Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jack White's badgeman fantasy.....


Recommended Posts

Jack White and his badgeman fantasy…

Once upon a time I was unbiased and thought the badgeman existed, and he was the man who fired the fatal bullet in JFK’s head.

But recently I started to doubt that badgeman really existed, based on Lee Bowers’s testimony. Jack White states that badgeman and his spotter hardhat man stood on the hood of a car, overlooking the area. Which means that Bowers must have seen them from his watchtower.

But why didn’t he mention it in his testimony? Such a serious observation must be worth to tell to the authorities, but why didn’t he?

I know the answer, and the simple answer is following: badgeman didn’t exist, just blobs on a photograph.

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jack White and his badgeman fantasy…

Once upon a time I was unbiased and thought the badgeman existed, and he was the man who fired the fatal bullet in JFK’s head.

But recently I started to doubt that badgeman really existed, based on Lee Bowers’s testimony. Jack White states that badgeman and his spotter hardhat man stood on the hood of a car, overlooking the area. Which means that Bowers must have seen them from his watchtower.

But why didn’t he mention it in his testimony? Such a serious observation must be worth to tell to the authorities, but why didn’t he?

I know the answer, and the simple answer is following: badgeman didn’t exist, just blobs on a photograph.

Mark

Mark ... just so you know this ... I have never heard Jack say that Badge Man stood on the hood of a car. It has been said that Badge Man may have stood on the bumper of a car or even one of the concrete parking barriers, but never on an actual car hood.

It is also worth noting that Gordon Arnold was telling of a shot coming over his shoulder from the moment he arrived home to tell his family what he had experienced during the shooting. Mrs. Hartman also told of a furrow in the grass on the south pasture that led back to the Badge Man area and was told to her by a police officer that it appeared to be where a bullet struck the turf.

From Lee Bowers ELEVATED location in the tower - Bowers COULD NOT have seen the Badge Man for there was a back drop of tree foliage between Bowers and the fence ... not to mention the parked cars blocking part of the view near the ground.

I hope these few things give you a better understanding as to why the Badge Man scenario exist and how it was not merely made up out of nothing.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Miller points out, Mark is entirely wrong.

I have never said Badgeman stood on the hood of a car.

I said it is possible he stood on a car bumper, as I have

showed with reconstruction photos. It is not possible

for him to be on the ground, since the fence is five feet

tall. He could have stood on anything that raised him about

eighteen inches. According to Gordon Arnold, there was

a shot from that location.

I have never said that Badgeman's shot hit anything; in

fact, I believe that his shot missed.

The important thing about Badgeman, as it has always

been, is he is a shooter on the knoll, disproving the

"lone assassin theory".

As for Bowers, he did mention seeing two men in the

area, but it is not clear just what he saw.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jack White' date='Oct 8 2006, 10:02 PM' post='77206']

As Miller points out, Mark is entirely wrong.

I have never said Badgeman stood on the hood of a car.

I said it is possible he stood on a car bumper, as I have

showed with reconstruction photos. It is not possible

for him to be on the ground, since the fence is five feet

tall. He could have stood on anything that raised him about

eighteen inches. According to Gordon Arnold, there was

a shot from that location.

I have never said that Badgeman's shot hit anything; in

fact, I believe that his shot missed.

The important thing about Badgeman, as it has always

been, is he is a shooter on the knoll, disproving the

"lone assassin theory".

As for Bowers, he did mention seeing two men in the

area, but it is not clear just what he saw.

Jack

We also don't know how much of Bower's testimony was edited out, as was the case with other eye witnesses to this horror.

I don't see a lot in most of the photos or film clips but, even to the untrained eye like mine, Badgeman is

very obvious. Does not say he's a cop, just someone wearing a badge, who likely should not have been there. An innocent explanation would have been offered years ago.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

let's assume for a second that badgeman was real and a shooter,

would that conflict with the James Files claims

of being a shooter from the knoll ?

Edited by Dave Weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

let's assume for a second that badgeman was real and a shooter,

would that conflict with the James Files claims

of being a shooter from the knoll ?

What kind of nonsense is this Dave Weaver???

Just look at the facts: a Polaroid photo!!!

Just know how grainy that is....

It wasn't a slide!

There is just NOT such information/detail/resolution in the spot of Moorman's Polaroid Jack White and Gary Mack just fantasized/created their "Badgeman", PERIOD! :)

Gr. Paul.

BTW,

Like Mark, I was also very impressed in the beginning when I saw TMWKK and Jack White/Gary Mack with their discovery...

But when you look at it more in detail, it just can't be and it just is something not true, just fabricated.

