Jack White's badgeman fantasy.....

[Shanet Clark]

Yada yada blah blah blah

members can research this themselves,

and Jack was right in all his specifics on this important

forgery

[Craig Lamson]

Jack, these are your OWN words from just a few posts ago....

"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 wrote:

Jack says its because he failed to correct the color balance when he made the scans.

Learn to read.

And I never said your images were b/w. I simply mentioned that you have a habit of scanning b/w image sin color and you have just confirmed that I was correct.

Finally adding colorto a b/w image does nothing but uselessly increase the file size and it actually introduces MORE artifacts into the image. In other words you are destroying the image, not enhancing it.

[Jack White]

Yada yada blah blah blah

members can research this themselves,

and Jack was right in all his specifics on this important

forgery

Shanet...thanks. While on this subject, maybe we can get Lamson

to come clean (confess?) who did the PHOTOSHOP alteration to his

beloved DRUMSCAN Moorman. Someone (who?) SHARPENED

THE TOP OF THE PEDESTAL AND TILTED IT A LITTLE TO INCREASE

A PERCEIVED "GAP". Maybe Lamson knows who did this.

Jack

PS...back in the 80s when I did the TILT-EASEL discovery on the

backyard photos, NOBODY had computers. Lamson implies I should

have used computer controls to do this instead of such a "primitive"

method. More rectal smoke.

[Craig Lamson]

Yada yada blah blah blah

members can research this themselves,

and Jack was right in all his specifics on this important

forgery

In other words you CANNOT reproduce this part of Whites study and you have NOTHING to confirm your belief in his findings other than FAITH. High quality research there Shanet.

Yada Yada yada...thats the quality of your ill-formed opinions....

[Craig Lamson]

Yada yada blah blah blah

members can research this themselves,

and Jack was right in all his specifics on this important

forgery

Shanet...thanks. While on this subject, maybe we can get Lamson

to come clean (confess?) who did the PHOTOSHOP alteration to his

beloved DRUMSCAN Moorman. Someone (who?) SHARPENED

THE TOP OF THE PEDESTAL AND TILTED IT A LITTLE TO INCREASE

A PERCEIVED "GAP". Maybe Lamson knows who did this.

Jack

PS...back in the 80s when I did the TILT-EASEL discovery on the

backyard photos, NOBODY had computers. Lamson implies I should

have used computer controls to do this instead of such a "primitive"

method. More rectal smoke.

Have you used up your bag of xxxx yet Jack, the walls are getting all covered in the slimy goo but nothing is sticking.

While we are at it, why not show us all a nice big and clean scan of YOUR copy of the Moorman original...in the area of the gap. Of course we all know you will NEVER do that because it will disprove your ignorant claim that the drum scan has been retouched. We all also know that you use the zippo simply because the quality is soooo bad. So come on Jack, step up to the plate and post your copy of the moorman orginal...nice and big in the ped area....You got the balls old man?

You really can't read can you Jack. I suggested that Shanet use the computer NOW, not that you shOuld have used It way back in the dark ages. But while we are at it, why don'T YOU redo the tilt easal thing using the computer. You can prove once and for all that you are right. Just be sure to record all the information so we can all verify your work. You don't have the balls for that one either.

[Josiah Thompson]

The professional photographer in Dallas who copied Mary Moorman's photo in 1967 was well-known in Dallas and, I think, was recommended by Patsy Swank and Holland McCombs, people I worked with on the LIFE magazine investigation in Dallas. I can't recall his name just now. I do recall that both he and Mary Moorman were paid to get the best copies we could possibly get. Why? Because one of the arguments in "Six Seconds" was the claim that an anomalous shape along the fence-line might be a gunman. For this

reason alone, I took pains to obtain the most accurate, high resolution image I could obtain.

The socalled "Thompson drum-scan image" was the result of that effort. I have maintained it in my custody ever since. As Craig Lamson pointed out, when I had it drum-scanned a few years ago I took stringent precautions to make sure the scanning process did not introduce anything new into the photograph. Jack White now comes along and claims either I or someone else has fiddled the evidence and produced a dishonest image. This claim is both insulting and self-serving. It is nothing more than sour grapes. Years ago, Jack White made a sloppy observation and jumped to a false conclusion. He claimed that the left front corner of the Zapruder pedestal lined up exactly with the bottom right corner of a window in the pergola behind it. If this were true, it would establish a line of sight to Moorman's camera lens. But White was sloppy. He claimed the two points lined up when they didn't. A significant "gap" is apparent in the good detail of the drum-scan image. What is just as important is that this gap is also visible in every other image made from the Moorman original. Years ago, White failed to see the "gap" and jumped to a conclusion. For years now, he has been truying to save face by claiming no "gap" exists. Instead of doing the honorable thing and admitting a simple mistake of observation, White claims that other people (including me) are guilty of a conspiracy to fake evidence. If White will simply produce his highest resolution copy of the Moorman photo, everyone can judge whether the "gap" is there and we can be done with yet another controversy caused by a mistake of White's.

