Jack White's badgeman fantasy.....

[Craig Lamson]

Thanks for the post Tink. It was enlightening since I have never known your views on badgeman.

[Jack White]

For the record, perhaps Tink will name the "Dallas photographer" who made the

inferior copy from the original Polaroid. I guess he is aware that Mary does not

live in Dallas, but about 100 miles away...and never mentioned Thompson copying

the original in the 80s when she let me copy it, saying she had kept it in a bank

vault. As I found by copying the original, it was FAR INFERIOR to the UPI copy of

it in the possession of Thompson. Why would he use this INFERIOR COPY for the

drumscan instead of his superior copy loaned to Gary Mack, made before the

the original faded. The reason for the inferior quality of the drumscan is that

a poor copy was used instead of the superior one in his possession.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

For the record, perhaps Tink will name the "Dallas photographer" who made the

inferior copy from the original Polaroid. I guess he is aware that Mary does not

live in Dallas, but about 100 miles away...and never mentioned Thompson copying

the original in the 80s when she let me copy it, saying she had kept it in a bank

vault. As I found by copying the original, it was FAR INFERIOR to the UPI copy of

it in the possession of Thompson. Why would he use this INFERIOR COPY for the

drumscan instead of his superior copy loaned to Gary Mack, made before the

the original faded. The reason for the inferior quality of the drumscan is that

a poor copy was used instead of the superior one in his possession.

Jack

Good grief Jack...more wasted time when you know the reason why the negative was drum scanned. Start your brain. What was MISSING from the UPI copy? What was NEEDED for the the debunking of your stupid Moorman in the street non-sense?

The negative used for the drumscan was not inferior. Sharp and crisp. So sharp and crisp one can see the fuzz on the tattered corner of the print, the fine thin lines left by the foam coater, detailed surface defects on the print and sharp folds in the upper left corenr of the print. No it is an EXCELLENT copy negative of the ORIGINAL Moorman.

[Jack White]

Attached is MY COPY from the ORIGINAL Polaroid with the

CONTRAST GREATLY ENHANCED from the faded original.

Jack

[Guest John Woods]

For the record, perhaps Tink will name the "Dallas photographer" who made the

inferior copy from the original Polaroid. I guess he is aware that Mary does not

live in Dallas, but about 100 miles away...and never mentioned Thompson copying

the original in the 80s when she let me copy it, saying she had kept it in a bank

vault. As I found by copying the original, it was FAR INFERIOR to the UPI copy of

it in the possession of Thompson. Why would he use this INFERIOR COPY for the

drumscan instead of his superior copy loaned to Gary Mack, made before the

the original faded. The reason for the inferior quality of the drumscan is that

a poor copy was used instead of the superior one in his possession.

Jack

Jack,

Why are Moorman images #1 & #2 greenish?

johnw

[Jack White]

For the record, perhaps Tink will name the "Dallas photographer" who made the

inferior copy from the original Polaroid. I guess he is aware that Mary does not

live in Dallas, but about 100 miles away...and never mentioned Thompson copying

the original in the 80s when she let me copy it, saying she had kept it in a bank

vault. As I found by copying the original, it was FAR INFERIOR to the UPI copy of

it in the possession of Thompson. Why would he use this INFERIOR COPY for the

drumscan instead of his superior copy loaned to Gary Mack, made before the

the original faded. The reason for the inferior quality of the drumscan is that

a poor copy was used instead of the superior one in his possession.

Jack

Good grief Jack...more wasted time when you know the reason why the negative was drum scanned. Start your brain. What was MISSING from the UPI copy? What was NEEDED for the the debunking of your stupid Moorman in the street non-sense?

The negative used for the drumscan was not inferior. Sharp and crisp. So sharp and crisp one can see the fuzz on the tattered corner of the print, the fine thin lines left by the foam coater, detailed surface defects on the print and sharp folds in the upper left corenr of the print. No it is an EXCELLENT copy negative of the ORIGINAL Moorman.

Proof that the "drumscan" from an original copy negative

was far inferior to the Thompson #1 print from UPI. Case closed.

Jack

[Jack White]

For the record, perhaps Tink will name the "Dallas photographer" who made the

inferior copy from the original Polaroid. I guess he is aware that Mary does not

live in Dallas, but about 100 miles away...and never mentioned Thompson copying

the original in the 80s when she let me copy it, saying she had kept it in a bank

vault. As I found by copying the original, it was FAR INFERIOR to the UPI copy of

it in the possession of Thompson. Why would he use this INFERIOR COPY for the

drumscan instead of his superior copy loaned to Gary Mack, made before the

the original faded. The reason for the inferior quality of the drumscan is that

a poor copy was used instead of the superior one in his possession.

