be no reason to continue." [65] http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_2.htm#42 "Check out British photo scientist Geoff CRAWLEY's credentials, and then find someone who is better who can debunk his findings."" Gary MACK, currently the curator for the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, seems to have completely backed off, his BDGM findings, as it was not mentioned in the last T.V. special .........as well as other findings, he did some great work before he obtained this position.... ************************************** P.S. I just read your newest post, and Meyers as we well know, from the past contacted Geoffrey Crawley, in 2001...though there is no written verification....as with Gary Mack, and Jack White, there is no written verification, there is verbal...as to his actual words.........Myers states that he , Crowley,did not agree with the findings presented within..TMWKK " Forces of Darkness" reiterated on Oct. 25/88.........But I gather he did not renege on his findings nor statements to Gary Mack and Jack White, in July of 1988.?? nor to his quote in an article Gary wrote in 1993..?? I do not know,but then again neither do you.. ""CRAWLEY took the original print and two extremely sharp 1963 prints back to England where MACK later claimed that CRAWLEY "duplicated Jack [WHITE]'s work using his own techniques." In a 1993 article, MACK wrote that the "Badge Man images passed every test [CRAWLEY] devised." [38] Five years later, MACK, offered a caveat, "Did Geoffrey confirm Badge Man? Not quite, for there just isn't enough detail in the original or 1963 copies to know with 100% certainty. But he was unable to conceive of any other explanation and found that the size, shape and clarity of both images were certainly consistent with two people in the poses and positions Jack and I measured." [39]"" You state in your posting, to me, " Try your B/S on someone else"........ You do not seem to comprehend, this is not my research......it is a small part of my studies.... The work, began and continued with a published photo from, David Lifton, to Raymond Marcus, to Josiah Thompson, to F.Peter Model, to Robert J.Groden, to Gary Mack and Jack White, to Gordon Arnold,(to Bill Miller, re his research on Arnold) , to MIT, Nigel Turner, pre 2001 statements possibley of Geoffrey Crawley, to ITEK,.....you are calling their work, and research b/s, not mine..many of these men saw what they thought was a shooter within the Moorman photograph...you wallow in your deliberate non-comprehension. And that is entirely up to you, but then again, you don't care, as you have already made very clear..and to return a wish..... "Why don't you take your LNr ,B/S and yada yada" B.. No "protesting" Bernice, I just tell the SIMPLE TRUTH. The SIMPLE TRUTH, regardless of the pages of bullxxxx you care to selectively quote from the web and regardless of the "experts" you quote is that the IMAGE WHITE HAS CREATED BY ALTERING THE MOORMAN SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST IN THE ORIGINAL. PERIOD. FULL STOP. END OF STORY. Why? Because physics will not allow it. If you want to argue that the BLOB that is seen in MOORMAM is a person, fine, join the rest in this fools errand. However if you are arguing that the image White created was actually in the original Moorman, well then you are simply not intellectually honest. I'm betting on you being intellectually dishonest. I suggest YOU bone up on your reading skills because you cannot seem to grasp this simple fact. The Moorman camera/lens/film can not resolve the detail shown in the badgeman image. That makes those who say it can dishonest. Are White, Lifton, Mack et all wrong? Yes. If they disagree with my statement of FACT then bring them on. It will be as much fun as watching you squirm around like a worn on a fishing hook...trying to defend that which cannot be defended. You can't help yourself...thats what you get when you work from a position of ignorance. Truck on there Bernice, I love watching nutjobs in action. When you are ready to actually DEAL with the facts get back to me..... ______________________________________________________ Craig, Although I totally agree with you on the inherent inability of Moorman's "camera/lens/film" to resolve a recognizable, detailed "image" of the alleged "Badgeman," I do think you tend to be rather insulting to those who disagree with you. Could you please possibly tone it down a bit? This Forum is replete with people who insult each other on a regular basis (in other words, please don't think I'm singling you out), and to tell you the truth, I think it probably discourages other members from contributing and also discourages non-members from even joining the Forum. I know that such behavior discourages me from making more "serious" posts than I have. Otherwise, please keep up the excellent work. Very informative! (I don't "suffer fools gladly," so I hope you can take the fact that I'm even posting this to signify not an insult but a compliment of sorts.) Sincerely, Thomas _____________________________________________________ Edited September 20, 2006 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 [quote name='Thomas