Paul Choor Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Mr. White, To end this fairy tale of your "Badgeman" once and for all: The picture on the left is genuine and says: "Badgeman in drum scan", although these are just blobs and pieces, NOTHING ELSE! It is just a big blowup from a tiny grainy Polaroid, and shows indeed....NOTHING! The picture on the right is NOT genuine and says: "Badgeman in good print", although you retouched and colored some person in and called it your "Badgeman".... I don't know what I find worse: the outcome of the WC or your fake "Badgeman"? I think the last, because everyone disbelieves the outcome of the WC nowadays BUT everyone still believes the "Badgeman"-crap....And that's no good to solve this crime! Gr. Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson 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. For the record since Jack White is clueless. Thompson had the MOORMAN ORIGINAL copied by a professional photographer in 1967. He had two 4x5 b/w copy negatives made at time of the original polaroid print. He had prints made from that negative. Those prints are known as the Thompson Thumbprint Moorman. A few years ago when a few of us got together to destroy another Jack WHite fantasy, Moorman in the Street, Thompson took one of his copy negatives from the Moorman original to a prepress house in San Francisco and they made a very high resolution drumscan directly from the negative. Clearly the copy of the Moorman original made by UPI was done before the original print started to fade. However the fading of the original print would NOT HAVE REMOVED A WHITE SPOT OR A WHITE 'PATCH" surrounded by black. In other words the things White calls the 'badge" and the "shoulder patch" would still be visable in the drumscan negative IF they were real detail from the Moorman. The simple fact is they are NOT visable in the drumscan BECAUSE they were NEVER IN THE ORIGINAL MOORMAN PRINT! They were dust and lint introduced when UPI made their copy negative. They are simply artifacts from the copy process. How do we know this? We can compare the size and shape of the dust and lint on the drumscan copy negative. Likewise the detail that is said to be the face of "Badgeman" is simply grain from the copy negative. How do we know its grain from the copy negative? Because polariod prints are virtually GRAINLESS! (note that close inspection of a processed b/w polaroid print shows that it has clumps rather than standard film grain features. This is exactly why no professional photographer will use a b/w polaroid print as a proofing tool to check focus. Prior to digital photography professionals used polaroid film by the case lots as a proofing medium) Badgeman is an illusion. Lets not forget that the Moorman camera/lens/film did not have the resolution to record the detail shown in the forgery known as "Badgeman" P.S. Lets correct a Jack White "little white lie" from his above post. He says his "badgeman" image is from a "good print of the Moorman" This is untrue. The 'badgeman" image he posted is a flatbed scan of a b/w print made from a 35mm b/w copy negatative that is an enlargement from a 35mm color copy slide made from a 8x10 b/w print that was made from a b/w copy negative made from the Moorman original polaroid print. The Thompson drumscan image is a high resolution commercial drum scan of a b/w copy negative made from the original Moorman polaroid print. Simply more disinformation from Jack White. Edited October 12, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 (edited) 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". Craig, your point on what the cause of the alleged badge or police patch may or may not be correct, but the face and head shape is what sells me on the image in combination with Gordon Arnold's statements. When I look at the Badge Man's face ... I see the side of his face from which the sun would be on to be lighter than the side facing away from the sun, thus I do not believe his appearence to be part of the tree foilage. So whille I believe you certainly have an argument as to whether this individual wore a badge or police patch ... I disagree that his complete image is nothing more than lint, dust, and shadows. In asking Gary Mack for what he recalls pertaining to these images ... "In 1966/1967, Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg separately received several 8x10 prints of the Moorman photo from United Press International (not Wide World Photos). Groden made slide blowups from one of Thompson's prints and some included the Badge Man area. He sent a slide to me, I noticed Badge Man, and gave the slide to Jack to see what he could do to improve the image. Later, I borrowed Thompson's 8x10 print and Jack made blowups from that, too. I have seen both Groden's and Jack's Badge Man images - and Jack's are better. " Bill Miller Edited October 12, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 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". Craig, your point on what the cause of the alleged badge or police patch may or may not be correct, but the face and head shape is what sells me on the image in combination with Gordon Arnold's statements. When I look at the Badge Man's face ... I see the side of his face from which the sun would be on to be lighter than the side facing away from the sun, thus I do not believe his appearence to be part of the tree foilage. So whille I believe you certainly have an argument as to whether this individual wore a badge or police patch ... I disagree that his complete image is nothing more than lint, dust, and shadows. In asking Gary Mack for what he recalls pertaining to these images ... "In 1966/1967, Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg separately received several 8x10 prints of the Moorman photo from United Press International (not Wide World Photos). Groden made slide blowups from one of Thompson's prints and some included the Badge Man area. He sent a slide to me, I noticed Badge Man, and gave the slide to Jack to see what he could do to improve the image. Later, I borrowed Thompson's 8x10 print and Jack made blowups from that, too. I have seen both Groden's and Jack's Badge Man images - and Jack's are better. " Bill Miller Bill, regardless of what you think you may or may not see in the Moorman, the simple fact of the matter is that the Moorman camera/lens/film combo did not have the resolving power to record the image that is now known as the "face" of badgeman. Everything else is simply crap. Finally you miss the entire point..the image is not just dust, lint (which are a big part of it) and shadows...but it is actually GRAIN from the UPI copy negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Bill, regardless of what you think you may or may not see in the Moorman, the simple fact of the matter is that the Moorman camera/lens/film combo did not have the resolving power to record the image that is now known as the "face" of badgeman. Everything else is simply crap.Finally you miss the entire point..the image is not just dust, lint (which are a big part of it) and shadows...but it is actually GRAIN from the UPI copy negative. Craig, the original photo was sharp ... at least when you talk to people who know its history. By the time Mary's photo was being looked at in 1978 - the photo's clarity was badly degraded. The film Mary used didn't show grain, but it is possible that the copy print used had grain, but the problem is that there are parts of the photo in those prints that show little grain and grain on film should be uniform - correct? If the latter is true, then what you think is grain may not be grain at all. The drum scan was made from a copy negative that was shot out of focus, which means that it is not a good source for knowing what was seen on those original UPI prints made on the afternoon of the assassination. I have worked with many assassination images and in all my experiences, I have been able to show that what someone thought was a person was never really there, while I have never been able to create an image of an individual out of nothing. