Jack White 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. For a pro photographer, Lamson's Polaroid knowledge is abyssmal. The process invented by Ed Land DID PRODUCE A NEGATIVE on paper which was transferred chemically by contact to a positive form on another piece of perforated paper on a double sandwiched roll. Pulling the double roll through rollers actived the development of the negative, which was usually discarded. So it was NOT "print only". Years ago as an experiment, I copied a POLAROID PAPER NEGATIVE and was able to make an "acceptable" image from it with considerable darkroom work. I doubt that I can locate it. That was more than 40 years ago. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 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. The Badgeman work was copied from a 35MM SLIDE, which could only be copied using 35mm film in my REPRONAR slide copier, with fixed lens and electronic flash. It was copied on Kodak Panatomic X negative film. Later Gary Mack obtained from Mary Moorman permission for me to copy the original faded print, which I did using a Kodak bellows 4x5 view camera with a "long" copy lens and TriX film because I used a universal developer as I recall and did not have any fine grain developer on hand. See attachment. Jack 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. For a pro photographer, Lamson's Polaroid knowledge is abyssmal. The process invented by Ed Land DID PRODUCE A NEGATIVE on paper which was transferred chemically by contact to a positive form on another piece of perforated paper on a double sandwiched roll. Pulling the double roll through rollers actived the development of the negative, which was usually discarded. So it was NOT "print only". Years ago as an experiment, I copied a POLAROID PAPER NEGATIVE and was able to make an "acceptable" image from it with considerable darkroom work. I doubt that I can locate it. That was more than 40 years ago. Jack 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. For a pro photographer, Lamson's Polaroid knowledge is abyssmal. The process invented by Ed Land DID PRODUCE A NEGATIVE on paper which was transferred chemically by contact to a positive form on another piece of perforated paper on a double sandwiched roll. Pulling the double roll through rollers actived the development of the negative, which was usually discarded. So it was NOT "print only". Years ago as an experiment, I copied a POLAROID PAPER NEGATIVE and was able to make an "acceptable" image from it with considerable darkroom work. I doubt that I can locate it. That was more than 40 years ago. Jack Nice try at deflection Jack but it was an utter failure. Sure the polaroid films produce a "paper" negative but that paper negative is designed to be a one time use item. Its not a printable FILM negative like the ones produced by the Polaroid P/N films and what most users consider common when the term "negative" is used. While you "might' be able to produce "something" besides the original polaroid print from the paper "negative" it is not an item lends itself to reuse nor was it designed as such. And the result is sure to be poor. No what we have ONCE AGAIN is bullxxxx from the master photographic bullxxxxter...Jack White 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. The Badgeman work was copied from a 35MM SLIDE, which could only be copied using 35mm film in my REPRONAR slide copier, with fixed lens and electronic flash. It was copied on Kodak Panatomic X negative film. Later Gary Mack obtained from Mary Moorman permission for me to copy the original faded print, which I did using a Kodak bellows 4x5 view camera with a "long" copy lens and TriX film because I used a universal developer as I recall and did not have any fine grain developer on hand. See attachment. Jack Why copy the slide with the Repronar? You had an enlarger, you had sheet film holders, you had sheet film...why in the world did you use something as low quality as 35mm? Something to hide? Shesh, and you call yourself a photo expert! ROFLMAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 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." Groden needs you bone up on "multigenerational". Moorman original to copy negative...generation TWO. Copy negative to print...generation THREE. Print reduced to a 35mm slide...generation FOUR..and a sloppy generation to boot...a reduction to 35mm. 35mm slide to 35mm b/w negative....generation FIVE. 35mm negative to b/w print....generation SIX. Of course the the real killer here is the reduction step to 35mm.... Now would Groden like to try again? So if you can see "badgeman" in all of these high quality prints, why oh why have no "badgeman" works been created from them? Bottom line here is simply that the Moorman lens...defraction limited by being stopped down ot f64.5, coupled with the camera being hand held AND PANNED, coupled with the fact that the film used had a DISMAL ability to record fine detail leaves us in a bad place...at least as far as the "badgeman is real " crowd is concerned....Marys camera/film/lens simply COULD NOT record the level of detail in the "badgman" forgery. Of course if the Moorman contained all of this detail in the badgeman area, why cant we make out the guys on the steps? Zapruder? The pickets on the fence? Bark on the trees? The reason...the detail simply was not recorded...just like the detail shown in the Badgeman forgery was not recorded. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Now would Groden like to try again?So if you can see "badgeman" in all of these high quality prints, why oh why have no "badgeman" works been created from them? I think the key is in this sentence that Groden offered .... "The copies that I have printed did not come from Jack, and the image is even clearer than his." So it appears that Groden has said that the original image and/or first generation copies thereof from which the prints were made was even clearer than Jack's image. As far as facial detail - Zapruder, Sitzman and the guys on the steps were in sunlight which addes some glare to their faces, but Badge Man was in partial shade which preserved more detail of his head and face. And once again .... I have not seen the men on the steps and/or Zapruder and Sitzman from the print Badge Man came from and it is because I have not seen the entire print - I cannot compare Badge Man from one print to Zapruder or anyone else from a diferent lesser quality print. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Oddly, Lamson insists that the Badgeman image is "forged" but that Zapruder and the pedestal gap are genuine. Now if he will explain how he arrived at his forgery conclusion we may be making progress. I believe that Badgeman is genuine and that the pedestal area is retouched. So we agree. The Moorman has been retouched. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 (edited) Now would Groden like to try again?So if you can see "badgeman" in all of these high quality prints, why oh why have no "badgeman" works been created from them? I think the key is in this sentence that Groden offered .... "The copies that I have printed did not come from Jack, and the image is even clearer than his." So it appears that Groden has said that the original image and/or first generation copies thereof from which the prints were made was even clearer than Jack's image. As far as facial detail - Zapruder, Sitzman and the guys on the steps were in sunlight which addes some glare to their faces, but Badge Man was in partial shade which preserved more detail of his head and face. And once again .... I have not seen the men on the steps and/or Zapruder and Sitzman from the print Badge Man came from and it is because I have not seen the entire print - I cannot compare Badge Man from one print to Zapruder or anyone else from a diferent lesser quality print. Bill Miller Well Bill we have White's recently posted copy made directly from the Thompson #1 print generation image) and it it very much different that the crap made from the slide. In any case it PROVES what I have been saying all along...that all we are seeing are the effects of copying artifacts. In Grodens case he has at least a third genetration copy to start his process , gen 1 original print, gen 2 copy negative, gen 3 print. Add at least two more generations ( another copy neg and then another print) and we are so far removed from the original its not funny. Heres the long and short of it Bill..."badgeman" is noting more that the grain buildup from making copy negatives. You guys can crap all over this until it turns to ice in hell...because NONE of you can prove the camera/lens/film could resolve the level of detail seen in the badgeman forgery. The bottom line is that it is simply impossible. I have to admit it sure is funny as all get out watching you guys making a badge and a shoulder patch from a piece of dust and a piece of lint...... Oddly, Lamson insists that the Badgeman image is "forged"but that Zapruder and the pedestal gap are genuine. Now if he will explain how he arrived at his forgery conclusion we may be making progress. I believe that Badgeman is genuine and that the pedestal area is retouched. So we agree. The Moorman has been retouched. Jack No retouching in the Moorman old man, just you doing what you always do, claim something is retouched when the reality is that you are simply ignorant. Badgeman IS a forgery...its a BAD copy of the original. To be more precise, its a bad copy of the original that is being PASSED OFF as being what is seen in the original. Problem is that what is being shown in "badgeman" simply cannot be in the Moorman original. You simply forged "him" BTW, nice dust and lint spots making up the badge and shoulder patch...LOL! Edited October 11, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 (edited) Now would Groden like to try again?So if you can see "badgeman" in all of these high quality prints, why oh why have no "badgeman" works been created from them? I think the key is in this sentence that Groden offered .... "The copies that I have printed did not come from Jack, and the image is even clearer than his." So it appears that Groden has said that the original image and/or first generation copies thereof from which the prints were made was even clearer than Jack's image. As far as facial detail - Zapruder, Sitzman and the guys on the steps were in sunlight which addes some glare to their faces, but Badge Man was in partial shade which preserved more detail of his head and face. And once again .... I have not seen the men on the steps and/or Zapruder and Sitzman from the print Badge Man came from and it is because I have not seen the entire print - I cannot compare Badge Man from one print to Zapruder or anyone else from a diferent lesser quality print. Bill Miller Well Bill we have White's recently posted copy made directly from the Thompson #1 print generation image) and it it very much different that the crap made from the slide. In any case it PROVES what I have been saying all along...that all we are seeing are the effects of copying artifacts. In Grodens case he has at least a third genetration copy to start his process , gen 1 original print, gen 2 copy negative, gen 3 print. Add at least two more generations ( another copy neg and then another print) and we are so far removed from the original its not funny. Heres the long and short of it Bill..."badgeman" is noting more that the grain buildup from making copy negatives. You guys can crap all over this until it turns to ice in hell...because NONE of you can prove the camera/lens/film could resolve the level of detail