The "Badgeman" is one big HOAX, I think as big as the "magic bullet theory"!

Gr. Paul.

Edited by Paul Choor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many of the witnesses that day felt they heard or saw some evidienc of a shot from the N. Knoll, I find it interesting at this late date that people want to reject it completely. Look at the statements of Gordon Arnold and so many others.

Lemkin,

I’m not rejecting a bullet from the grassy knoll; all I reject is a bullet from the badgeman because he is a pure myth in my opinion.

I find it impossible to discern three human figures from a tiny section of a photo.

Mark

Edited by Mark Johansson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack White and his badgeman fantasy…

Once upon a time I was unbiased and thought the badgeman existed, and he was the man who fired the fatal bullet in JFK’s head.

But you are now presumably "biased" and think otherwise? Thank you for the unintended candor.

But recently I started to doubt that badgeman really existed, based on Lee Bowers’s testimony. Jack White states that badgeman and his spotter hardhat man stood on the hood of a car, overlooking the area. Which means that Bowers must have seen them from his watchtower.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

But why didn’t he mention it in his testimony? Such a serious observation must be worth to tell to the authorities, but why didn’t he?

Bowers did mention seeing two men in that precise location, as anyone can tell had they bothered to read his testimony. That he didn't see a third man doesn't negate the two he did see, and doesn't demonstrate that a third man could not have been there.

And Bowers wasn't alone in providing testimony consisent with Badgeman, as anyone can tell had they bothered to read the testimony:

STERLING HOLLAND:

Well, the only thing that I remember now that I didn't then, I remember about the third car down from this fence, there was a station wagon backed up toward the fence, about the third car down, and a spot, I'd say 3 foot by 2 foot, looked to me like somebody had been standing there for a long period. I guess if you could count them about a hundred foottracks in that little spot, and also mud upon the bumper of that station wagon....It was muddy, and you could have if you could have counted them, I imagine it would have been a hundred tracks just in that one location. It was just----

Mr. Stern.

And then you saw some mud on the bumper?

Mr. Holland.

Mud on the bumper in two spots.

Mr. Stern.

As if someone had cleaned his foot, or---

Mr. Holland.

Well, as if someone had cleaned their foot, or stood up on the bumper to see over the fence.

DEPUTY SEYMOUR WEITZMAN:

We noticed numerous kinds of footprints that did not make sense because they were going different directions.....

Mr. Ball.

Were there other people there besides you?

Mr. Weitzman.

Yes, sir; other officers, Secret Service as well...

OFFICER JOSEPH MARSHALL SMITH: [likely the FIRST cop on the scene]

Mr. Liebeler.

After you heard the shots, you proceeded down along the bushes here between the street that runs in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building and Elm Street to approximately point 5, and then when you went down looking to the cars, you then had occasion to look up at the railroad tracks running over the triple underpass?

Mr. Smith.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Liebeler.

Did you see anybody up there?

Mr. Smith.

Yes, sir; there was two other officers there, I know.

Mr. Liebeler.

Were there any other people up there, that you can remember?

Mr. Smith.

No, sir; none that I remember.

Mr. Liebeler.

But you remember that there were two police officers up there?

Mr. Smith.

Yes, sir.

Three persons in the motorcade - Mayor Earle Cabell's wife, Senator Ralph Yarborough and Congressman Ray Roberts - recounted to authorities that as they passed through Dealey Plaza, they smelled gunpowder. It is unlikely that shots fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD would result in gunpowder being smelled on the ground in Dealey Plaza. But Officer Smith, above, was among the first to reach the area behind the fence atop the grassy knoll - where he saw two police officers already there - and he recalled precisely the same thing for author Anthony Summers:

"...around the hedges, there was the smell, the lingering smell of gunpowder."

I know the answer, and the simple answer is following: badgeman didn’t exist, just blobs on a photograph.

Yes, your answer is "simple," as well as simplistic in the extreme. Rather than looking solely at blobs on a photograph, perhaps you could trouble yourself to read the testimony of those who were there, and suggested the presence of somebody at precisely the point indicated for Badgeman in Moorman, well before Messrs. White and Mack located those "blobs."

What is a "fantasy," Mr. Johansson, is that you - or any other johnny-come-lately - can make these uncomfortable truths disappear with a single, scurrilously baseless smear against White [and Mack, by extention.]

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

let's assume for a second that badgeman was real and a shooter,

would that conflict with the James Files claims

of being a shooter from the knoll ?

Not necessarily, Uwe. If Bowers and no else didn't see badgeman and hardhat man, why would Files have seen them?