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Choor Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 The film Mary used didn't show grain Bill Miller, What the hell are you talking about? Mary Moorman took a POLAROID! She didn't use any film. Comprendo? Gr. Paul. BTW: why are you always replying in bold text? Is that really necessary? Or are you thinking we otherwise don't read your replies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Bill, regardless of what you think you may or may not see in the Moorman, the simple fact of the matter is that the Moorman camera/lens/film combo did not have the resolving power to record the image that is now known as the "face" of badgeman. Everything else is simply crap.Finally you miss the entire point..the image is not just dust, lint (which are a big part of it) and shadows...but it is actually GRAIN from the UPI copy negative. Craig, the original photo was sharp ... at least when you talk to people who know its history. By the time Mary's photo was being looked at in 1978 - the photo's clarity was badly degraded. The film Mary used didn't show grain, but it is possible that the copy print used had grain, but the problem is that there are parts of the photo in those prints that show little grain and grain on film should be uniform - correct? If the latter is true, then what you think is grain may not be grain at all. The drum scan was made from a copy negative that was shot out of focus, which means that it is not a good source for knowing what was seen on those original UPI prints made on the afternoon of the assassination. I have worked with many assassination images and in all my experiences, I have been able to show that what someone thought was a person was never really there, while I have never been able to create an image of an individual out of nothing. Bill Miller you've come a longway, since the good old day's, eh? --- I recollect a few instances, when you could create things in trees nah -- never mind... that was before Photoshop, yes? <quote on> I have been able to show that what someone thought was a person was never really there, while I have never been able to create an image of an individual out of nothing. <quote off> makes perfect sense to me, LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 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". Craig, your point on what the cause of the alleged badge or police patch may or may not be correct, but the face and head shape is what sells me on the image in combination with Gordon Arnold's statements. When I look at the Badge Man's face ... I see the side of his face from which the sun would be on to be lighter than the side facing away from the sun, thus I do not believe his appearence to be part of the tree foilage. So whille I believe you certainly have an argument as to whether this individual wore a badge or police patch ... I disagree that his complete image is nothing more than lint, dust, and shadows. In asking Gary Mack for what he recalls pertaining to these images ... "In 1966/1967, Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg separately received several 8x10 prints of the Moorman photo from United Press International (not Wide World Photos). Groden made slide blowups from one of Thompson's prints and some included the Badge Man area. He sent a slide to me, I noticed Badge Man, and gave the slide to Jack to see what he could do to improve the image. Later, I borrowed Thompson's 8x10 print and Jack made blowups from that, too. I have seen both Groden's and Jack's Badge Man images - and Jack's are better. " Bill Miller Thanks, Bill...Gary is absolutely correct. He should know. He did all the leg work, I did all the photo work. I shared every step of my work with him. He knows more about the Moorman photo and its history than ANY OTHER RESEARCHER. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 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". Craig, your point on what the cause of the alleged badge or police patch may or may not be correct, but the face and head shape is what sells me on the image in combination with Gordon Arnold's statements. When I look at the Badge Man's face ... I see the side of his face from which the sun would be on to be lighter than the side facing away from the sun, thus I do not believe his appearence to be part of the tree foilage. So whille I believe you certainly have an argument as to whether this individual wore a badge or police patch ... I disagree that his complete image is nothing more than lint, dust, and shadows. In asking Gary Mack for what he recalls pertaining to these images ... "In 1966/1967, Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg separately received several 8x10 prints of the Moorman photo from United Press International (not Wide World Photos). Groden made slide blowups from one of Thompson's prints and some included the Badge Man area. He sent a slide to me, I noticed Badge Man, and gave the slide to Jack to see what he could do to improve the image. Later, I borrowed Thompson's 8x10 print and Jack made blowups from that, too. I have seen both Groden's and Jack's Badge Man images - and Jack's are better. " Bill Miller Thanks, Bill...Gary is absolutely correct. He should know. He did all the leg work, I did all the photo work. I shared every step of my work with him. He knows more about the Moorman photo and its history than ANY OTHER RESEARCHER. Jack Lamson claims that Thompson had in his possession the ORIGINAL MOORMAN POLAROID, which he had a professional photographer copy. Mary Moorman told Gary Mack and me when she brought us the original for me to copy, that the print and camera had been in her bank lock box since 1963/64. Whom should we believe...Mary or Lamson? Jack PS...as far as I know, Lamson has NEVER POSTED AN IMAGE OF ANY KIND ON THE FORUM. Let him prove his arguments by posting the images he alleges so we can see them. His "drumscan" is not from the Thompson #1 image, which Gary and I determined was the best of all Moorman images. The film Mary used didn't show grain Bill Miller, What the hell are you talking about? Mary Moorman took a POLAROID! She didn't use any film. Comprendo? Gr. Paul. BTW: why are you always replying in bold text? Is that really necessary? Or are you thinking we otherwise don't read your replies? For the benefit of the ignorant, Polaroid has always referred to its product as FILM. Doubt me? Just Google POLAROID FILM. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Bill, regardless of what you think you may or may not see in the Moorman, the simple fact of the matter is that the Moorman camera/lens/film combo did not have the resolving power to record the image that is now known as the "face" of badgeman. Everything else is simply crap.Finally you miss the entire point..the image is not just dust, lint (which are a big part of it) and shadows...but it is actually GRAIN from the UPI copy negative. Craig, the original photo was sharp ... at least when you talk to people who know its history. By the time Mary's photo was being looked at in 1978 - the photo's clarity was badly degraded. The film Mary used didn't show grain, but it is possible that the copy print used had grain, but the problem is that there are parts of the photo in those prints that show little grain and grain on film should be uniform - correct? If the latter is true, then what you think is grain may not be grain at all. The drum scan was made from a copy negative that was shot out of focus, which means that it is not a good source for knowing what was seen on those original UPI prints made on the afternoon of the assassination. I have worked with many assassination images and in all my experiences, I have been able to show that what someone thought was a person was never really there, while I have never been able to create an image of an individual out of nothing. Bill Miller Bill you have NO IDEA what the original polaroid looked like or if it was indeed sharp. Here is a SIMPLE FACT OF LIFE. The photograph was shot handheld and with the camera panning at 1/100 of a second at f64.5 using a poor quality lens and using film that could only resolve 17 or so lp/mm in the best of high contrast conditions. With all of these factors combined there is simply not enough resolution to show the level of detail shown in the "badgeman" forgery. Hell even the many recreation photos taken with modern film (with 2-3 times the resolving power of the Moorman polarid film) using the Moorman camera don't show the level of detail shown in the badgeman forgery. In a word Bill you are full of it. I suggest you bone up again on film grain Bill. Grain mostly shows up in areas of smooth tone. It also gets suppressed in very dark and very light areas of a print. It may nbot be uniform accross the entire image. I have to laugh watching you try and deny film grain after watching you go to great lengths to use grain as a reason the Z film is not altered. Try being consistant. The drum scan. I've seen Mack try and pull the 'its out of focus" line before but I'm not suprised, he has a vested interest in keeping badgeman alive. Of course the out of focus line is bullcrap. Take a close look at the entire image of the drumscan. The baseboard on which the print is placed is tack sharp. You can CLEARLY see marks made by the print coater in the upper right hand side of the print...sharp as a tack. The bends and crinkles in the upper left hand corner of the image are also tack sharp. The bottom line is that both you and Gary (which is where you got the "its out of focus" line right?) are simply wrong. The drumscan negative is tack sharp. PERIOD. Its the Moorman POLAROID print which cannot be sharp...due to the simple reason stated above...that the camera/lens/film are by their very nature unsharp. But that really does not matter...its a strawman. Show me another Moorman copy that did NOT come from the UPI copy in any manner...that means the Zippo or the Smith or the White copies and show me ONE that has the badge or the shoulder patch. Hell look at the badgeman work that Crawley did from the original Moorman polaroid....not badge or patch there either. Why? Because they are simply dust and lint artifacts. You have nothing Bill. Quit while you are still ahead. Continue and you will look as silly as old man White. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 (edited) 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". Craig, your point on what the cause of the alleged badge or police patch may or may not be correct, but the face and head shape is what sells me on the image in combination with Gordon Arnold's statements. When I look at the Badge Man's face ... I see the side of his face from which the sun would be on to be lighter than the side facing away from the sun, thus I do not believe his appearence to be part of the tree foilage. So whille I believe you certainly have an argument as to whether this individual wore a badge or police patch ... I disagree that his complete image is nothing more than lint, dust, and shadows. In asking Gary Mack for what he recalls pertaining to these images ... "In 1966/1967, Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg separately received several 8x10 prints of the Moorman photo from United Press International (not Wide World Photos). Groden made slide blowups from one of Thompson's prints and some included the Badge Man area. He sent a slide to me, I noticed Badge Man, and gave the slide to Jack to see what he could do to improve the image. Later, I borrowed Thompson's 8x10 print and Jack made blowups from that, too. I have seen both Groden's and Jack's Badge Man images - and Jack's are better. " Bill Miller Thanks, Bill...Gary is absolutely correct. He should know. He did all the leg work, I did all the photo work. I shared every step of my work with him. He knows more about the Moorman photo and its history than ANY OTHER RESEARCHER. Jack Lamson claims that Thompson had in his possession the ORIGINAL MOORMAN POLAROID, which he had a professional photographer copy. Mary Moorman told Gary Mack and me when she brought us the original for me to copy, that the print and camera had been in her bank lock box since 1963/64. Whom should we believe...Mary or Lamson? Jack PS...as far as I know, Lamson has NEVER POSTED AN IMAGE OF ANY KIND ON THE FORUM. Let him prove his arguments by posting the images he alleges so we can see them. His "drumscan" is not from the Thompson #1 image, which Gary and I determined was the best of all Moorman images. The film Mary used didn't show grain Bill Miller, What the hell are you talking about? Mary Moorman took a POLAROID! She didn't use any film. Comprendo? Gr. Paul. BTW: why are you always replying in bold text? Is that really necessary? Or are you thinking we otherwise don't read your replies? For the benefit of the ignorant, Polaroid has always referred to its product as FILM. Doubt me? Just Google POLAROID FILM. Jack Who should we believe...NOT YOU JACK! I've posted many an image on this forum, The image from the