Jack

Jack,

Why are Moorman images #1 & #2 greenish?

johnw

John, they are greenish because I scanned them from 35mm slides

of prints. The slides have a slight greenish cast, and I did not bother

to adjust the tone. I am attaching the composite again with #2

adjusted to look more like the sepia original (except I had made

the prints much contrastier than the original). The exact color of the

originals is immaterial. It is the image that is important.

Jack

Edited October 13, 2006 by Jack White

[Craig Lamson]

For the record, perhaps Tink will name the "Dallas photographer" who made the

inferior copy from the original Polaroid. I guess he is aware that Mary does not

live in Dallas, but about 100 miles away...and never mentioned Thompson copying

the original in the 80s when she let me copy it, saying she had kept it in a bank

vault. As I found by copying the original, it was FAR INFERIOR to the UPI copy of

it in the possession of Thompson. Why would he use this INFERIOR COPY for the

drumscan instead of his superior copy loaned to Gary Mack, made before the

the original faded. The reason for the inferior quality of the drumscan is that

a poor copy was used instead of the superior one in his possession.

Jack

Good grief Jack...more wasted time when you know the reason why the negative was drum scanned. Start your brain. What was MISSING from the UPI copy? What was NEEDED for the the debunking of your stupid Moorman in the street non-sense?

The negative used for the drumscan was not inferior. Sharp and crisp. So sharp and crisp one can see the fuzz on the tattered corner of the print, the fine thin lines left by the foam coater, detailed surface defects on the print and sharp folds in the upper left corenr of the print. No it is an EXCELLENT copy negative of the ORIGINAL Moorman.

Proof that the "drumscan" from an original copy negative

was far inferior to the Thompson #1 print from UPI. Case closed.

Jack

Once more for the lurkers not used to Jack White disinformation.

The image he shows as "badgeman" is not created using the UPI copy print. It is a b/w print of a 35mm copy negative made from an enlarged 35mm slide which is a copy of an 8x10 b/w UPI print which was printed from a b/w copy negative taken of the original polaroid print. Case closed.

Now Jack we have watched you twist and turn for 5 pages and you have yet to address the key points of this thread.

1. the Moorman camera/lens/film did not hve the required resolution to produce the level of detail found in your badgeman forgery.

2. That the "badge and the shoulder patch" are simply artifacts created by lint and dust when the UPI copy negative was created.

Can we expect your answers to points or are you going to continue throwing more strawmen at the wall to see if anything will stick?

[Guest John Woods]

For the record, perhaps Tink will name the "Dallas photographer" who made the

inferior copy from the original Polaroid. I guess he is aware that Mary does not

live in Dallas, but about 100 miles away...and never mentioned Thompson copying

the original in the 80s when she let me copy it, saying she had kept it in a bank

vault. As I found by copying the original, it was FAR INFERIOR to the UPI copy of

it in the possession of Thompson. Why would he use this INFERIOR COPY for the

drumscan instead of his superior copy loaned to Gary Mack, made before the

the original faded. The reason for the inferior quality of the drumscan is that

a poor copy was used instead of the superior one in his possession.

Jack

Good grief Jack...more wasted time when you know the reason why the negative was drum scanned. Start your brain. What was MISSING from the UPI copy? What was NEEDED for the the debunking of your stupid Moorman in the street non-sense?

The negative used for the drumscan was not inferior. Sharp and crisp. So sharp and crisp one can see the fuzz on the tattered corner of the print, the fine thin lines left by the foam coater, detailed surface defects on the print and sharp folds in the upper left corenr of the print. No it is an EXCELLENT copy negative of the ORIGINAL Moorman.

Proof that the "drumscan" from an original copy negative

was far inferior to the Thompson #1 print from UPI. Case closed.

Jack

Craig,

Could you please tell me why Moorman #1 & 2 are greenish since Jack

did not respond to my question?

Would the greenish effect was caused by a improper exposure?

Thanks

johnw

[Craig Lamson]

For the record, perhaps Tink will name the "Dallas photographer" who made the

inferior copy from the original Polaroid. I guess he is aware that Mary does not

live in Dallas, but about 100 miles away...and never mentioned Thompson copying

the original in the 80s when she let me copy it, saying she had kept it in a bank

vault. As I found by copying the original, it was FAR INFERIOR to the UPI copy of

it in the possession of Thompson. Why would he use this INFERIOR COPY for the

drumscan instead of his superior copy loaned to Gary Mack, made before the

the original faded. The reason for the inferior quality of the drumscan is that

a poor copy was used instead of the superior one in his possession.

