Badgeman colourised

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

This is my colourised version of a copy of the Badgeman photograph which

was kindly posted by Jack White last year.

I hope it may be of interest.

EBC

Edited September 28, 2006 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Wim Dankbaar]

It changes with every colorized version.

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

It changes with every colorized version.

You said a mouthful there,Wim.

So true.

EBC

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Hmmm...

[Paul Choor]

Hmmm...

Gr. Paul.

[Jack White]

Lest the unwary be fooled by this nonsense which for some reason used my name and badgeman work

I here repost the original study, which is NOT COLORIZED, but a very large b/w print hand tinted with

TRANSPARENT photo oil colors. This was done to demonstrate the areas of interest which CAN BE SEEN

without the color. Ridiculing the discovery of badgeman will not make it go away. Altering the image

to make it appear to be something it is not shows the intellect level of detractors. Shame on idiots.

Jack

[Wim Dankbaar]

Lest the unwary be fooled by this nonsense which for some reason used my name and badgeman work

I here repost the original study, which is NOT COLORIZED,

duh? Jack, do you still have a black and white screen?

but a very large b/w print hand tinted with

TRANSPARENT photo oil colors.

Ah now I understand. That's different from colorized. Gee, I'm confused now.

This was done to demonstrate the areas of interest which CAN BE SEEN

without the color.

Don't you mean WANTED TO BE SEEN?

Ridiculing the discovery of badgeman will not make it go away.

Not as long as Jack is around, right?

Altering the image to make it appear to be something it is not shows the intellect level of detractors.

Then why did you alter the image with colors?

Shame on idiots.

Agreed!

Edited September 28, 2006 by Wim Dankbaar

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Lest the unwary be fooled by this nonsense which for some reason used my name and badgeman work

I here repost the original study, which is NOT COLORIZED, but a very large b/w print hand tinted with

TRANSPARENT photo oil colors.

Mr J. White

I resent and take grave exception to having my work or myself (I am unclear as to what exactly this word 'nonsense' refers) referred to as ' this nonsense(?) which for some reason used my name and badgeman work....' Do you, sir, own the proprietary rights on the original uncolourised Badgeman image which you posted last year and for which I gave you wholesome credit in my recent post?

Are you also,sir,the sole repository for all wisdom, knowledge and understanding for the original uncolourised Badgeman image?

I regard your comments as a gross, intemperate and unwarranted slur on me and on my efforts - meagre as they are - in this forum. Unless you retract your offensive and unnecessary remarks and forward an immediate and full written apology to me via this forum I shall have no recourse but to consult my legal advisers on your unhelpful and indeed libellous and defamatory and monstrous outburst against me.

Unless I hear from you, Mr J. White, before midday on the 2nd October 2006 I shall put in place measures for the immediate inititiation of legal proceedings against you for libel, slander and defamation.

Eugene B. Connolly

Edited September 29, 2006 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Jack White]

Lest the unwary be fooled by this nonsense which for some reason used my name and badgeman work

I here repost the original study, which is NOT COLORIZED, but a very large b/w print hand tinted with

TRANSPARENT photo oil colors.

Mr J. White

I resent and take grave exception to having my work or myself (I am unclear as to what exactly this word 'nonsense' refers) referred to as ' this nonsense(?) which for some reason used my name and badgeman work....' Do you, sir, own the proprietary rights on the original uncolourised Badgeman image which you posted last year and for which I gave you wholesome credit in my recent post?

Are you also,sir,the sole repository for all wisdom, knowledge and understanding for the original uncolourised Badgeman image?

I regard your comments as a gross, intemperate and unwarranted slur on me and on my efforts - meagre as they are - in this forum. Unless you retract your offensive and unnecessary remarks and forward an immediate and full written apology to me via this forum I shall have no recourse but to consult my legal advisers on your unhelpful and indeed libellous and defamatory and monstrous outburst against me.

Unless I hear from you, Mr J. White, before midday on the 2nd October 2006 I shall put in place measures for the immediate inititiation of legal proceedings against you for libel, slander and defamation.

Eugene B. Connolly

Mr. Connolly...When I saw your obvious satire of my hand-tinted version of the

Moorman photo, I must admit that I was amused...as well as confused. I could

not imagine what you were trying to show, since you offered NO explanation with

your creative "colorization". Others apparently thought so also, like Mr. Valenti,

who attached the funny "comparisons" below, and others who made joking remarks,

which you must have seen. Do you also consider legal action against Mr. Valenti

for his amusing critique of your image, comparing it to Easter Island statuary or

cartoon characters?