Also the acoustics study does not pinpoint the knoll shot to the badgeman position (on the short side of the fence behind the stone wall), but to the Files position (on the long side of the fence next to the large tree).

But indeed on Wim's forum and also by email , he gets a lot of questions:

Why did Files not see badgeman?

This shows what a die hard myth can do, also for truthseeking people. The answer to that question should be: He didn't see badgeman, because there was no badgeman.

Mark

Edited by Mark Johansson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please show me ONE (1) photo where Gordon Armold is visible.

Don't give me "black dog man" because that's a black blob totally inconsistent with Jack White's light colored fatigue for Gordon Arnold.

Mark

Edited by Mark Johansson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jack White' date='Oct 8 2006, 10:02 PM' post='77206']

As Miller points out, Mark is entirely wrong.

I have never said Badgeman stood on the hood of a car.

I said it is possible he stood on a car bumper, as I have

showed with reconstruction photos. It is not possible

for him to be on the ground, since the fence is five feet

tall. He could have stood on anything that raised him about

eighteen inches. According to Gordon Arnold, there was

a shot from that location.

I have never said that Badgeman's shot hit anything; in

fact, I believe that his shot missed.

The important thing about Badgeman, as it has always

been, is he is a shooter on the knoll, disproving the

"lone assassin theory".

As for Bowers, he did mention seeing two men in the

area, but it is not clear just what he saw.

Jack

We also don't know how much of Bower's testimony was edited out, as was the case with other eye witnesses to this horror.

I don't see a lot in most of the photos or film clips but, even to the untrained eye like mine, Badgeman is

very obvious. Does not say he's a cop, just someone wearing a badge, who likely should not have been there. An innocent explanation would have been offered years ago.

Dawn

Dawn, it's not so difficult to see a badgeman with the untrained eye, after it is enhanced and colored in.

The trouble is, you have forgotten that once upon a time there was an original, which has nothing to do with Jack's wishul-thinking-enhancements that are now imprinted on the brainstems of many.

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
Jack White and his badgeman fantasy…

.

Mark

Pot.................................Kettle.............................Black....

..................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Charles-Dunne

Jack White and his badgeman fantasy…

Once upon a time I was unbiased and thought the badgeman existed, and he was the man who fired the fatal bullet in JFK’s head.

But you are now presumably "biased" and think otherwise? Thank you for the unintended candor.

But recently I started to doubt that badgeman really existed, based on Lee Bowers’s testimony. Jack White states that badgeman and his spotter hardhat man stood on the hood of a car, overlooking the area. Which means that Bowers must have seen them from his watchtower.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

But why didn’t he mention it in his testimony? Such a serious observation must be worth to tell to the authorities, but why didn’t he?

Bowers did mention seeing two men in that precise location, as anyone can tell had they bothered to read his testimony.

Yes, but none of them was a policeman or a guy with a hard hat. One of the men fits the description of James Files. The other one was most likely an innocent bystander looking for spot to watch the motorcade. Bowers is not sure at all if both men were still there during the shooting.

That he didn't see a third man doesn't negate the two he did see, and doesn't demonstrate that a third man could not have been there.

Sure, but the problem is that there is no photographic evidence to support three men behind the fence at the time of the shooting. Unless you wnat to believe in Jack White's blown-up fantasies.

And Bowers wasn't alone in providing testimony consisent with Badgeman, as anyone can tell had they bothered to read the testimony:

STERLING HOLLAND:

Well, the only thing that I remember now that I didn't then, I remember about the third car down from this fence, there was a station wagon backed up toward the fence, about the third car down, and a spot, I'd say 3 foot by 2 foot, looked to me like somebody had been standing there for a long period. I guess if you could count them about a hundred foottracks in that little spot, and also mud upon the bumper of that station wagon....It was muddy, and you could have if you could have counted them, I imagine it would have been a hundred tracks just in that one location. It was just----

Homework, do your homework. The spot that Holland describes was the Files spot, NOT the badgeman location.

J – Were you a smoker at the time?

JF – Oh yes, I did smoke.

J – Were you smoking cigarettes that morning?

JF – I had smoked that day. Careless! I probably stepped on several cigarette butts and left them there. Most of them Pall Mall.

J – Was it muddy back there?

JF – It was very muddy. Let me put it this way: A couple of times I even took my shoes, put them above up the little country ledger and scraped the mud off the bottom of them. I hated getting mud on them.

Edited by Mark Johansson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Charles-Dunne

Jack White and his badgeman fantasy…

Once upon a time I was unbiased and thought the badgeman existed, and he was the man who fired the fatal bullet in JFK’s head.