Josiah Thompson

Yada yada blah blah blah

members can research this themselves,

and Jack was right in all his specifics on this important

forgery

Shanet...thanks. While on this subject, maybe we can get Lamson

to come clean (confess?) who did the PHOTOSHOP alteration to his

beloved DRUMSCAN Moorman. Someone (who?) SHARPENED

THE TOP OF THE PEDESTAL AND TILTED IT A LITTLE TO INCREASE

A PERCEIVED "GAP". Maybe Lamson knows who did this.

Jack

PS...back in the 80s when I did the TILT-EASEL discovery on the

backyard photos, NOBODY had computers. Lamson implies I should

have used computer controls to do this instead of such a "primitive"

method. More rectal smoke.

Have you used up your bag of xxxx yet Jack, the walls are getting all covered in the slimy goo but nothing is sticking.

While we are at it, why not show us all a nice big and clean scan of YOUR copy of the Moorman original...in the area of the gap. Of course we all know you will NEVER do that because it will disprove your ignorant claim that the drum scan has been retouched. We all also know that you use the zippo simply because the quality is soooo bad. So come on Jack, step up to the plate and post your copy of the moorman orginal...nice and big in the ped area....You got the balls old man?

You really can't read can you Jack. I suggested that Shanet use the computer NOW, not that you shOuld have used It way back in the dark ages. But while we are at it, why don'T YOU redo the tilt easal thing using the computer. You can prove once and for all that you are right. Just be sure to record all the information so we can all verify your work. You don't have the balls for that one either.

[David G. Healy]

'Craig Lamson' wrote:

Yada yada blah blah blah

members can research this themselves,

and Jack was right in all his specifics on this important

forgery

Shanet...thanks. While on this subject, maybe we can get Lamson

to come clean (confess?) who did the PHOTOSHOP alteration to his

beloved DRUMSCAN Moorman. Someone (who?) SHARPENED

THE TOP OF THE PEDESTAL AND TILTED IT A LITTLE TO INCREASE

A PERCEIVED "GAP". Maybe Lamson knows who did this.

Jack

PS...back in the 80s when I did the TILT-EASEL discovery on the

backyard photos, NOBODY had computers. Lamson implies I should

have used computer controls to do this instead of such a "primitive"

method. More rectal smoke.

Have you used up your bag of xxxx yet Jack, the walls are getting all covered in the slimy goo but nothing is sticking.

dgh: appears Mr. Lamson forgot what forum he's posting to

While we are at it, why not show us all a nice big and clean scan of YOUR copy of the Moorman original...in the area of the gap. Of course we all know you will NEVER do that because it will disprove your ignorant claim that the drum scan has been retouched. We all also know that you use the zippo simply because the quality is soooo bad. So come on Jack, step up to the plate and post your copy of the moorman orginal...nice and big in the ped area....You got the balls old man?

dgh: there he goes, AGAIN!

You really can't read can you Jack. I suggested that Shanet use the computer NOW, not that you shOuld have used It way back in the dark ages. But while we are at it, why don'T YOU redo the tilt easal thing using the computer. You can prove once and for all that you are right. Just be sure to record all the information so we can all verify your work. You don't have the balls for that one either.

dgh: and yet, AGAIN

[Josiah Thompson]

On the afternoon of November 22nd while Mary Moorman and Jean Hill sat waiting to be interviewed by law enforcement, an enterprising Dallas reporter snapped a photo of Mary Moorman's famous photo. He stood it up and photographed it next to a Zippo lighter. The lighter then gave its name to this copy of the Moorman photo... the "Zippo copy."

In terms of resolution, this photo is probably the worst we have. It does have one positive attribute. No one had smeared their fingerprint on the surface. Once you see the whole original photo, you can readily grasp why its resolution is so pure --- the photo itself only takes up a small portion of the frame of the copy. The only discrepancy between it and the socalled "Thompson drum scan copy" is its miserable resolution. It and all other copies of the Moorman photo show the same thing that the drum scan copy shows.... there is a significant gap where Jack White says there is none. I attach several photos of the Zippo copy all of which came in earlier postings by Jack White.

[Bill Miller]

Yada yada blah blah blah

members can research this themselves,

and Jack was right in all his specifics on this important

forgery

Shanet, even I found the Backyard photos interesting, but when you respond like you did to Craig in such a generic tempermental way - it usually tells the viewers that you really cannot explain why you believe something is correct and the stupid-assed answer was a type of distraction from that point.

