Talk:Badge Man

Untitled

The Moorman #5 polaroid captured simultaneously with Zapruder frame
315 to 316 (precisely 315.6), only 0.14 second after President Kennedy's head exploded
(do you know where the "badge man" and HSCA-determined grassy knoll assassins were located?)
Used with the personal permission of Mary Moorman, one of three dozen Dealey Plaza
witnesses I have personally interviewed. Anyone who claims to know anything about
the assassination should personally interview the living witnesses. They are relatively easy to
locate, and most will share the details of what he/she saw, heard, felt, touched, and/or smelled.

[[image:JFKmoormanINVERTED2.gif|]]
Moorman #5 showing inverted shades displaying the evident damage to the head top and head rear of President Kennedy.

File:WIKImoormanDIDPmackASSASSINSnoQUESTION.gif
The HSCA acoustically-determined the location of the grassy knoll assassin when
the HSCA had an 11-22-63 Dallas police motorcycle escort radio tape scientifically analyzed and
compared to an HSCA shooting recreation recorded in 1978. The HSCA never tested the "badge man"
location because the "badge man" was not discovered until 1982.

File:MOORMANwhiteENHANCEMENT080304crop.gif
The "badge man" cropped, contrasted and brightened only.

File:MACKwhiteZOOMgif.gif
(left to right, and colorized) supposedly Gordon Arnold filming, "badge man" assassin,
the railroadman construction-hard-hatted accomplice.

File:MACKwhiteZOOMbmONLYgif.gif
The "badge man" assassin colorized.

Badgeman 18:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks for the photos. Seems like wiki-software does not display them as clear and crisp as they actually are. In your opinion, IF badgeman was a real assassin who appears to have just fired a shot, do you think that bullet hit JFK? 205.188.117.9 20:18, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • The "badge man" assassin's shot, fired within a micro-second of the HSCA-determined assassin's shot, did not strike President Kennedy. (since the president was facing nearly in profile to the "badge man," if a "badge man" fired bullet had hit the president in the right side of his head, the bullet, most-likely, would have exited on the left half of the president's head). There is evidence of where the "badge man" missed shot went to. On 11-22-63, within an hour of the assassination, Jean Hill, who was very close to the president at 313, stated on tv that some shots were fired from the grassy knoll. Jean Hill further testified to the Warren Commission that on 11-22-63 she was told by one of the "agents" who questioned her and Mary Moorman that a second "agent" -who Hill testified the first agent told her this second "agent" had been stationed in Dealey Plaza- saw a bullet strike close to her feet in the ground and that bullet kicked up debris. (officially, there were no "agents" documented to be stationed in/near Dealey Plaza at any time, even though several other witnesses are documented to have encountered "agent(s)" within Dealey Plaza within 25 minutes of the assassination) The trajectory line of a shot fired from "badge man" just missing President Kennedy from Z-310 to 314, leads directly at the immediate ground surrounding Jean Hill. Additionally, there is 1968 documented grand jury testimony from a Dealey Plaza witness that he observed a gunman fire from within the open trunk of a car parked with its trunk up close to the picket fence line.

Some notes on the latest revert

1. There is no reason to restore the old quotation marks. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Use_straight_quotation_marks_and_apostrophes.
2. It is rude to accuse another editor of vandalism over a content dispute.
3. Your opinions on this McAdams person are irrelevant and do not belong in this article or in the edit summary.
4. This is not the HSCA article and is not the place for their conclusions.
5. The idea that the HSCA "scientifically determined to better than a 95% probability" the exact spot of a second shooter based on dubious acoustic evidence is utter nonsense.

Gamaliel 00:57, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • Thanks, Gamaleel, for your "lone nut" Warren Commission apologist opinion. Obviously your (liberally over-emotional) opinion is only a non-neutral opinion, and, just as transparent, you have not kept yourself current with (and/or, you are living in denial about) the research since 1982 (over 23+ years), nor have you, apparently, read, and/or you have not comprehended, the acoustics dictabelt tape research from 2001 onward that further supports the second, grassy knoll/picket fence-determined assassin. Here are external links, freely available for all to read and make his/her own determination, to the up-to-date acoustics dictabelt research from 2001 to present that scientifically determines to better than a 95% probability, and further supports the second, grassy/knoll picket fence assassin that was also determined scientifically by the HSCA to a 95% probability:
  • Dr. Thomas study of the grassy knoll shot, March 2001
  • Dr. Thomas study of the grassy knoll shot, November 2001
  • Dr. Thomas study of the grassy knoll shot, September 2002
  • Dr. Thomas study of the grassy knoll shot, November 2002
  • Dr. Thomas study of the grassy knoll shot, December 2003; Court-tv rebuttal
  • Badgeman 00:04, 29 Jan 2005(UTC)

Your edit removed some of my earlier comments, which I have restored. I assume this was accidental, but however it happened, please take care not to do this again. If you want a productive discussion, please take a more polite tone with those who disagree with you. Note Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Comments like "liberally over-emotional" and "living in denial" are unproductive and uncivil. Also, please spell my user name correctly. Gamaliel 01:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you do agree, do you not, that a "productive discussion," (and by direct inference, productive, accurate Wikipedia-disseminated information) also, absolutely, includes discussing and disseminating ALL of the related documented evidence, right? Badgeman 14:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Question of POV

I am tempted to add a sentence saying that the purported badge man could not have been "the" assasin since the retaining wall would have blocked him from the President for that fatal shot. I know some will claim that is POV, but I've been to Dealey Plaza and I can tell you that that shot is impossible.

