Jack White's badgeman fantasy.....

[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

[Craig Lamson]

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

Learn to read old man...Tink answered your question quite a few posts ago.

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."

Now how about doing some of the things that have been asked of you? Got the balls?

[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

Learn to read old man...Tink answered your question quite a few posts ago.

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."

Now how about doing some of the things that have been asked of you? Got the balls?

How could Thompson pay lots of money to a photographer AND NOT REMEMBER NOR HAVE

RECORDS OF THE TRANSACTION? We are entitled to know who the photographer was that could

NOT make a quality copy. What were the photographer's qualifications? In the sixties, I

hired lots of Dallas photographers for photo shoots; some were excellent, others average.

Best in this area was W.D. Smith, who specialized in photocopies, aerial photos, and giant

mural enlargements.

Jack

Edited October 14, 2006 by Jack White

[David G. Healy]

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

Learn to read old man...Tink answered your question quite a few posts ago.

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."

Now how about doing some of the things that have been asked of you? Got the balls?

dgh:sitdown you moron, that includes your balls too, if you own a pair -- questions relating to Dr. Thompson's post have been asked, you have absolutely no knowledge regarding the topic or thiongs related to JFK's assassination

Edited October 14, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Josiah Thompson]

Okay, I'm going to try to be as patient and understanding as I can.

Jack White wrote:

"How could Thompson pay lots of money to a photographer AND NOT REMEMBER NOR HAVE

RECORDS OF THE TRANSACTION? We are entitled to know who the photographer was that could

NOT make a quality copy. What were the photographer's qualifications? In the sixties, I

hired lots of Dallas photographers for photo shoots; some were excellent, others average.

Best in this area was W.D. Smith, who specialized in photocopies, aerial photos, and giant

mural enlargements."

First of all, it wasn't "a lot of money." In the late spring and early summer of 1967 long after my work at LIFE magazine stopped, we started buying the photos we needed for "Six Seconds." Since the Moorman photo was so important, we took the trouble of employing a professional Dallas photographer to copy it using the best methods available. I don't think he charged "a lot of money." My best recollection is that it was a couple of hundred dollars. I don't know because I don't have his receipt available to me. That is the same reason why, after 49 years, I don't remember his name. Some of my files I gave to ARRC in Washington thirty years ago. Other files I threw out when I moved here from Philadelphia in 1978.

Secondly, the photographer made a really top quality copy. The copy negative was about the same size as the Moorman Polaroid and its resolution is really fine (as Craig Lamson pointed out to you).

Mr. Healy asked about whether the copying followed LIFE magazine's protocols... or something like that. This question mystifies me. Which copying? The copying in 1967 had nothing to do with LIFE magazine since I was gathering materials for "Six Seconds." The copying a few years ago obviously had nothing to do with LIFE magazine.

What on earth are White and Healy bitching about? Back in the 1980s I made my copies of the Moorman photo available to Jack White and Gary Mack. More recently, I paid to get the Moorman 1967 negative drum-scanned and Craig Lamson just made it available on this thread.

Instead of confronting the clear evidence of the "gap" on the drum-scan copy and all other copies, Jack White chooses to claim that the drum-scan copy has been fiddled in some way. To expose the silliness and basic dishonesty of this move, Craig Lamson asked Jack White to produce for us to see the highest resolution copy of the Moorman photo that he has. What did he produce? Butkus!

Josiah Thompson

quote name='Jack White' date='Oct 14 2006, 09:06 PM' post='77828']

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

Learn to read old man...Tink answered your question quite a few posts ago.

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."

Now how about doing some of the things that have been asked of you? Got the balls?

How could Thompson pay lots of money to a photographer AND NOT REMEMBER NOR HAVE

RECORDS OF THE TRANSACTION? We are entitled to know who the photographer was that could

NOT make a quality copy. What were the photographer's qualifications? In the sixties, I

hired lots of Dallas photographers for photo shoots; some were excellent, others average.

Best in this area was W.D. Smith, who specialized in photocopies, aerial photos, and giant

mural enlargements.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

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

Learn to read old man...Tink answered your question quite a few posts ago.

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."

Now how about doing some of the things that have been asked of you? Got the balls?

dgh:sitdown you moron, that includes your balls too, if you own a pair -- questions relating to Dr. Thompson's post have been asked, you have absolutely no knowledge regarding the topic or thiongs related to JFK's assassination

Bite me guard dog. It appears I have FAR more knowlege about the photographic record and the processes involved that you ever will. Oh wait...you HAVE read a book...excuse me...and then F off.

'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

[...]

Nice post dips--t. Can you READ? I though not. Try REVIEWING the posts in a thread and then perhaps you will not look so f'ing stupid asking silly questions.

Edited October 15, 2006 by Craig Lamson