Thompson drum scan was posted on this very forum (you remember Jack its the image you said was YOURS but in fact it was not) I posted a very high res copy on my Pbase page and linked so members of this forum could download it. Come one Jack. You are being stupid again. And I never said the drumscan was from the Thompson UPI print. It's not. It is a THUMBPRINT Moorman. Its from the professional copy Thompson had made in 1967. Despite of the bullcrap spewing from Whites keyboard, Thompson DID have the original Moorman print copied. From this link, an article in part authored by Thompson: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/drum_scan_gap.html "The drum scan In 1967, Josiah Thompson hired a professional Dallas photographer to copy the original Moorman Polaroid. The photographer returned to Thompson two 4 x 5 inch black and white negatives and 8 x 10 prints from the negatives. When the Moorman controversy arose recently, Thompson scanned one of the prints on a consumer-grade flatbed scanner and made the image available to the JFK research community. Dr. Costella used a version of this image file for his gap analysis. As part of the analysis, he magnified the image 3 times larger and rotated it to compensate for both camera rotation and scanner rotation. Both the Thompson original image and Dr. Costella's enlarged version contain compression artifacts, presumably from the source JPEG image file. The edges show signs of ringing, which is a byproduct of the compression inherent in JPEG, but also may be a sign of edge enhancement. Dr. Costella's processing of the image inevitably contributed its own artifacts. Unsure of the effect of these artifacts on gap measurement, we decided to get as close to the Moorman original as we could. Josiah Thompson took his negatives to Octagon Digital in San Francisco to have one of them professionally scanned on a drum scanner. He had the 4 x 5 negative scanned at 2400 DPI with no edge enhancement, no tonal adjustments, and no other processing. The scanner generated a 110 MB, 8-bit grayscale image to CD as an uncompressed TIFF file." Bottom Line: Jack White simply has no clue. Edited October 12, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 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". Craig, your point on what the cause of the alleged badge or police patch may or may not be correct, but the face and head shape is what sells me on the image in combination with Gordon Arnold's statements. When I look at the Badge Man's face ... I see the side of his face from which the sun would be on to be lighter than the side facing away from the sun, thus I do not believe his appearence to be part of the tree foilage. So whille I believe you certainly have an argument as to whether this individual wore a badge or police patch ... I disagree that his complete image is nothing more than lint, dust, and shadows. In asking Gary Mack for what he recalls pertaining to these images ... "In 1966/1967, Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg separately received several 8x10 prints of the Moorman photo from United Press International (not Wide World Photos). Groden made slide blowups from one of Thompson's prints and some included the Badge Man area. He sent a slide to me, I noticed Badge Man, and gave the slide to Jack to see what he could do to improve the image. Later, I borrowed Thompson's 8x10 print and Jack made blowups from that, too. I have seen both Groden's and Jack's Badge Man images - and Jack's are better. " Bill Miller Thanks, Bill...Gary is absolutely correct. He should know. He did all the leg work, I did all the photo work. I shared every step of my work with him. He knows more about the Moorman photo and its history than ANY OTHER RESEARCHER. Jack Lamson claims that Thompson had in his possession the ORIGINAL MOORMAN POLAROID, which he had a professional photographer copy. Mary Moorman told Gary Mack and me when she brought us the original for me to copy, that the print and camera had been in her bank lock box since 1963/64. Whom should we believe...Mary or Lamson? Jack PS...as far as I know, Lamson has NEVER POSTED AN IMAGE OF ANY KIND ON THE FORUM. Let him prove his arguments by posting the images he alleges so we can see them. His "drumscan" is not from the Thompson #1 image, which Gary and I determined was the best of all Moorman images. The film Mary used didn't show grain Bill Miller, What the hell are you talking about? Mary Moorman took a POLAROID! She didn't use any film. Comprendo? Gr. Paul. BTW: why are you always replying in bold text? Is that really necessary? Or are you thinking we otherwise don't read your replies? For the benefit of the ignorant, Polaroid has always referred to its product as FILM. Doubt me? Just Google POLAROID FILM. Jack Who should we believe...NOT YOU JACK! I've posted many an image on this forum, The image from the Thompson drum scan was posted on this very forum (you remember Jack its the image you said was YOURS but in fact it was not) I posted a very high res copy on my Pbase page and linked so members of this forum could download it. Come one Jack. You are being stupid again. And I never said the drumscan was from the Thompson UPI print. It's not. It is a THUMBPRINT Moorman. Its from the professional copy Thompson had made in 1967. Despite of the bullcrap spewing from Whites keyboard, Thompson DID have the original Moorman print copied. From this link, an article in part authored by Thompson: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/drum_scan_gap.html "The drum scan In 1967, Josiah Thompson hired a professional Dallas photographer to copy the original Moorman Polaroid. The photographer returned to Thompson two 4 x 5 inch black and white negatives and 8 x 10 prints from the negatives. When the Moorman controversy arose recently, Thompson scanned one of the prints on a consumer-grade flatbed scanner and made the image available to the JFK research community. Dr. Costella used a version of this image file for his gap analysis. As part of the analysis, he magnified the image 3 times larger and rotated it to compensate for both camera rotation and scanner rotation. Both the Thompson original image and Dr. Costella's enlarged version contain compression artifacts, presumably from the source JPEG image file. The edges show signs of ringing, which is a byproduct of the compression inherent in JPEG, but also may be a sign of edge enhancement. Dr. Costella's processing of the image inevitably contributed its own artifacts. Unsure of the effect of these artifacts on gap measurement, we decided to get as close to the Moorman original as we could. Josiah Thompson took his negatives to Octagon Digital in San Francisco to have one of them professionally scanned on a drum scanner. He had the 4 x 5 negative scanned at 2400 DPI with no edge enhancement, no tonal adjustments, and no other processing. The scanner generated a 110 MB, 8-bit grayscale image to CD as an uncompressed TIFF file." Bottom Line: Jack White simply has no clue. The version of the "drumscan" I used was on a CD that someone in Tink's Gang mailed to me; I don't remember who. Presumably it should be superior quality to one downloaded from the internet. I am sure that Gary Mack can verify whether the original Polaroid ever left Mary's possession. When Smith and I copied the original, Mary and/or her husband waited while it was copied, never letting it out of their sight. So now Lamson not claims that the drumscan was made FROM A NEGATIVE SHOT FROM THE ORIGINAL, and not from a Thompson print. Interesting. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 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". Craig, your point on what the cause of the alleged badge or police patch may or may not be correct, but the face and head shape is what sells me on the image in combination with Gordon Arnold's statements. When I look at the Badge Man's face ... I see the side of his face from which the sun would be on to be lighter than the side facing away from the sun, thus I do not believe his appearence to be part of the tree foilage. So whille I believe you certainly have an argument as to whether this individual wore a badge or police patch ... I disagree that his complete image is nothing more than lint, dust, and shadows. In asking Gary Mack for what he recalls pertaining to these images ... "In 1966/1967, Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg separately received several 8x10 prints of the Moorman photo from United Press International (not Wide World Photos). Groden made slide blowups from one of Thompson's prints and some included the Badge Man area. He sent a slide to me, I noticed Badge Man, and gave the slide to Jack to see what he could do to improve the image. Later, I borrowed Thompson's 8x10 print and Jack made blowups from that, too. I have seen both Groden's and Jack's Badge Man images - and Jack's are better. " Bill Miller Thanks, Bill...Gary is absolutely correct. He should know. He did all the leg work, I did all the photo work. I shared every step of my work with him. He knows more about the Moorman photo and its history than ANY OTHER RESEARCHER. Jack Lamson claims that Thompson had in his possession the ORIGINAL MOORMAN POLAROID, which he had a professional photographer copy. Mary Moorman told Gary Mack and me when she brought us the original for me to copy, that the print and camera had been in her bank lock box since 1963/64. Whom should we believe...Mary or Lamson? Jack PS...as far as I know, Lamson has NEVER POSTED AN IMAGE OF ANY KIND ON THE FORUM. Let him prove his arguments by posting the images he alleges so we can see them. His "drumscan" is not from the Thompson #1 image, which Gary and I determined was the best of all Moorman images. The film Mary used didn't show grain Bill Miller, What the hell are you talking about? Mary Moorman took a POLAROID! She didn't use any film. Comprendo? Gr. Paul. BTW: why are you always replying in bold text? Is that really necessary? Or are you thinking we otherwise don't read your replies? For the benefit of the ignorant, Polaroid has always referred to its product as FILM. Doubt me? Just Google POLAROID FILM. Jack Who should we believe...NOT YOU JACK! I've posted many an image on this forum, The image from the Thompson drum scan was posted on this very forum (you remember Jack its the image you said was YOURS but in fact it was not) I posted a very high res copy on my Pbase page and linked so members of this forum could download it. Come one Jack. You are being stupid again. And I never said the drumscan was from the Thompson UPI print. It's not. It is a THUMBPRINT Moorman. Its from the professional copy Thompson had made in 1967. Despite of the bullcrap spewing from Whites keyboard, Thompson DID have the original Moorman print copied. From this link, an article in part authored by Thompson: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/drum_scan_gap.html "The drum scan In 1967, Josiah Thompson hired a professional Dallas photographer to copy the original Moorman Polaroid. The photographer returned to Thompson two 4 x 5 inch black and white negatives and 8 x 10 prints from the negatives. When the Moorman controversy arose recently, Thompson scanned one of the prints on a consumer-grade flatbed scanner and made the image available to the JFK research community. Dr. Costella used a version of this image file for his gap analysis. As part of the analysis, he magnified the image 3 times larger and rotated it to compensate for both camera rotation and scanner rotation. Both the Thompson original image and Dr. Costella's enlarged version contain compression artifacts, presumably from the source JPEG image file. The edges show signs of ringing, which is a byproduct of the compression inherent in JPEG, but also may be a sign of edge enhancement. Dr. Costella's processing of the image inevitably contributed its own artifacts. Unsure of the effect of these artifacts on gap measurement, we decided to get as close to the Moorman original as we could. Josiah Thompson took his negatives to Octagon Digital in San Francisco to have one of them professionally scanned on a drum scanner. He had the 4 x 5 negative scanned at 2400 DPI with no edge enhancement, no tonal adjustments, and no other processing. The scanner generated a 110 MB, 8-bit grayscale image to CD as an uncompressed TIFF file." Bottom Line: Jack White simply has no clue. The version of the "drumscan" I used was on a CD that someone in Tink's Gang mailed to me; I don't remember who. Presumably it should be superior quality to one downloaded from the internet. I am sure that Gary Mack can verify whether the original Polaroid ever left Mary's possession. When Smith and I copied the original, Mary and/or her husband waited while it was copied, never letting it out of their sight. So now Lamson not claims that the drumscan was made FROM A NEGATIVE SHOT FROM THE ORIGINAL, and not from a Thompson print. Interesting. Jack Sigh...your mind is going old man. I sent you the cd with the drumscan file. I also sent it to ANYONE who requested it at the JKFresearch forum. I've never claimed it was made from a print. I've mentioned any nuber of time ON THIS FORUM that the scan was direct from the negative. That was the whole point of getting the scan done...to get as close to the original as possible. We had a scan of the print produced from this negative, why scan it again... sheesh. As stated the file in the above quote was untouched off the scanner. As such it has not had any levels or curves adjustments made to it. It looks "flat" This was also done for a reason...to keep guys like you from making stupid comment about the file being altered. Not that it stopped you in any case. The file I posted (and was copied by a great many people during the time it was up) did have the levels adjusted as I pointed out when I posted the link. As such it DID look better than the file on the cd. It was also reduced in size down to about 11x14 at 300dpi from he original which was 39"x32" at 300dpi...and this was native resolution from the scanner, no interpolation. Good