Graves' date='Sep 20 2006, 02:16 PM' post='75333'] Craig Lamson Craig, Although I totally agree with you on the inherent inability of Moorman's "camera/lens/film" to resolve a recognizable, detailed "image" of the alleged "Badgeman," I do think you tend to be rather insulting to those who disagree with you. Could you please possibly tone it down a bit? This Forum is replete with people who insult each other on a regular basis (in other words, please don't think I'm singling you out), and to tell you the truth, I think it probably discourages other members from contributing and also discourages non-members from even joining the Forum. I know that such behavior discourages me from making more "serious" posts than I have. Otherwise, please keep up the excellent work. Very informative! (I don't "suffer fools gladly," so I hope you can take the fact that I'm even posting this to signify not an insult but a compliment of sorts.) Sincerely, Thomas _____________________________________________________ Hey Thomas: Glad to see you back. These words cannot be said often enough. Why can't people just have a civil discourse here? My best freind in Canada, Linda, looked at this forum last summer and was very put off by all the insults. She was just beginning to develop a tiny interest in this case- (after hearing about it for me since its inception)- but the flaming put her off. As I am sure it does others. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Craig Lamson Today, 04:19 PM Post #55 Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 533 Joined: 15-November 04 Member No.: 1913 Bernice, Take or leave my remarks, I really don't care, but please dont tell us you deal in facts and evidence because it is clear from your post that you do not. You deal with things from the perspective of your worldview...period. I know the history of the "badgman" fraud very well...in depth if you will. It's nothing but pure poppycock. You believe it because it FITS YOUR WORLDVIEW. Cut through all of the crap and ct garbage and lies and ONE SIMPLE FACT REMAINS and this SIMPLE FACT cannot be challenged...the MOORMAN CAMERA/LENS/FILM did not have the required resolution to produce the fradulent image known as "badgeman" The image known as "badgeman" is simply an artifact created from repeated copying and them additional alteration by Jack White. Those are the simple facts, everything else is PURE BULLxxxx. Now it is plain to see you are ignorant of these simple facts. Should you deside to live your life in ignorance, fine by me. However your ignorance, nor the ignorance of those who believe in the fraud that is known as badgeman CANNOT ERASE THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE MOORMAN CAMERA/LENS/FILM (and a handheld...panning camera/lens/film at that) IS UNABLE TO RECORD THE DETAIL FOUND IN THE FRAUDLENT BADGEMAN IMAGE. And that is the SIMPLE FACT. Try your BS on someone else.. ""P.S. By the way, nice "selective" quoting in your post. It was so nice to see you leave out the parts that trash the badgeman works..... This post has been edited by Craig Lamson: Today, 04:22 PM"" ********************* Craig: You protest to much. Isn't it interesting how worked up you can get when someone disagrees? If the camera had had sufficient resolution power, there would be no doubt, one way or the other. Because it did not, to provide a clear image of a person-sized object, there is controversy. Blurred images caught in photographs may constitute evidence. You present "your" world-view and then you become offensive and obnoxious when there is disagreement. On the other hand, in the past you...have backed up the fact that Zapruder and Sitzman are seen on the pedestal, filming, even though their images are extremely blurred.....?? I do wish you would slow down, and read more comprehensively, as you can reread below, I copied and pasted the information pertaining : Quote: " to read the documentation, the story of the BDGM""..end quote.....not someones after thoughts....the members do have the ability to make up their own minds, not by what Myers says, he did some years after the facts...nor what you nor anyone else tells them to believe.....it is expected that they are able to click the link and read all, I posted the story of the Bdgm studies....as I stated..below.. Quote: ""Perhaps it would be enlightening, to read the DOCUMENTATION, the STORYof the BDGM, and how all went down and came about....and the many studies, by many parties, that were involved through the years.....With reference numbers, working at site link..it is much more complicated than some apparently want others to perceive..."" ******************************* It is absolutely sad.......to read your post, in which you knowingly, and for the sake of argument, put yourself upon a pedestal higher, than the British photo expert Geoff CRAWLEY..as well as MIT....and ITEK.as well it seems of many other true researchers. ""CRAWLEY also shot 3D photographs with "his special camera" and made measurements to determine whether the MOORMAN camera lens could resolve an image clearly from that distance. "" ""CRAWLEY determined It could because Her Camera had a Glass Lens Rather than a Plastic lens available in similar