Jack

Good grief Jack...more wasted time when you know the reason why the negative was drum scanned. Start your brain. What was MISSING from the UPI copy? What was NEEDED for the the debunking of your stupid Moorman in the street non-sense?

The negative used for the drumscan was not inferior. Sharp and crisp. So sharp and crisp one can see the fuzz on the tattered corner of the print, the fine thin lines left by the foam coater, detailed surface defects on the print and sharp folds in the upper left corenr of the print. No it is an EXCELLENT copy negative of the ORIGINAL Moorman.

Proof that the "drumscan" from an original copy negative

was far inferior to the Thompson #1 print from UPI. Case closed.

Jack

Craig,

Could you please tell me why Moorman #1 & 2 are greenish since Jack

did not respond to my question?

Would the greenish effect was caused by a improper exposure?

Thanks

johnw

Jack says its because he failed to correct the color balance when he made the scans. Also Jack has a habit of scanning b/w orignals in rgb color under the mistaken impression that doing so "shows more detail" It does not.

[Jack White]

For the record, perhaps Tink will name the "Dallas photographer" who made the

inferior copy from the original Polaroid. I guess he is aware that Mary does not

live in Dallas, but about 100 miles away...and never mentioned Thompson copying

the original in the 80s when she let me copy it, saying she had kept it in a bank

vault. As I found by copying the original, it was FAR INFERIOR to the UPI copy of

it in the possession of Thompson. Why would he use this INFERIOR COPY for the

drumscan instead of his superior copy loaned to Gary Mack, made before the

the original faded. The reason for the inferior quality of the drumscan is that

a poor copy was used instead of the superior one in his possession.

Jack

Good grief Jack...more wasted time when you know the reason why the negative was drum scanned. Start your brain. What was MISSING from the UPI copy? What was NEEDED for the the debunking of your stupid Moorman in the street non-sense?

The negative used for the drumscan was not inferior. Sharp and crisp. So sharp and crisp one can see the fuzz on the tattered corner of the print, the fine thin lines left by the foam coater, detailed surface defects on the print and sharp folds in the upper left corenr of the print. No it is an EXCELLENT copy negative of the ORIGINAL Moorman.

Proof that the "drumscan" from an original copy negative

was far inferior to the Thompson #1 print from UPI. Case closed.

Jack

Once more for the lurkers not used to Jack White disinformation.

The image he shows as "badgeman" is not created using the UPI copy print. It is a b/w print of a 35mm copy negative made from an enlarged 35mm slide which is a copy of an 8x10 b/w UPI print which was printed from a b/w copy negative taken of the original polaroid print. Case closed.

Now Jack we have watched you twist and turn for 5 pages and you have yet to address the key points of this thread.

1. the Moorman camera/lens/film did not hve the required resolution to produce the level of detail found in your badgeman forgery.

2. That the "badge and the shoulder patch" are simply artifacts created by lint and dust when the UPI copy negative was created.

Can we expect your answers to points or are you going to continue throwing more strawmen at the wall to see if anything will stick?

"The image he shows as "badgeman" is not created using the UPI copy print. It is a b/w print of a 35mm copy negative made from an enlarged 35mm slide which is a copy of an 8x10 b/w UPI print which was printed from a b/w copy negative taken of the original polaroid print. Case closed."

WRONG. THE SOURCE OF THE BADGEMAN IMAGE, ACCORDING TO GRODEN

WAS A SLIDE OF THE UPI IMAGE WHICH HE BORROWED FROM THOMPSON.

REGARDLESS OF THE INTERMEDIATE PHOTO STEPS, THE ORIGINAL WAS THE

UPI PRINT BELONGING TO THOMPSON. ALL BADGEMAN IMAGES ARE FROM

THE THOMPSON UPI PRINT.

"1. the Moorman camera/lens/film did not hve the required resolution to produce the level of detail found in your badgeman forgery."

