Shanet Clark Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Badgeman emerged as part of Jack White's investigation into the JFK assassination, and later NASA photographs and the September eleventh photographs, so until you have seen the body of Jack Whites work, you should not judge badgeman. I think badgeman, and Gordon Novel's shooter on the hood of a car, correspond to the NIX shooter, and BOWERS testimony is very important for anyone looking for a general government sponsorship conspiracy behind november 1963//////// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 I think badgeman, and Gordon Novel's shooter on the hood of a car, correspondto the NIX shooter, As Jack made quite clear ... Badge Man is not on the hood of any car. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 (edited) Badgeman emerged as part of Jack White's investigation into the JFK assassination,and later NASA photographs and the September eleventh photographs, so until you have seen the body of Jack Whites work, you should not judge badgeman. I think badgeman, and Gordon Novel's shooter on the hood of a car, correspond to the NIX shooter, and BOWERS testimony is very important for anyone looking for a general government sponsorship conspiracy behind november 1963//////// Having studied Jacks White's ENTIRE body of work, its safe to say he has NO talent for anything photographic and his skill set is non existant. In other words he is clueless and his entire body of work isdnothing but garbage, and provably so. As for badgeman, the image White shows as Badgeman is simply and artifact of multipile generations of photographic copying as the Moorman camera/lens/film was UNABLE to produce the level of detail seen in Whites image. And thats the facts. Edited October 10, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Was Polaroid using Kodak film at the time? I thought Polaraid is typically a camera that produces one hard copy without negative? Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Was Polaroid using Kodak film at the time? I thought Polaraid is typically a camera that produces one hard copy without negative? Wim Polaroid film in a Polaroid camera. Only a few polaroid films were made (and one is still made btw) that produce both a print and a negative. The film used by Mary Moorman (and a similar emulsion is still availabe today) was print only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 So why is this showing Kodak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 So why is this showing Kodak? Because I shot the copies on 35mm Kodak film, bracketing at half-stop intervals for optimal exposure on Panatomic X. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 The Moorman photo is worthless as legal evidence, because it is provably altered in the area of the Z pedestal. One proof is the very fine detail of Badgeman, who is in shadow, and the very poor detail of Zapruder/Sitzman, who are IN FULL SUNLIGHT. The image of Badgeman is very small compared to the image of Zapruder. At larger size and IN SUNLIGHT, the Z/S image SHOULD BE SUPERIOR TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE. Something few consider is that the Badgeman image may be altered also. Perhaps it was inserted as a red herring. But I doubt it. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 (edited) One proof is the very fine detail of Badgeman, who is in shadow, and the very poor detail of Zapruder/Sitzman, who are IN FULL SUNLIGHT. The image of Badgeman is very small compared to the image of Zapruder. At larger size and IN SUNLIGHT, the Z/S image SHOULD BE SUPERIOR TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE. Jack Jack, am I to understand correctly that the pedestal image you posted (#24) was from the same Moorman print the Badge Man is seen in? Bill Miller Edited October 10, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 (edited) One proof is the very fine detail of Badgeman, who is in shadow, and the very poor detail of Zapruder/Sitzman, who are IN FULL SUNLIGHT. The image of Badgeman is very small compared to the image of Zapruder. At larger size and IN SUNLIGHT, the Z/S image SHOULD BE SUPERIOR TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE. Jack Jack, am I to understand correctly that the pedestal image you posted (#24) was from the same Moorman print the Badge Man is seen in? Bill Miller I know the origin of the Badgeman image: A Groden slide from a Thompson print. I am not sure of the Zapruder image, but think it likely is the Thompson #1 print loaned to Gary Mack by Josiah Thompson; I used the best image I could find in my computer...but I have hundreds of Moorman images. But the Badgeman image is seen most clearly in the Thompson #1 print. Jack Edited October 10, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Johansson Posted October 10, 2006 Author Share Posted October 10, 2006 I think badgeman, and Gordon Novel's shooter on the hood of a car, correspond to the NIX shooter, As Jack made quite clear ... Badge Man is not on the hood of any car. Bill Miller Hood, bumper, whatever you want to call it, the badgeman is pure fiction, as Lamson says: an artifact made of multiple generations photographic copying. You can’t discern three persons from a tiny square as Jack White did, regardless what he says. Johansson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 (edited) One proof is the very fine detail of Badgeman, who is in shadow, and the very poor detail of Zapruder/Sitzman, who are IN FULL SUNLIGHT. The image of Badgeman is very small compared to the image of Zapruder. At larger size and IN SUNLIGHT, the Z/S image SHOULD BE SUPERIOR TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE. Jack Jack, am I to understand correctly that the pedestal image you posted (#24) was from the same Moorman print the Badge Man is seen in? Bill Miller I know the origin of the Badgeman image: A Groden slide from a Thompson print. I am not sure of the Zapruder image, but think it likely is the Thompson #1 print loaned to Gary Mack by Josiah Thompson; I used the best image I could find in my computer...but I have hundreds of Moorman images. But the Badgeman image is seen most clearly in the Thompson #1 print. Jack For those who want to compare Groden's Badgeman with the Badgeman seen on the Thompson #1 print, here is a scan from a copy made by a Fort Worth professional photographer (Byrd Williams IV) on an 8x10 view camera with a long lens. Gary Mack and I were present when Williams made the enlargement, which is slightly contrastier than the image on the Groden slide. The 8x10 negative captured the image in the greatest detail possible at the time. This scan is directly from the Williams print, but is not quite as impressive as the print itself. Inset is my copy from the Groden slide, which has greater tonal range. Jack Edited October 10, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Choor Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 (edited) Jack, why did you use 