If you were truly presenting this as serious research instead of satire, I of course

apologize for characterizing it as "nonsense", for I am appreciative of ALL serious

research efforts to advance understanding of mysteries of the JFK murder. Please tell

us if you will just exactly what was your intent in showing this image...what does it

show? You must have "something" in mind that you are showing as an alternative

to the Gordon Arnold image, I assume.

I took your work as an attempt to ridicule my research into this matter. If your

intent was not ridicule, please tell us what you were trying to show. By using my name,

your ridicule seemed clearly aimed at personally discrediting me. Please assure

us that was NOT your intent.

By the way, the matter of copyright ownership of the Moorman image is

rather complicated and not settled in law. Mary owns the "original" print,

but does not enforce her copyright; in fact, Mary encouraged and aided

Gary Mack and me in our Badgeman research, even giving us access to the

original print. All photowork on the Badgeman image (for various reasons)

belongs jointly to Gary Mack and Jack White. We have never enforced our

copyright because we both believed that the image should be widely seen

by researchers and the public. Complicating these copyright privileges is

my recent belief that the Moorman photo may not in fact be an original

but a retouched fake by unknown parties...so may be useless as evidence.

Further confusing the copyright of the original is that Jean Hill BOUGHT

THE POLAROID FILM used to take the photos and Mary snapped the

shutter...an interesting legal point never settled.

So if the image you presented was genuine research showing "something"

I apologize for saying it was "nonsense". I just could not "make sense"

of it since you provided no explanation for what you believe it shows.

I posted my ACTUAL STUDY of the image lest the unwary might think

YOUR study is somehow related to MY study. It is not.

Jack White

Edited September 29, 2006 by Jack White

[Craig Lamson]

Lest the unwary be fooled by this nonsense which for some reason used my name and badgeman work

I here repost the original study, which is NOT COLORIZED, but a very large b/w print hand tinted with

TRANSPARENT photo oil colors.

Mr J. White

I resent and take grave exception to having my work or myself (I am unclear as to what exactly this word 'nonsense' refers) referred to as ' this nonsense(?) which for some reason used my name and badgeman work....' Do you, sir, own the proprietary rights on the original uncolourised Badgeman image which you posted last year and for which I gave you wholesome credit in my recent post?

Are you also,sir,the sole repository for all wisdom, knowledge and understanding for the original uncolourised Badgeman image?

I regard your comments as a gross, intemperate and unwarranted slur on me and on my efforts - meagre as they are - in this forum. Unless you retract your offensive and unnecessary remarks and forward an immediate and full written apology to me via this forum I shall have no recourse but to consult my legal advisers on your unhelpful and indeed libellous and defamatory and monstrous outburst against me.

Unless I hear from you, Mr J. White, before midday on the 2nd October 2006 I shall put in place measures for the immediate inititiation of legal proceedings against you for libel, slander and defamation.

Eugene B. Connolly

Mr. Connolly...When I saw your obvious satire of my hand-tinted version of the

Moorman photo, I must admit that I was amused...as well as confused. I could

not imagine what you were trying to show, since you offered NO explanation with

your creative "colorization". Others apparently thought so also, like Mr. Valenti,

who attached the funny "comparisons" below, and others who made joking remarks,

which you must have seen. Do you also consider legal action against Mr. Valenti

for his amusing critique of your image, comparing it to Easter Island statuary or

cartoon characters?

If you were truly presenting this as serious research instead of satire, I of course

apologize for characterizing it as "nonsense", for I am appreciative of ALL serious

research efforts to advance understanding of mysteries of the JFK murder. Please tell

us if you will just exactly what was your intent in showing this image...what does it

show? You must have "something" in mind that you are showing as an alternative

to the Gordon Arnold image, I assume.

I took your work as an attempt to ridicule my research into this matter. If your

intent was not ridicule, please tell us what you were trying to show. By using my name,

your ridicule seemed clearly aimed at personally discrediting me. Please assure

us that was NOT your intent.

By the way, the matter of copyright ownership of the Moorman image is

rather complicated and not settled in law. Mary owns the "original" print,

but does not enforce her copyright; in fact, Mary encouraged and aided

Gary Mack and me in our Badgeman research, even giving us access to the

original print. All photowork on the Badgeman image (for various reasons)

belongs jointly to Gary Mack and Jack White. We have never enforced our

copyright because we both believed that the image should be widely seen

by researchers and the public. Complicating these copyright privileges is

my recent belief that the Moorman photo may not in fact be an original

but a retouched fake by unknown parties...so may be useless as evidence.