seen in the badgeman forgery. The bottom line is that it is simply impossible. I have to admit it sure is funny as all get out watching you guys making a badge and a shoulder patch from a piece of dust and a piece of lint...... Oddly, Lamson insists that the Badgeman image is "forged"but that Zapruder and the pedestal gap are genuine. Now if he will explain how he arrived at his forgery conclusion we may be making progress. I believe that Badgeman is genuine and that the pedestal area is retouched. So we agree. The Moorman has been retouched. Jack No retouching in the Moorman old man, just you doing what you always do, claim something is retouched when the reality is that you are simply ignorant. Badgeman IS a forgery...its a BAD copy of the original. To be more precise, its a bad copy of the original that is being PASSED OFF as being what is seen in the original. Problem is that what is being shown in "badgeman" simply cannot be in the Moorman original. You simply forged "him" BTW, nice dust and lint spots making up the badge and shoulder patch...LOL! dust, lint...? want credibility get out Photoshop and show us, you know the rules, photog .... otherwise, you're just more NOISE! Edited October 11, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Comparing the extreme difference between the Moorman polaroid and the Nix film also points to a forgery, of the polaroid.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Now would Groden like to try again?So if you can see "badgeman" in all of these high quality prints, why oh why have no "badgeman" works been created from them? I think the key is in this sentence that Groden offered .... "The copies that I have printed did not come from Jack, and the image is even clearer than his." So it appears that Groden has said that the original image and/or first generation copies thereof from which the prints were made was even clearer than Jack's image. As far as facial detail - Zapruder, Sitzman and the guys on the steps were in sunlight which addes some glare to their faces, but Badge Man was in partial shade which preserved more detail of his head and face. And once again .... I have not seen the men on the steps and/or Zapruder and Sitzman from the print Badge Man came from and it is because I have not seen the entire print - I cannot compare Badge Man from one print to Zapruder or anyone else from a diferent lesser quality print. Bill Miller Well Bill we have White's recently posted copy made directly from the Thompson #1 print generation image) and it it very much different that the crap made from the slide. In any case it PROVES what I have been saying all along...that all we are seeing are the effects of copying artifacts. In Grodens case he has at least a third genetration copy to start his process , gen 1 original print, gen 2 copy negative, gen 3 print. Add at least two more generations ( another copy neg and then another print) and we are so far removed from the original its not funny. Heres the long and short of it Bill..."badgeman" is noting more that the grain buildup from making copy negatives. You guys can crap all over this until it turns to ice in hell...because NONE of you can prove the camera/lens/film could resolve the level of detail seen in the badgeman forgery. The bottom line is that it is simply impossible. I have to admit it sure is funny as all get out watching you guys making a badge and a shoulder patch from a piece of dust and a piece of lint...... Oddly, Lamson insists that the Badgeman image is "forged"but that Zapruder and the pedestal gap are genuine. Now if he will explain how he arrived at his forgery conclusion we may be making progress. I believe that Badgeman is genuine and that the pedestal area is retouched. So we agree. The Moorman has been retouched. Jack No retouching in the Moorman old man, just you doing what you always do, claim something is retouched when the reality is that you are simply ignorant. Badgeman IS a forgery...its a BAD copy of the original. To be more precise, its a bad copy of the original that is being PASSED OFF as being what is seen in the original. Problem is that what is being shown in "badgeman" simply cannot be in the Moorman original. You simply forged "him" BTW, nice dust and lint spots making up the badge and shoulder patch...LOL! dust, lint...? want credibility get out Photoshop and show us, you know the rules, photog .... otherwise, you're just more NOISE! The proof is aleady on this thread if you cared to look cowboy shooter... White posted it with his comparison of two "badgeman" images. You know thew rules davie, do some research before you shoot off your mouth. I see you are back to guard dog mode ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 (edited) Oddly, Lamson insists that the Badgeman image is "forged" but that Zapruder and the pedestal gap are genuine. Now if he will explain how he arrived at his forgery conclusion we may be making progress. I don't see anything odd. He says Badgeman is forged (by you) , and that the original Moorman picture is all genuine, thus including the pedestal. I believe that Badgeman is genuine and that the pedestal area is retouched. Why the heck would anyone want to retouch the pedestal area? That's the same thing as "Mrs. Franzen dissappeared" and "Hill and Moorman were moved from the sidewalk to the grass". I would not be surprised if you say Kennedy was not in his limousine. So we agree. The Moorman has been retouched. I don't agree to that at all. FWIW, I believe you see a badgeman and two other figures in blobs, shadows and light reflections. Then you enhanced and colored those with a lot of wishfull thinking and imgination. That's why you never show the original, nor the size of these "figures" in relation to other humans in the picture. Wim Jack Edited October 11, 2006 by