35mm film for duplicating the Moorman polaroid and not bigger films like 6x6 or even 4"x5"? And was it negative film or positive slide? What kind of optics/lens did you use? Gr. Paul. Edited October 10, 2006 by Paul Choor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 (edited) Hood, bumper, whatever you want to call it, the badgeman is pure fiction, as Lamson says: an artifact made of multiple generations photographic copying. You can’t discern three persons from a tiny square as Jack White did, regardless what he says. Johansson Mark, you should only reference what YOU can or cannot see. Some people are not very good at all when it comes to photo interpretation and others don't know the facts of the case. As I said before, which you seem to ignore by not acknowledging that you even read it, is that Gordon Arnold said a shot came over his LEFT shoulder at a time when Moorman took her photograph, thus someone with a gun was in that location. If it is your contention that Gordon Arnold lied, then you have to explain how he got details correct when telling his family and friends of his experience that only someone who was actually there would have known. I see the Badge Man. I also see Gordon Arnold. Bill Miller One proof is the very fine detail of Badgeman, who is in shadow, and the very poor detail of Zapruder/Sitzman, who are IN FULL SUNLIGHT. The image of Badgeman is very small compared to the image of Zapruder. At larger size and IN SUNLIGHT, the Z/S image SHOULD BE SUPERIOR TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE. Jack Jack, am I to understand correctly that the pedestal image you posted (#24) was from the same Moorman print the Badge Man is seen in? Bill Miller I know the origin of the Badgeman image: A Groden slide from a Thompson print. I am not sure of the Zapruder image, but think it likely is the Thompson #1 print loaned to Gary Mack by Josiah Thompson; I used the best image I could find in my computer...but I have hundreds of Moorman images. But the Badgeman image is seen most clearly in the Thompson #1 print. Jack Thanks for the clarification, Jack. Your remarks made it appear that Zapruder and Sitzman should be seen as clearly as the Badge Man, but the difference IMO lies in the fact that the two sets of images are not taken from the same photograph print. One print is obviously of much better quality, thus it is not fair to compare the Badge Man image from a good print to the pedestal images from a lesser quality print. Bill Miller As for badgeman, the image White shows as Badgeman is simply and artifact of multipile generations of photographic copying as the Moorman camera/lens/film was UNABLE to produce the level of detail seen in Whites image. And thats the facts. About the Badge Man print ... Robert Groden: "The Badge Man image in the Moorman photograph is from a first generation print obtained directly from Wide World Photos somewhere around 1965. It was made from an original first generation copy negative and is NOT multigenerational at all. Both Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg obtained prints of this quality as well. Bill, I don't know who made this comment, but he is wrong The copies that I have printed did not come from Jack, and the image is even clearer than his." Edited October 10, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 (edited) Hood, bumper, whatever you want to call it, the badgeman is pure fiction, as Lamson says: an artifact made of multiple generations photographic copying. You can’t discern three persons from a tiny square as Jack White did, regardless what he says. Johansson Mark, you should only reference what YOU can or cannot see. Some people are not very good at all when it comes to photo interpretation and others don't know the facts of the case. As I said before, which you seem to ignore by not acknowledging that you even read it, is that Gordon Arnold said a shot came over his LEFT shoulder at a time when Moorman took her photograph, thus someone with a gun was in that location. If it is your contention that Gordon Arnold lied, then you have to explain how he got details correct when telling his family and friends of his experience that only someone who was actually there would have known. I see the Badge Man. I also see Gordon Arnold. Bill Miller One proof is the very fine detail of Badgeman, who is in shadow, and the very poor detail of Zapruder/Sitzman, who are IN FULL SUNLIGHT. The image of Badgeman is very small compared to the image of Zapruder. At larger size and IN SUNLIGHT, the Z/S image SHOULD BE SUPERIOR TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE. Jack Jack, am I to understand correctly that the pedestal image you posted (#24) was from the same Moorman print the Badge Man is seen in? Bill Miller I know the origin of the Badgeman image: A Groden slide from a Thompson print. I am not sure of the Zapruder image, but think it likely is the Thompson #1 print loaned to Gary Mack by Josiah Thompson; I used the best image I could find in my computer...but I have hundreds of Moorman images. But the Badgeman image is seen most clearly in the Thompson #1 print. Jack Thanks for the clarification, Jack. Your remarks made it appear that Zapruder and Sitzman should be seen as clearly as the Badge Man, but the difference IMO lies in the fact that the two sets of images are not taken from the same photograph print. One print is obviously of much better quality, thus it is not fair to compare the Badge Man image from a good print to the pedestal images from a lesser quality print. Bill Miller As for badgeman, the image White shows as Badgeman is simply and artifact of multipile generations of photographic copying as the Moorman camera/lens/film was UNABLE to produce the level of detail seen in Whites image. And thats the facts. About the Badge Man print ... Robert Groden: "The Badge Man image in the Moorman photograph is from a first generation print obtained directly from Wide World Photos somewhere around 1965. It was made from an original first generation copy negative and is NOT multigenerational at all. Both Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg obtained prints of this quality as well. Bill, I don't know who made this comment, but he is wrong The copies that I have printed did not come from Jack, and the image is even clearer than his." ............................................................................ It should be said that Robert is referring to LAMSON'S statement about the quality of the Polaroid being from multi-generational prints. Groden, Thompson, and Weisberg were determined by Gary Mack to have first generation prints from the same original copy negative. I have never claimed that Groden's copies came from me. To the contrary, my images CAME FROM A GRODEN SLIDE WHICH HE GAVE TO GARY MACK. Gary noticed the image and asked me to copy it. By now, this should be clear. Jack Edited October 10, 2006 by Jack White 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