Here is a proposed sentence: Visitors to Dealey Plaza will quickly realize however that any person standing in the location of "badge man" could not have fired a fatal shot at President Kennedy, since the retaining wall would block their line of sight. This is so even if the person stands on the bumber of a car.Ramsquire 21:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • Not true, Ramsquire. As with most "lone nut" apologists, Ramsquire is not knowledgeable of, and/or, he "forgot" to mention something.... he "forgot" to mention that it has, in fact, been scientifically proven that in the Moorman polaroid #5 the line-of-sight from Mary Moorman to the "badge man" head top proves that the "badge man" head top is above the ground some 8', therefore, as seen in the Moorman #5 polaroid the "badge man" feet if just 0.5' northwest of the picket fence line were elevated above the car parking lot ground (given an average human male height of 5'10"). Because it has been scientifically determined that the "badge man" head top was elevated above the ground some 8', that, of course, then did make it entirely possible for a "badge man" fired bullet to pass above the upper corner of the cement retaining wall. The "badge man" assassin's shot, fired within a micro-second of the HSCA-determined assassin's shot, did not strike President Kennedy. (since the president was facing nearly in profile to the "badge man," if a "badge man" fired bullet had hit the president in the right side of his head, the bullet, most-likely, would have exited on the left half of the president's head). There is evidence of where the "badge man" missed shot went to. On 11-22-63, within an hour of the assassination, Jean Hill, who was very close to the president at 313, stated on tv that some shots were fired from the grassy knoll. Jean Hill further testified to the Warren Commission that on 11-22-63 she was told by one of the "agents" who questioned her and Mary Moorman that a second "agent" -who Hill testified the first agent told her this second "agent" had been stationed in Dealey Plaza- saw a bullet strike close to her feet in the ground and that bullet kicked up debris. (officially, there were no "agents" documented to be stationed in/near Dealey Plaza at any time, even though several other witnesses are documented to have encountered "agent(s)" within Dealey Plaza within 25 minutes of the assassination) The trajectory line of a shot fired from "badge man" just missing President Kennedy from Z-310 to 314, leads directly at the immediate ground surrounding Jean Hill. Additionally, there is 1968 documented grand jury testimony from a Dealey Plaza witness that he observed a gunman fire from within the open trunk of a car parked with its trunk up close to the picket fence line.Badgeman 00:04, 29 Jan 2005(UTC)

Isn't it odd that Jim Garrison didn't use that witness in his trial? Do we have any corroborating evidence that Jim Hicks was in Dealey Plaza that day? Why did no one hear from him before 1968? As for "Badgeman", don't you think witnesses Emmett Hudson, Abraham Zapruder, and Marilyn Sitzman, standing only a few yards from that fence, would have noticed someone standing eight feet off the ground firing a rifle? Or that Lee Bowers, who had an unobstructed view of the back of the fence from a two-story tower in the parking lot, would have seen this? You have to do a lot of explaining away of other eye- and earwitness testimony to make "Badgeman" possible. — Walloon 05:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Merger

Mary Moorman's only claim to fame is that she has taken a photo that some claim contains Badgeman. It seems fairly obvious to me that a merger would be appropriate here. JChap2007 01:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree - She is mildly famous as a witness to the assassination. There is quite a bit of information on her on the Internet. She made statements to the FBI and others about it. She was played by Sally Nystuen in the movie JFK. Fanra 03:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree — Mary Moorman was a witness, Badgeman is a theory held by conspiracy theorists. "Badgeman" is not Mary Moorman's theory, it is an inference drawn by others. The two are not joined at the waist. — Walloon 04:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Badge man" image colorization

In colorosation I gather the settings of what areas of a B&W image are what particular color are set by an operator. Is this the case? Has the color of that image been absolutely determined by algorithm? The colorisation seems too good to be true; to fit what the coloriser wants to see in the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.188.27 (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the "Badge Man in the photograph?