grief Jack, you knew all of this stuff, why suddenly are you making this seem like new news. Senile? BTW, Gary Mack was part of our group that trashed your silly claim that Mary was in the street. Are you suggesting that he was willing to put a falsehood about the origin of the drumscan in the article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 (edited) Jack White has made two statements above. One of which is correct; the other is incorrect. He said that I never copied the original Moorman Polaroid. That statement is false. He said that the original Polaroid never left Mary Moorman's custody. That statement may very well be true. What I know to be true is the following: In 1967, I paid Mary Moorman to make her Polaroid available for copying by a professional Dallas photographer. I have no idea how this was done. Did he stop by her home and copy it there? Did she drop it by his studio and leave it there for a few days? I don't have a clue what the answer is. I know that I paid her to make the Polaroid available and I paid a professional photographer to copy it. The professional photographer produced several copy negatives about the same size as the Polaroid and also several 8" by 10" prints made from these copy negatives. All of these materials have remained in my custody from the time I obtained them in 1967. At Craig's suggestion, I took a copy negative to a local shop that had a high quality drum scanner. I paid them to drum scan the copy negative. The high resolution scan of the copy negative was then used to show that the claim of Jack White, James Fetzer, Ph.D., and David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. (sorry for the all the letters after the names but Fetzer never leaves home without them) concerning Mary Moorman standing in the street was based on sloppy research. The point here was that White believed that the front left corner of the Zapruder pedestal lined up perfectly with the bottom right corner of a window behind in the pergola. If these points line up, they would have formed a line of sight to the camera lens of Moorman's camera. They didn't. You can note a considerable gap if you look at those two points in the photo in question. Because they didn't, White, Fetzer and Mantik have been suffering the slings and arrows of misled researchers ever since. Ask White.... I think he's still claiming he made no error of observation. The whole badgeman brou-ha-ha is based upon another copy of the Moorman photo which I obtained from UPI or Black Star photo in 1967. I sent it to Gary Mack and Jack White nearly twenty years ago. Only if you fiddle around with contrast and such things can you see any semblance of what Jack White says is there and tries to prove with his "colorized" versions. Craig Lamson is right when he says the resolving power of Moorman's lens and film was not sufficient to produce what Jack White says is there. Many of us have spent a lot of time debunking claims Jack White has made. The badgeman claim is wrong; the Mary Moorman in the street claim is wrong. Has he ever produced any claim that was right? All the various proofs about the Zapruder film being faked up have been shown to wrong. Please don't trot out any of NASA fabricated man-on-the-moon nonsense. I mean seriously has he produced a significant claim about the Kennedy assassination that proved to be right? Josiah Thompson P>S> I apologize folks. I posted this message and it didn't show up. So I posted it again... and again. Suddenly, all three showed up and I haven't been able to figure out how to delete the other two. Any advice on how to delete a posted message will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. 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". Craig, your point on what the cause of the alleged badge or police patch may or may not be correct, but the face and head shape is what sells me on the image in combination with Gordon Arnold's statements. When I look at the Badge Man's face ... I see the side of his face from which the sun would be on to be lighter than the side facing away from the sun, thus I do not believe his appearence to be part of the tree foilage. So whille I believe you certainly have an argument as to whether this individual wore a badge or police patch ... I disagree that his complete image is nothing more than lint, dust, and shadows. In asking Gary Mack for what he recalls pertaining to these images ... "In 1966/1967, Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg separately received several 8x10 prints of the Moorman photo from United Press International (not Wide World Photos). Groden made slide blowups from one of Thompson's prints and some included the Badge Man area. He sent a slide to me, I noticed Badge Man, and gave the slide to Jack to see what he could do to improve the image. Later, I borrowed Thompson's 8x10 print and Jack made blowups from that, too. I have seen both Groden's and Jack's Badge Man images - and Jack's are better. " Bill Miller Thanks, Bill...Gary is absolutely correct. He should know. He did all the leg work, I did all the photo work. I shared every step of my work with him. He knows more about the Moorman photo and its history than ANY OTHER RESEARCHER. Jack Lamson claims that Thompson had in his possession the ORIGINAL MOORMAN POLAROID, which he had a professional photographer copy. Mary Moorman told Gary Mack and me when she brought us the original for me to copy, that the print and camera had been in her bank lock box since 1963/64. Whom should we believe...Mary or Lamson? Jack PS...as far as I know, Lamson has NEVER POSTED AN IMAGE OF ANY KIND ON THE FORUM. Let him prove his arguments by posting the images he alleges so we can see them. His "drumscan" is not from the Thompson #1 image, which Gary and I determined was the best of all Moorman images. The film Mary used didn't show grain Bill Miller, What the hell are you talking about? Mary Moorman took a POLAROID! She didn't use any film. Comprendo? Gr. Paul. BTW: why are you always replying in bold text? Is that really necessary? Or are you thinking we otherwise don't read your replies? For the benefit of the ignorant, Polaroid has always referred to its product as FILM. Doubt me? Just Google POLAROID FILM. Jack Who should we believe...NOT YOU JACK! I've posted many an image on this forum, The image from the Thompson drum scan was posted on this very forum (you remember Jack its the image you said was YOURS but in fact it was not) I posted a very high res copy on my Pbase page and linked so members of this forum could download it. Come one Jack. You are being stupid again. And I never said the drumscan was from the Thompson UPI print. It's not. It is a THUMBPRINT Moorman. Its from the professional copy Thompson had made in 1967. Despite of the bullcrap spewing from Whites keyboard, Thompson DID have the original Moorman print copied. From this link, an article in part authored by Thompson: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/drum_scan_gap.html "The drum scan In 1967, Josiah Thompson hired