WRONG. GARY MACK CHECKED WITH POLAROID ON THE CAMERA/LENS/FILM

AND WAS TOLD THE LENS WAS A HIGH QUALITY GLASS LENS, AND THE FILM

WAS "VIRTUALLY GRAINLESS" COMPARED TO NEGATIVE FILM BECAUSE THE

DIFFUSION PROCESS PRODUCED A VERY "SMOOTH" IMAGE. CHECK WITH

GARY ON HIS RESEARCH INTO THESE MATTERS. IT IS IDIOTIC TO SAY THAT

"MY BADGEMAN IMAGE IS A FORGERY" BECAUSE IT IS MERELY A COPY FROM

A GRODEN SLIDE OF A UPI PRINT. ANY FORGERY TOOK PLACE PREVIOUS TO

THE UPI COPY. THIS IS A POSSIBILITY, BUT I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

"2. That the "badge and the shoulder patch" are simply artifacts created by lint and dust when the UPI copy negative was created."

THE THOMPSON #1 UPI PRINT HAD NO LINT AND DUST ARTIFACTS IN THESE AREAS.

RECTAL SMOKE DOES NOT ALTER FACTS. JUST SMELLS BAD.

JACK

For the record, perhaps Tink will name the "Dallas photographer" who made the

inferior copy from the original Polaroid. I guess he is aware that Mary does not

live in Dallas, but about 100 miles away...and never mentioned Thompson copying

the original in the 80s when she let me copy it, saying she had kept it in a bank

vault. As I found by copying the original, it was FAR INFERIOR to the UPI copy of

it in the possession of Thompson. Why would he use this INFERIOR COPY for the

drumscan instead of his superior copy loaned to Gary Mack, made before the

the original faded. The reason for the inferior quality of the drumscan is that

a poor copy was used instead of the superior one in his possession.

Jack

Good grief Jack...more wasted time when you know the reason why the negative was drum scanned. Start your brain. What was MISSING from the UPI copy? What was NEEDED for the the debunking of your stupid Moorman in the street non-sense?

The negative used for the drumscan was not inferior. Sharp and crisp. So sharp and crisp one can see the fuzz on the tattered corner of the print, the fine thin lines left by the foam coater, detailed surface defects on the print and sharp folds in the upper left corenr of the print. No it is an EXCELLENT copy negative of the ORIGINAL Moorman.

Proof that the "drumscan" from an original copy negative

was far inferior to the Thompson #1 print from UPI. Case closed.

Jack

Craig,

Could you please tell me why Moorman #1 & 2 are greenish since Jack

did not respond to my question?

Would the greenish effect was caused by a improper exposure?

Thanks

johnw

John...please pay attention. See my response at POST # 70.

Jack

[Shanet Clark]

JHas 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

The Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photos forgery,

that is Jack White's first and most unassailable photoanalytical discovery.

The tip table, the facial duplication across various frames, the chin line, the strange body alignment,

all these are Jack's conclusions, originally and he has been proven right .............

[Craig Lamson]

The old man trys in vain to save his butt by posting more disinformation...

"

WRONG. THE SOURCE OF THE BADGEMAN IMAGE, ACCORDING TO GRODEN

WAS A SLIDE OF THE UPI IMAGE WHICH HE BORROWED FROM THOMPSON.

REGARDLESS OF THE INTERMEDIATE PHOTO STEPS, THE ORIGINAL WAS THE

UPI PRINT BELONGING TO THOMPSON. ALL BADGEMAN IMAGES ARE FROM

THE THOMPSON UPI PRINT.

"1. the Moorman camera/lens/film did not hve the required resolution to produce the level of detail found in your badgeman forgery."

WRONG. GARY MACK CHECKED WITH POLAROID ON THE CAMERA/LENS/FILM

AND WAS TOLD THE LENS WAS A HIGH QUALITY GLASS LENS, AND THE FILM

WAS "VIRTUALLY GRAINLESS" COMPARED TO NEGATIVE FILM BECAUSE THE

DIFFUSION PROCESS PRODUCED A VERY "SMOOTH" IMAGE. CHECK WITH

GARY ON HIS RESEARCH INTO THESE MATTERS. IT IS IDIOTIC TO SAY THAT

"MY BADGEMAN IMAGE IS A FORGERY" BECAUSE IT IS MERELY A COPY FROM

A GRODEN SLIDE OF A UPI PRINT. ANY FORGERY TOOK PLACE PREVIOUS TO

THE UPI COPY. THIS IS A POSSIBILITY, BUT I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

"2. That the "badge and the shoulder patch" are simply artifacts created by lint and dust when the UPI copy negative was created."

THE THOMPSON #1 UPI PRINT HAD NO LINT AND DUST ARTIFACTS IN THESE AREAS.

RECTAL SMOKE DOES NOT ALTER FACTS. JUST SMELLS BAD.