But you are now presumably "biased" and think otherwise? Thank you for the unintended candor.

But recently I started to doubt that badgeman really existed, based on Lee Bowers’s testimony. Jack White states that badgeman and his spotter hardhat man stood on the hood of a car, overlooking the area. Which means that Bowers must have seen them from his watchtower.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

But why didn’t he mention it in his testimony? Such a serious observation must be worth to tell to the authorities, but why didn’t he?

Bowers did mention seeing two men in that precise location, as anyone can tell had they bothered to read his testimony.

Yes, but none of them was a policeman or a guy with a hard hat. One of the men fits the description of James Files. The other one was most likely an innocent bystander looking for spot to watch the motorcade. Bowers is not sure at all if both men were still there during the shooting.

Thank you for identifying yourself as agenda-driven, rather than one of the "truthseeking people" as you seem to have previously claimed.

For you, this is not about learning who killed the President, but about proving James Files' various, ever-shifting assertions to be true. That doesn't seem to have worked out so well for others in the past, who now denounce Files as a fabricator, but perhaps you will fare better than they did.

"One of the men fits the description of James Files?" To the exclusion of all other males in Dallas on that day? What, pray tell, makes any of Bowers' descriptors so unique that it could only apply to Files?

"The other one was most likely an innocent bystander looking for spot to watch the motorcade?" Really? Then presumably Files shooed him away, in order to commit the crime unnoticed by a stranger, correct? But, according to Bowers, the wrong man was present throughout, if Files was the gunman firing from the knoll. Here's Bowers describing the two men:

"One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket."

Later, asked if both were present immediately after the assassination, when Bowers noticed a motorcycle cop coming up the knoll, here's what he claimed to have seen:

Mr. Ball.

Were the two men there at the time?

Mr. Bowers.

I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not say. The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The white shirt, yes; I think he was.

In other words, the older man was present throughout - "middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers" - but Bowers didn't see the younger man who might be synonymous with Files.

Consequently, while you make much of the fact that Bowers didn't report seeing a cop - who wouldn't have seemed out of place to Bowers - how do you account for the fact that deadly assassin Files allowed the older man to remain at the scene while Files commited the crime if the second man was, as you assert, "most likely an innocent bystander?" Files liked to perform in front of an audience, did he?

That he didn't see a third man doesn't negate the two he did see, and doesn't demonstrate that a third man could not have been there.

Sure, but the problem is that there is no photographic evidence to support three men behind the fence at the time of the shooting. Unless you wnat to believe in Jack White's blown-up fantasies.

Perhaps, if you could be convinced to look for evidence in the testimony - hard work, I know - rather than relying upon the happy accident of photos, you would glean enough actual evidence that you, too, would denounce Files as a fabricator. In the meantime, I'd be very careful about dismissing anybody else's putative "blown-up fantasies."

And Bowers wasn't alone in providing testimony consisent with Badgeman, as anyone can tell had they bothered to read the testimony:

STERLING HOLLAND:

Well, the only thing that I remember now that I didn't then, I remember about the third car down from this fence, there was a station wagon backed up toward the fence, about the third car down, and a spot, I'd say 3 foot by 2 foot, looked to me like somebody had been standing there for a long period. I guess if you could count them about a hundred foottracks in that little spot, and also mud upon the bumper of that station wagon....It was muddy, and you could have if you could have counted them, I imagine it would have been a hundred tracks just in that one location. It was just----

Homework, do your homework. The spot that Holland describes was the Files spot, NOT the badgeman location.

So sayeth Files, whom you believe based upon nothing more than his word, at the expense of the others who were demonstrably there? Fascinating detective work on your part, I must say. By all means, ignore the actual evidence provided by real-live witnesses to the event, and present Files' conclusive proof for his claims.

J – Were you a smoker at the time?

JF – Oh yes, I did smoke.

J – Were you smoking cigarettes that morning?

JF – I had smoked that day. Careless! I probably stepped on several cigarette butts and left them there. Most of them Pall Mall.

"Careless?" Gee, do y'think? So, while awaiting the chance to commit the crime of the century, the ruthless assassin deliberately left behind incriminating evidence of his presence there? Did he leave behind anything else?

J – Was it muddy back there?

JF – It was very muddy. Let me put it this way: A couple of times I even took my shoes, put them above up the little country ledger and scraped the mud off the bottom of them. I hated getting mud on them.

This is what your average law enforcement official would call "proof," is it?

Rather than attack Jack White, or others whose observations undercut the already dubious Files, you might consider the wisdom of reassessing Files' veracity. Storytelling isn't evidence of anything but storytelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...