Wim Dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 I don't agree to that at all. FWIW, I believe you see a badgeman and two other figures in blobs, shadows and light reflections. Then you enhanced and colored those with a lot of wishfull thinking and imgination. That's why you never show the original, nor the size of these "figures" in relation to other humans in the picture.Wim Jack I understand why Craig says that the Badge Man image is a product of multigenerational reproductions, but sometimes that is not always the case. In 1978, and before all the Badge Man work was done, Groden tells me that Jimmy Carter's sister was one of the first people to see the Badge Man in a good first generation Moorman print. B&W photographs are very limited in color tone, thus making out shapes can be more difficult compared to using color photos. However, we still have to consider Gordon Arnold's statements regarding the shot that came over his left shoulder at a time Moorman would have taken her photograph. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 I don't agree to that at all. FWIW, I believe you see a badgeman and two other figures in blobs, shadows and light reflections. Then you enhanced and colored those with a lot of wishfull thinking and imgination. That's why you never show the original, nor the size of these "figures" in relation to other humans in the picture. Wim Jack I understand why Craig says that the Badge Man image is a product of multigenerational reproductions, but sometimes that is not always the case. In 1978, and before all the Badge Man work was done, Groden tells me that Jimmy Carter's sister was one of the first people to see the Badge Man in a good first generation Moorman print. B&W photographs are very limited in color tone, thus making out shapes can be more difficult compared to using color photos. However, we still have to consider Gordon Arnold's statements regarding the shot that came over his left shoulder at a time Moorman would have taken her photograph. Bill Miller First of all Bill, unless Carters sister was shown the out of camera polaroid print taken by Mary Moorman she DID NOT SEE a FIRST generation print. At best she saw a THIRD generation print. Second people see bunny rabbits in the clouds but just because thats what they think they see does not mean there were bunny rabbits in the clouds. You are spinning here Bill. Bottom line...the Moorman camera/lens/film cannot resolve the detail shown in the thing called "badgeman". For cripes sake, we have lint and dust as a MAJOR part of badgeman. Sheesh. How do we know that? Take a look at the Thompson thumbprint Moorman. Do you see a "badge" and a "shoulder patch"? Of course not. And why? Because those items of "detail" we introduced when the Moorman was copied by UPI. The dust was not there when Thompson had the Moorman copied hense no "badge" and not "patch". Then take a look at the drumscan print and notice the BLACK dust and lint that can be found around the image and compare that to what you see in the "badgeman" image. (note that the dust and lint is black because it was in the surface of the sheet film used to copy the Moorman) When you compare the two imgaes you find that the dust and lint on the drumscan thumbprint Moorman match the sizes of the lint and dust on "badgeman". I know you have a vested interest in keeping "badgeman" alive, but its a fools errand Bill. Add it all up. The image known as "badgeman" simply did not exist in the original out of camera Moorman photograph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Jack I understan Second people see bunny rabbits in the clouds THE POLAROID IS WORTHLESS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 (edited) Lamson is delusional: QUOTE: For cripes sake, we have lint and dust as a MAJOR part of badgeman. Sheesh. How do we know that? Take a look at the Thompson thumbprint Moorman. Do you see a "badge" and a "shoulder patch"? Of course not. And why? Because those items of "detail" we introduced when the Moorman was copied by UPI. The dust was not there when Thompson had the Moorman copied hense no "badge" and not "patch". Then take a look at the drumscan print and notice the BLACK dust and lint that can be found around the image and compare that to what you see in the "badgeman" image. (note that the dust and lint is black because it was in the surface of the sheet film used to copy the Moorman) When you compare the two imgaes you find that the dust and lint on the drumscan thumbprint Moorman match the sizes of the lint and dust on "badgeman". UNQUOTE Thompson never had the Moorman original copied. He purchased many COPIES from various sources. So far as I know, when Gary Mack obtained the ORIGINAL FOR ME TO COPY, it had only been copied twice...by UPI, and by whoever shot the ZIPPO copy. I believe I am only the third person to COPY THE ORIGINAL. Gordon Smith was the fourth. All other prints were generated from the original copy negative by UPI or prints therefrom. It is interesting that Lamson brings up his SUPPOSEDLY GREAT QUALITY DRUMSCAN PRINT. It is a piece of xxxx. See comparison of Badgeman in the Thompson #1 with the "drumscan". Lamson is blowing smoke out his ass. Who does he think he can fool with the images say it better than words? Jack PS...as far as I know, Groden never copied the ORIGINAL POLAROID. His copy which shows Badgeman was shot from the Thompson #1 print which he had borrowed from Thompson, according to him. According to Mary Moorman when she brought the original to Gary for me to copy, it had been in her safe deposit box since 1963. If Gary remembers differently, he will likely tell someone here. Gary is THE expert on ALL copies of the Moorman, since he tracked them all down to sources. Edited October 12, 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