Further confusing the copyright of the original is that Jean Hill BOUGHT

THE POLAROID FILM used to take the photos and Mary snapped the

shutter...an interesting legal point never settled.

So if the image you presented was genuine research showing "something"

I apologize for saying it was "nonsense". I just could not "make sense"

of it since you provided no explanation for what you believe it shows.

I posted my ACTUAL STUDY of the image lest the unwary might think

YOUR study is somehow related to MY study. It is not.

Jack White

The copyright issues are not complicated at all. Mary Moorman, AS THE CREATOR OF THE WORK, owns all rights to the image. PERIOD. US copyright law is very clear on t his point. Unless she has assigned rights to another party they still belong to here and will continue to belong to her heirs for 75 years after here death IIRC. Her lack of enforcement does not reduce her ownership of the copyright. Jean has no claim to the copyright as the purchaser of the film. Gary Mack nor Jack White have any claim to the copyright for their reproduction of parts of the Moorman original.

Mary controls it all.

[John Simkin]

I regard your comments as a gross, intemperate and unwarranted slur on me and on my efforts - meagre as they are - in this forum. Unless you retract your offensive and unnecessary remarks and forward an immediate and full written apology to me via this forum I shall have no recourse but to consult my legal advisers on your unhelpful and indeed libellous and defamatory and monstrous outburst against me.

Unless I hear from you, Mr J. White, before midday on the 2nd October 2006 I shall put in place measures for the immediate inititiation of legal proceedings against you for libel, slander and defamation.

Eugene B. Connolly

We do not allow members to threaten legal action against other members. Unless you withdraw this threat you will be removed as a member.

[Jack White]

Hmmmm. Mr Lamson has added a new line to his calling card:

Photographer and Attorney at Law.

Copyright law is not as clear as Counsellor Lamson indicates,

and is often determined by CASE law and not statutory law.

Jack

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Do you also consider legal action against Mr. Valenti

for his amusing critique of your image, comparing it to Easter Island statuary or

cartoon characters?

Hey, let's not get carried away!

[Dawn Meredith]

Lest the unwary be fooled by this nonsense which for some reason used my name and badgeman work

I here repost the original study, which is NOT COLORIZED, but a very large b/w print hand tinted with

TRANSPARENT photo oil colors.

Mr J. White

I resent and take grave exception to having my work or myself (I am unclear as to what exactly this word 'nonsense' refers) referred to as ' this nonsense(?) which for some reason used my name and badgeman work....' Do you, sir, own the proprietary rights on the original uncolourised Badgeman image which you posted last year and for which I gave you wholesome credit in my recent post?

Are you also,sir,the sole repository for all wisdom, knowledge and understanding for the original uncolourised Badgeman image?

I regard your comments as a gross, intemperate and unwarranted slur on me and on my efforts - meagre as they are - in this forum. Unless you retract your offensive and unnecessary remarks and forward an immediate and full written apology to me via this forum I shall have no recourse but to consult my legal advisers on your unhelpful and indeed libellous and defamatory and monstrous outburst against me.

Unless I hear from you, Mr J. White, before midday on the 2nd October 2006 I shall put in place measures for the immediate inititiation of legal proceedings against you for libel, slander and defamation.

Eugene B. Connolly

Mr. Connoly,

Altho I am merely a lowly criminal defense attorney I can tell you that calling something "nonsense" is not actionable.

Also Jack has apologised.

I suggest you follow the advice of the forum owner and moderator or you will join Tim Gratz and be removed from this forum.

What's with these people threatening lawsuits on a public forum, established for the puropse of discerning the truth about the murder of Jack Kennedy?

Dawn Meredith

[Bill Miller]

Lest the unwary be fooled by this nonsense which for some reason used my name and badgeman work

I here repost the original study, which is NOT COLORIZED,

duh? Jack, do you still have a black and white screen?

but a very large b/w print hand tinted with

TRANSPARENT photo oil colors.

Ah now I understand. That's different from colorized. Gee, I'm confused now.

Technically, Jack is correct.

col·or·ize (kl-rz)

tr.v. col·or·ized, col·or·iz·ing, col·or·iz·es

To impart color to (black-and-white film) by means of a computer-assisted process:

Then why did you alter the image with colors?

Wim, as you must know .... B&W images are limited in color tone, thus most people have a hard time defining the boundries of objectes within the image. Jack added color to the image to show where he believed the outlines of these individuals started and stopped. In other words, Jack wanted people to see in color what he had seen in B&W.

Bill Miller

Edited September 30, 2006 by Bill Miller