cameras. .."" Gary Mack :2000,In defending the Badge Man theory, MACK often cited the work of British photographic expert Geoffrey CRAWLEY telling his critics in 2000, "Check out British photo scientist Geoff CRAWLEY's credentials, and then find someone who is better who can debunk his findings. He did the appropriate scientific work [60] and was satisfied the size and shape was consistent with a person at that position. [61] CRAWLEY proved that the shapes were consistent with the size and shape of real people at that real location as photographed with that camera. It was a classic, simple, scientific study. [62] That's the scientific corroboration Geoff CRAWLEY provided independent of what Jack WHITE and I found earlier in similar studies. CRAWLEY reviewed all of Jack [WHITE]'s work, including the negatives, and was extremely impressed with his photographic skills. We can't prove Badge Man was a shooter - the picture just isn't clear enough. But we did prove the object is a person [63] at or close to the fence. [64] Without that, there'd be no reason to continue." [65] http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_2.htm#42 "Check out British photo scientist Geoff CRAWLEY's credentials, and then find someone who is better who can debunk his findings."" Gary MACK, currently the curator for the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, seems to have completely backed off, his BDGM findings, as it was not mentioned in the last T.V. special .........as well as other findings, he did some great work before he obtained this position.... ************************************** P.S. I just read your newest post, and Meyers as we well know, from the past contacted Geoffrey Crawley, in 2001...though there is no written verification....as with Gary Mack, and Jack White, there is no written verification, there is verbal...as to his actual words.........Myers states that he , Crowley,did not agree with the findings presented within..TMWKK " Forces of Darkness" reiterated on Oct. 25/88.........But I gather he did not renege on his findings nor statements to Gary Mack and Jack White, in July of 1988.?? nor to his quote in an article Gary wrote in 1993..?? I do not know,but then again neither do you.. ""CRAWLEY took the original print and two extremely sharp 1963 prints back to England where MACK later claimed that CRAWLEY "duplicated Jack [WHITE]'s work using his own techniques." In a 1993 article, MACK wrote that the "Badge Man images passed every test [CRAWLEY] devised." [38] Five years later, MACK, offered a caveat, "Did Geoffrey confirm Badge Man? Not quite, for there just isn't enough detail in the original or 1963 copies to know with 100% certainty. But he was unable to conceive of any other explanation and found that the size, shape and clarity of both images were certainly consistent with two people in the poses and positions Jack and I measured." [39]"" You state in your posting, to me, " Try your B/S on someone else"........ You do not seem to comprehend, this is not my research......it is a small part of my studies.... The work, began and continued with a published photo from, David Lifton, to Raymond Marcus, to Josiah Thompson, to F.Peter Model, to Robert J.Groden, to Gary Mack and Jack White, to Gordon Arnold,(to Bill Miller, re his research on Arnold) , to MIT, Nigel Turner, pre 2001 statements possibley of Geoffrey Crawley, to ITEK,.....you are calling their work, and research b/s, not mine..many of these men saw what they thought was a shooter within the Moorman photograph...you wallow in your deliberate non-comprehension. And that is entirely up to you, but then again, you don't care, as you have already made very clear..and to return a wish..... "Why don't you take your LNr ,B/S and yada yada" B.. No "protesting" Bernice, I just tell the SIMPLE TRUTH. The SIMPLE TRUTH, regardless of the pages of bullxxxx you care to selectively quote from the web and regardless of the "experts" you quote is that the IMAGE WHITE HAS CREATED BY ALTERING THE MOORMAN SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST IN THE ORIGINAL. PERIOD. FULL STOP. END OF STORY. Why? Because physics will not allow it. If you want to argue that the BLOB that is seen in MOORMAM is a person, fine, join the rest in this fools errand. However if you are arguing that the image White created was actually in the original Moorman, well then you are simply not intellectually honest. I'm betting on you being intellectually dishonest. I suggest YOU bone up on your reading skills because you cannot seem to grasp this simple fact. The Moorman camera/lens/film can not resolve the detail shown in the badgeman image. That makes those who say it can dishonest. Are White, Lifton, Mack et all wrong? Yes. If they disagree with my statement of FACT then bring them on. It will be as much fun as watching you squirm around like a worn on a fishing hook...trying to defend that which cannot be defended. You can't help yourself...thats what you get when you work from a position of ignorance. Truck on there Bernice, I love watching nutjobs in action. When you are ready to actually DEAL with the facts get back to me..... ______________________________________________________ Craig, Although I totally agree with you on the inherent inability of Moorman's "camera/lens/film" to resolve a recognizable, detailed "image" of the alleged "Badgeman," I do think you tend to be rather insulting to those who disagree with you. Could you please possibly tone it down a bit? This Forum is replete with people who insult each other on a regular basis (in other words, please don't think I'm singling you out), and to tell you the truth, I think it probably discourages other members from contributing and also discourages non-members from even joining the Forum. I know that such behavior discourages me from making more "serious" posts than I have. Otherwise, please keep up the excellent work. Very informative! (I don't "suffer fools gladly," so I hope you can take the fact that I'm even posting this to signify not an insult but a compliment of sorts.) Sincerely, Thomas _____________________________________________________ After years of being trashed by those on the "other side" if you will, I simply have no tolerance nor respect for those who continue to deal in disinformation, regardless of their stance or position. Am I insulting? Sure, its how the "other side" taught me how to play the game. If this turns others off, thats really too bad but its a fact of life ... been that way for years. I return what I'm given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kennedy White Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Re: flaming posts I think saying "it's been that way for years" is a cop out. It doesn't mean things can't become civilized. It only degenerates if you choose to feed the ego wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted September 20, 2006 Author Share Posted September 20, 2006 (edited) Maybe Jack would also like to show us how people in the Zapruder and Nix film "come and go". Jack claims that Mrs. Franzen has dissapeared in Zapruder and replaced by another woman in Nix. it's part of the color section of "Murder in Dealey Plaza" Wim Edited September 20, 2006 by Wim Dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Re: flaming postsI think saying "it's been that way for years" is a cop out. It doesn't mean things can't become civilized. It only degenerates if you choose to feed the ego wars. Yea...right...whatever... I'm not holding my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kennedy White Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Re: flaming posts I think saying "it's been that way for years" is a cop out. It doesn't mean things can't become civilized. It only degenerates if you choose to feed the ego wars. Yea...right...whatever... I'm not holding my breath. Not holding mine either, just adding a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Maybe Jack would also like to show us how people in the Zapruder and Nix film "come and go". Jack claims that Mrs. Franzen has dissapeared in Zapruder and replaced by another woman in Nix. it's part of the color section of "Murder in Dealey Plaza" Wim A reasonable request. Maybe someone can explain it. In Zapruder (1,2,3,4) are the Franzen boy, Mr. Franzen, Mrs. Franzen, and the "gin-and-tonic-man". Note that Mrs. Franzen seems to be holding hands with her husband. Also note her SLIM SKIRT. With Jackie in the same position on the trunk a split second later, from the opposite direction Nix shows MRS. FRANZEN is no longer holding her husband's hand AND INDEED COMPLETELY DISAPPEARED. But ANOTHER WOMAN has been added about 10 feet to the west of where she had been. And instead of the slim skirt of Mrs. Franzen, this woman is wearing a FLARING black TOPCOAT, and though she is standing in front of "gin-and-tonic-man", her right arm is BEHIND him. This "new" woman CANNOT BE MRS. FRANZEN. These two images are mutually exclusive. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Maybe Jack would also like to show us how people in the Zapruder and Nix film "come and go". Jack claims that Mrs. Franzen has dissapeared in Zapruder and replaced by another woman in Nix. it's part of the color section of "Murder in Dealey Plaza" Wim A reasonable request. Maybe someone can explain it. In Zapruder (1,2,3,4) are the Franzen boy, Mr. Franzen, Mrs. Franzen, and the "gin-and-tonic-man". Note that Mrs. Franzen seems to be holding hands with her husband. Also note her SLIM SKIRT. With Jackie in the same position on the trunk a split second later, from the opposite direction Nix shows MRS. FRANZEN is no longer holding her husband's hand AND INDEED COMPLETELY DISAPPEARED. But ANOTHER WOMAN has been added about 10 feet to the west of where she had been. And instead of the slim skirt of Mrs. Franzen, this woman is wearing a FLARING black TOPCOAT, and though she is standing in front of "gin-and-tonic-man", her right arm is BEHIND him. This "new" woman CANNOT BE MRS. FRANZEN. These two images are mutually exclusive. Jack Because of Wim's request, I restudied the FRANZEN FRAMES and found that Mrs. Franzen grew about 4-6 inches taller and changed to a narrow skirt in one-third of a second. Also, the shadow of the streetlight changes location. How do you explain this? My explanation: alteration. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now