JACK"

1. You post YOUR forgery of "badgeman" and claim its a "good print of the Moorman". It is nothing of the sort. It is a b/w print from a 35mm negative....well you all know the rest of this song by now.....

2. Garys claim that Polaroid "says the lens is high quality and the film is virtually grainless" is a strawman. The question at hand is: does the camera/lens/film have the required resolution to record the level of detail found in you badgeman forgery? That has not be addressed by any of you. And the reason WHY is because the camera/lens/fils..and we should really add f-stop cannot record that level of detail.

3. Your image IS a forgery because it is a copy that does not reflect the actual contents of the Moorman original yet you claim it does.

4. The UPI print DOES show lint and dust in the location you call the badge and the shoulder patch. This is proven by the fact that NO OTHER COPIES of the Moorman (not including those made from the UPI print) show the "badge and shoulder patch" Thats because the dust and lint present when the UPI copy was made was NOT THERE when the other copies were made.

5. Your lack of knowlege into the detailed technical facts surrounding the crap called "badgeman" is the true smoke and its blowing out of your ass.

Watching you spin here and Gary trying to spin in emails is just TOO FUNNY!

[Jack White]

For the record, perhaps Tink will name the "Dallas photographer" who made the

inferior copy from the original Polaroid. I guess he is aware that Mary does not

live in Dallas, but about 100 miles away...and never mentioned Thompson copying

the original in the 80s when she let me copy it, saying she had kept it in a bank

vault. As I found by copying the original, it was FAR INFERIOR to the UPI copy of

it in the possession of Thompson. Why would he use this INFERIOR COPY for the

drumscan instead of his superior copy loaned to Gary Mack, made before the

the original faded. The reason for the inferior quality of the drumscan is that

a poor copy was used instead of the superior one in his possession.

Jack

Good grief Jack...more wasted time when you know the reason why the negative was drum scanned. Start your brain. What was MISSING from the UPI copy? What was NEEDED for the the debunking of your stupid Moorman in the street non-sense?

The negative used for the drumscan was not inferior. Sharp and crisp. So sharp and crisp one can see the fuzz on the tattered corner of the print, the fine thin lines left by the foam coater, detailed surface defects on the print and sharp folds in the upper left corenr of the print. No it is an EXCELLENT copy negative of the ORIGINAL Moorman.

Proof that the "drumscan" from an original copy negative

was far inferior to the Thompson #1 print from UPI. Case closed.

Jack

Craig,

Could you please tell me why Moorman #1 & 2 are greenish since Jack

did not respond to my question?

Would the greenish effect was caused by a improper exposure?

Thanks

johnw

Jack says its because he failed to correct the color balance when he made the scans. Also Jack has a habit of scanning b/w orignals in rgb color under the mistaken impression that doing so "shows more detail" It does not.

Lamson continues to blow rectal smoke. The Moorman scans were made about

ten years ago. I did not fail anything...I just scanned useful images to match

my color copy slides...long before Lamson "existed".

These were NOT b/w images. The originals were sepia-toned Polaroids. I made my

copy prints extra contrasty to improve detail. When I copied the bw prints to slides, the

lighting was slightly off balance for the color film I was using, giving the color slides a

greenish cast. This sometimes happened when I failed to turn off the fluorescent overhead

lights while copying. When scanned ten years ago, I had no reason to make the images either

SEPIA or BW, so had no reason to correct the images.

Despite Lamson, scanning BW in color PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY to make adjustments

in chroma scales to bring out hidden detail, very similar to DODGING in the darkroom.

In BW, the only computer controls are CONTRAST, BRIGHTNESS and SHARPNESS.

In COLOR, the RGB controls ADDITIONALLY can be manipulated individually to bring out

hidden detail which would otherwise be hidden.

Lamson's rectal smoke is really smelling up the forum.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

JHas 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

The Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photos forgery,

that is Jack White's first and most unassailable photoanalytical discovery.

The tip table, the facial duplication across various frames, the chin line, the strange body alignment,

all these are Jack's conclusions, originally and he has been proven right .............

Shanet please reporduce White's results of the "tilt easel" All the tools to do so are availabe in photoshop. You MUST make all the images MATCH EXACTLY. Should you be unable to do so Whites theory of the "tilt easal" will have been proven wrong. But good luck, I've tried time and time again and have yet to get the backgrounds to get even close to matching...which means that once again, WHite is full of caca.

And unless you can verify his claim, please refrain from citing it.