a professional Dallas photographer to copy the original Moorman Polaroid. The photographer returned to Thompson two 4 x 5 inch black and white negatives and 8 x 10 prints from the negatives. When the Moorman controversy arose recently, Thompson scanned one of the prints on a consumer-grade flatbed scanner and made the image available to the JFK research community. Dr. Costella used a version of this image file for his gap analysis. As part of the analysis, he magnified the image 3 times larger and rotated it to compensate for both camera rotation and scanner rotation. Both the Thompson original image and Dr. Costella's enlarged version contain compression artifacts, presumably from the source JPEG image file. The edges show signs of ringing, which is a byproduct of the compression inherent in JPEG, but also may be a sign of edge enhancement. Dr. Costella's processing of the image inevitably contributed its own artifacts. Unsure of the effect of these artifacts on gap measurement, we decided to get as close to the Moorman original as we could. Josiah Thompson took his negatives to Octagon Digital in San Francisco to have one of them professionally scanned on a drum scanner. He had the 4 x 5 negative scanned at 2400 DPI with no edge enhancement, no tonal adjustments, and no other processing. The scanner generated a 110 MB, 8-bit grayscale image to CD as an uncompressed TIFF file." Bottom Line: Jack White simply has no clue. The version of the "drumscan" I used was on a CD that someone in Tink's Gang mailed to me; I don't remember who. Presumably it should be superior quality to one downloaded from the internet. I am sure that Gary Mack can verify whether the original Polaroid ever left Mary's possession. When Smith and I copied the original, Mary and/or her husband waited while it was copied, never letting it out of their sight. So now Lamson not claims that the drumscan was made FROM A NEGATIVE SHOT FROM THE ORIGINAL, and not from a Thompson print. Interesting. Jack Sigh...your mind is going old man. I sent you the cd with the drumscan file. I also sent it to ANYONE who requested it at the JKFresearch forum. I've never claimed it was made from a print. I've mentioned any nuber of time ON THIS FORUM that the scan was direct from the negative. That was the whole point of getting the scan done...to get as close to the original as possible. We had a scan of the print produced from this negative, why scan it again... sheesh. As stated the file in the above quote was untouched off the scanner. As such it has not had any levels or curves adjustments made to it. It looks "flat" This was also done for a reason...to keep guys like you from making stupid comment about the file being altered. Not that it stopped you in any case. The file I posted (and was copied by a great many people during the time it was up) did have the levels adjusted as I pointed out when I posted the link. As such it DID look better than the file on the cd. It was also reduced in size down to about 11x14 at 300dpi from he original which was 39"x32" at 300dpi...and this was native resolution from the scanner, no interpolation. Good grief Jack, you knew all of this stuff, why suddenly are you making this seem like new news. Senile? BTW, Gary Mack was part of our group that trashed your silly claim that Mary was in the street. Are you suggesting that he was willing to put a falsehood about the origin of the drumscan in the article? Edited October 12, 2006 by Josiah Thompson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Jack White has made two statements about me in the discussion above. First, he said that "Thompson never had the original copied." That is false. He also said that the original Polaroid was never out of Mary Moorman’s possession. I have no idea whether this second statement is true or false. This I know. In 1967, I paid Mary Moorman to make her original Polaroid available for copying. I also paid a professional photographer to copy that original in such a way as to produce the highest resolution. I have no idea whether Mary Moorman kept the Polaroid at home and the professional photographer came to her home to copy it. Likewise, I have no idea whether she may have permitted him to keep the Polaroid at his studio for several days while he copied it. All I know is that both were paid and that the professional photographer produced several copy negatives of about the same size as the original Polaroid. He also produced several 8" by 10" prints made from the copy negatives. These materials have been in my custody since 1967. A couple of years ago, Craig Lamson suggested that I take one of the copy negatives to a photolab here in San Francisco which could make a high resolution drum scan. I did that and paid the lab for the drum scan. That drum scan (which is arguably the most accurate copy of the Moorman Polaroid in existence) we used to debunk the claim of Jack White, James Fetzer, Ph.D., and David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. (excuse all the letters after the names but Fetzer never leaves home without them) that Mary Moorman was standing on Elm Street when she took her photo. The point is that White started this claim with sloppy observation. He claimed in one of Fetzer’s books that you could line-up exactly the right front corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the bottom left corner of a window in the pergola behind. He was correct to point out that if these two points lined up then the lens of Moorman’s camera had to be on that same line-of-sight. The problem was, of course, that the two points didn’t line up. You can see this if you look carefully at the photograph which has been posted. There is a considerable gap. Sloppy research on Jack White’s part backed by some pompous silliness on Fetzer and Mantik’s part wasted a lot of time for a lot of people. The badgeman controversy which is the focus of this thread is another wild goose chase sponsored by Jack White. Once again, in this silliness I have a role. Back in the 1980s, I sent to Gary Mack and Jack White an 8" by 10" print of the Moorman Polaroid which I had obtained from UPI or Black Star in 1967. I wish I hadn’t. It was apparent at the outset that the badgeman shape was a function of contrast and lighting, that it was not present in many other prints made from the Polaroid original. That was why they went with the particular print that I sent them. No matter how many “colorized” versions Jack White can pump out, he cannot meet the basic objection Craig Lamson has made and explained: the resolving power of Moorman’s lens and the film in her camera was not sufficient to record what White says was recorded. End of argument. I hope no one will feel this question is ungenerous but I have wasted a lot of research time dealing with bad claims of Jack White and his pals. He was wrong about Moorman-in-the-street? He was wrong about “badgeman?” He was wrong about the Oswald photos? His repeated claims about the fakery of the Zapruder film have turned out to be feckless? Has Jack White ever made