Bill Miller

Edited October 13, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Shanet Clark]

Miller ---

Your lack of any critical thinking skills is apparent in all your posts .........

remember when I stumped you with the "DIM BULB" reference??

We all had a good laugh..............at your expense

(and you did not even know it---until now)

please post only on McAdams and Lancer from now on,

because we all know you are a shill for

Gary Mack and his Lone Nut museum

Edited October 14, 2006 by Shanet Clark

[Brendan Slattery]

Hey morons: where's your precious Mr. Arnold in the Moorman polaroid? Seems to me he should be plainly visible. Either that or a lying sack of xxxx.

[David G. Healy]

'Josiah Thompson' wrote:

The professional photographer in Dallas who copied Mary Moorman's photo in 1967 was well-known in Dallas and, I think, was recommended by Patsy Swank and Holland McCombs, people I worked with on the LIFE magazine investigation in Dallas. I can't recall his name just now. I do recall that both he and Mary Moorman were paid to get the best copies we could possibly get. Why? Because one of the arguments in "Six Seconds" was the claim that an anomalous shape along the fence-line might be a gunman. For this

reason alone, I took pains to obtain the most accurate, high resolution image I could obtain.

The socalled "Thompson drum-scan image" was the result of that effort. I have maintained it in my custody ever since. As Craig Lamson pointed out, when I had it drum-scanned a few years ago I took stringent precautions to make sure the scanning process did not introduce anything new into the photograph. Jack White now comes along and claims either I or someone else has fiddled the evidence and produced a dishonest image.

Dr. Thompson, from what I've read, I don't believe Jack is insinuating you did anything... do you have or can you tell us who the Dallas **professional** photographer was that copied the Moorman 5.

Stringent precautions? Those might be? If you will, what "high-resolution" film format was the Moorman 5 initially copied to? Were you the only entity that had the high resolution transparency (I assume it was a transparency), or is/was it LIFE Magazines property? If LIFE, do they have a copy in their files?

This claim is both insulting and self-serving. It is nothing more than sour grapes. Years ago, Jack White made a sloppy observation and jumped to a false conclusion. He claimed that the left front corner of the Zapruder pedestal lined up exactly with the bottom right corner of a window in the pergola behind it. If this were true, it would establish a line of sight to Moorman's camera lens. But White was sloppy. He claimed the two points lined up when they didn't. A significant "gap" is apparent in the good detail of the drum-scan image.

"significant gap..is apparent", apparent to whom? Nobody else has seen this "original image copied from the Moorman5, now called the 'Thompson drum-scan image [transparency?]. Some have seen a .tif file claiming to be a electroinc file of same, hell, that could of come from anywhere.

What is just as important is that this gap is also visible in every other image made from the Moorman original. Years ago, White failed to see the "gap" and jumped to a conclusion. For years now, he has been truying to save face by claiming no "gap" exists. Instead of doing the honorable thing and admitting a simple mistake of observation, White claims that other people (including me) are guilty of a conspiracy to fake evidence. If White will simply produce his highest resolution copy of the Moorman photo, everyone can judge whether the "gap" is there and we can be done with yet another controversy caused by a mistake of White's.

I think a better suggestion, and the "honorable" thing to do: gather all original DP JFK assassination related photography to one place, make all the ORIGINAL film/photo imagery available to researchers for a period of 2 years, validate it, then move on.

Josiah Thompson

[...]

Edited October 14, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

I think a better suggestion, and the "honorable" thing to do: gather all original DP JFK assassination related photography to one place, make all the ORIGINAL film/photo imagery available to researchers for a period of 2 years, validate it, then move on.

I think that many assassination images could be validated by authenticating a samller number of photos and films that support the same visual information. For instance, the photo Josiah posted of Moorman's photo as seen on the afternoon of the assasination debunks Jack's calim that Zapruder and Sitzman were added to all the asassination films and photos. Unless Jack can show how Moorman's photo was altered in that short period, then at least one alteration claim is dead.

Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

... Unless Jack can show how Moorman's photo was altered in that short period, then at least one alteration claim is dead.

Bill Miller

nonsense, you nor anybody on this forum (posting or otherwise) can label the Moorman5 Polaroid photo under discussion, as "original". Till that is proven to the satisfaction of the "professionals", specifically professionals with Polaroid expertise can any, ANY detailed authentication be undertaken...

Opinions of what 'photo/film' is and isn't, as commonly found on this forum as well as other's, becomes irrelevant, as do those posters opinions.

[Jack White]

Tink wrote:

"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. "

Jack asks:

What is the NAME of the photographer you paid to make the copies?

Another question...do you know the provenance of the original ZIPPO print?

Gary obtained it from someone...was it you? If so, who took the photo?

Maybe Gary knows.

Jack