I can't figure out where in the photo the Badge Man is. Could someone please circle this area with a pen or with software? Thank you. Risssa (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This is it, more or less. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I also can't tell where in the picture that section is actually located. Would it be possible for a version of the photo currently in the article to be uploaded pointing out the appropriate section within the picture as a whole....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

This was bothering me for longer than it should have. I finally found where he's supposed to be in the larger image. In the center of the image, just up the hill a bit, you'll see the corner of a wall. The left (from our perspective) side of the fence is an over-exposed white, and the right side is a shaded gray. The "badge man" is supposed to be just above the wall, right at that corner. In the image on this page you can make out two white dots a little above this corner and a grayish blob at the top of the right side of the wall. The left white dot is supposed to be the "muzzle flash", and the right white dot is supposed to be the background behind badge man's left shoulder. The lower gray blob is supposed to be the background underneath his left arm. This looks nothing like the "enhanced" badge man photo (not even like the non-colorized one). Note that you can't make out his head, nor the famous "badge". I loaded the image into gimp and raised the brightness to 73 (I don't know what unit this is, it's just what the brightness tool shows) and I could just barely make out what is supposed to be his head. Still no sign of the badge though. It looks nothing like a person, but guess what it does look exactly like... light filtering through tree leaves. Which is exactly what's going on all around that spot. I really don't believe this garbage should be on wikipedia. I thought reliable sources was the name of the game here. Especially that horrendous colorized version. Someone just picked the colors they wanted where they wanted them. You may as well accept someone's original painting as evidence. Onlynone (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The location of the enlargement area is described in the article text as well as the first photo caption. As for that new enlargement, I've removed it: You can't possibly find the same detail in a JPEG that you can in the original photograph. The Mack/White enlargement comes from that original, and the colorized version was White's way of conveying their theory. It's a threadbare theory, perhaps even "garbage", but there it is. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Introductory sentence

@HAL333: Good work on this. I understand that this will be a featured article on May 5, 2023. I did have one more comment that may have been touched on in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Badge Man/archive1. I am mentioning it here in the event others would like to chime in.

The first sentence of the article currently states:

The Badge Man is an unknown figure that is purportedly present within the Mary Moorman photograph of the assassination of United States President John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.

Is "unknown" necessary? It begs the question, "Unknown to whom?" The alleged person is unknown to some conspiracists, but other conspiracists believe they know who it is. And given that everyone who thinks it is an actual person also thinks it is an assassin (not just an observer standing behind the fence), I propose:

The Badge Man is an assassin that is purportedly present within the Mary Moorman photograph of the assassination of United States President John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.

Thoughts? Should I open an Rfc on this? -Location (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I have a paranoid mindset, but your alternative could be read to mean that The Badge Man is an assassin who may be in the photo. I think the first one does a good job of making it clear that even the existence of the badge man is in doubt. Rjjiii (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

If that is the impression that most people would receive from my suggestion, then we definitely should not use it! I'm still not sure why we use "unknown" as it implies to me that there is a figure (i.e. person) but we just don't know who it is. -Location (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I’d go further than this: “the badge man is an unknown figure…” emphasises that a figure is in the picture. I would say something weaker than this, that such a figure is supposedly in it. I’d also make it clearer sooner that the consensus amongst experts is there is no such figure. FOARP (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with both here that the wording "an unknown figure" gives off wrong vibes. "figure" as a word can occasionally refer to non-humans or objects, but "unknown" suggests the most common definition (a human silhouette) by way of implicature. IMO, it's better to simply state "a figure", which leaves the epistemological burden on conspiracy theorists to prove that it's a human figure. This is also the approach taken by John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories#Badge_man (and the subsequent section on "Black dog man"). Ceconhistorian (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Rjjiii, FOARP, and Ceconhistorian: I have removed "unknown" per the above. I assuming doing so may draw others to this thread who will follow WP:BRD. -Location (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the removal of "unknown" to describe a purported figure. Besides making the sentence simpler and more direct, it avoids implying there is someone's figure but their identity is unknown. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I like it, Rjjiii (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Tag

@GA-RT-22: At the end of the following sentence...

The examined photo was the original copy, which had greatly degraded by that point.

...I saw that you placed a {{clarification needed}} tag with the note "Did HSCA send a negative or the original positive to RIT?" A few sentence earlier in the paragraph there is a sentence that states:

The HSCA then sent a negative version of the Moorman photo to the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) for enlargement, enhancement, and analysis.

The HSCA report says "a high quality negative copy" was made at the RIT.[1] This seems to me to mean that the HSCA sent the original and that RIT made the negative. -Location (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

So RIT made a negative copy, but didn't use it in the analysis? I don't have a copy of Bugliosi to check what he says. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that the original photographs is relatively small (i.e. less than 3" wide), so RIT used the original to make a negative then used the negative to make larger images.

Bugliosi only states: "But the image of the retaining wall area is so blurred that enlarging the photo and seeking to enhance it at the Rochester Institute of Technology 'produced no significant increase in detail and no evidence of any human form.' And since the 'fence region of the photograph was of even poorer quality than the retaining wall area, no enhancement' was even attempted." -Location (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22: Do you think the tag could be removed or do you think there is still something that needs clarification? -Location (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Badgeman coloured.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)