a claim that turned out to be true? If one had a Jack White film festival, what would one show? Has any of his “photo interpretation” turned out to be sound? I don’t know. I’m asking. Josiah Thompson 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". Craig, your point on what the cause of the alleged badge or police patch may or may not be correct, but the face and head shape is what sells me on the image in combination with Gordon Arnold's statements. When I look at the Badge Man's face ... I see the side of his face from which the sun would be on to be lighter than the side facing away from the sun, thus I do not believe his appearence to be part of the tree foilage. So whille I believe you certainly have an argument as to whether this individual wore a badge or police patch ... I disagree that his complete image is nothing more than lint, dust, and shadows. In asking Gary Mack for what he recalls pertaining to these images ... "In 1966/1967, Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg separately received several 8x10 prints of the Moorman photo from United Press International (not Wide World Photos). Groden made slide blowups from one of Thompson's prints and some included the Badge Man area. He sent a slide to me, I noticed Badge Man, and gave the slide to Jack to see what he could do to improve the image. Later, I borrowed Thompson's 8x10 print and Jack made blowups from that, too. I have seen both Groden's and Jack's Badge Man images - and Jack's are better. " Bill Miller Thanks, Bill...Gary is absolutely correct. He should know. He did all the leg work, I did all the photo work. I shared every step of my work with him. He knows more about the Moorman photo and its history than ANY OTHER RESEARCHER. Jack Lamson claims that Thompson had in his possession the ORIGINAL MOORMAN POLAROID, which he had a professional photographer copy. Mary Moorman told Gary Mack and me when she brought us the original for me to copy, that the print and camera had been in her bank lock box since 1963/64. Whom should we believe...Mary or Lamson? Jack PS...as far as I know, Lamson has NEVER POSTED AN IMAGE OF ANY KIND ON THE FORUM. Let him prove his arguments by posting the images he alleges so we can see them. His "drumscan" is not from the Thompson #1 image, which Gary and I determined was the best of all Moorman images. The film Mary used didn't show grain Bill Miller, What the hell are you talking about? Mary Moorman took a POLAROID! She didn't use any film. Comprendo? Gr. Paul. BTW: why are you always replying in bold text? Is that really necessary? Or are you thinking we otherwise don't read your replies? For the benefit of the ignorant, Polaroid has always referred to its product as FILM. Doubt me? Just Google POLAROID FILM. Jack Who should we believe...NOT YOU JACK! I've posted many an image on this forum, The image from the Thompson drum scan was posted on this very forum (you remember Jack its the image you said was YOURS but in fact it was not) I posted a very high res copy on my Pbase page and linked so members of this forum could download it. Come one Jack. You are being stupid again. And I never said the drumscan was from the Thompson UPI print. It's not. It is a THUMBPRINT Moorman. Its from the professional copy Thompson had made in 1967. Despite of the bullcrap spewing from Whites keyboard, Thompson DID have the original Moorman print copied. From this link, an article in part authored by Thompson: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/drum_scan_gap.html "The drum scan In 1967, Josiah Thompson hired a professional Dallas photographer to copy the original Moorman Polaroid. The photographer returned to Thompson two 4 x 5 inch black and white negatives and 8 x 10 prints from the negatives. When the Moorman controversy arose recently, Thompson scanned one of the prints on a consumer-grade flatbed scanner and made the image available to the JFK research community. Dr. Costella used a version of this image file for his gap analysis. As part of the analysis, he magnified the image 3 times larger and rotated it to compensate for both camera rotation and scanner rotation. Both the Thompson original image and Dr. Costella's enlarged version contain compression artifacts, presumably from the source JPEG image file. The edges show signs of ringing, which is a byproduct of the compression inherent in JPEG, but also may be a sign of edge enhancement. Dr. Costella's processing of the image inevitably contributed its own artifacts. Unsure of the effect of these artifacts on gap measurement, we decided to get as close to the Moorman original as we could. Josiah Thompson took his negatives to Octagon Digital in San Francisco to have one of them professionally scanned on a drum scanner. He had the 4 x 5 negative scanned at 2400 DPI with no edge enhancement, no tonal adjustments, and no other processing. The scanner generated a 110 MB, 8-bit grayscale image to CD as an uncompressed TIFF file." Bottom Line: Jack White simply has no clue. The version of the "drumscan" I used was on a CD that someone in Tink's Gang mailed to me; I don't remember who. Presumably it should be superior quality to one downloaded from the internet. I am sure that Gary Mack can verify whether the original Polaroid ever left Mary's possession. When Smith and I copied the original, Mary and/or her husband waited while it was copied, never letting it out of their sight. So now Lamson not claims that the drumscan was made FROM A NEGATIVE SHOT FROM THE ORIGINAL, and not from a Thompson print. Interesting. Jack Sigh...your mind is going old man. I sent you the cd with the drumscan file. I also sent it to ANYONE who requested it at the JKFresearch forum. I've never claimed it was made from a print. I've mentioned any nuber of time ON THIS FORUM that the scan was direct from the negative. That was the whole point of getting the scan done...to get as close to the original as possible. We had a scan of the print produced from this negative, why scan it again... sheesh. As stated the file in the above quote was untouched off the scanner. As such it has not had any levels or curves adjustments made to it. It looks "flat" This was also done for a reason...to keep guys like you from making stupid comment about the file being altered. Not that it stopped you in any case. The file I posted (and was copied by a great many people during the time it was up) did have the levels adjusted as I pointed out when I posted the link. As such it DID look better than the file on the cd. It was also reduced in size down to about 11x14 at 300dpi from he original which was 39"x32" at 300dpi...and this was native resolution from the scanner, no interpolation. Good grief Jack, you knew all of this stuff, why suddenly are you making this seem like new news. Senile? BTW, Gary Mack was part of our group that trashed your silly claim that Mary was in the street. Are you suggesting that he was willing to put a falsehood about the origin of the drumscan in the article? 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