Question from Chad in Reno:
“Do you believe the “Badgeman” photo is the grassy knoll shooter? Looks like a real person there.”
Answer from Jeff in DC:
No, I do not believe “Badgeman” represents a gunman. The imagery does not look like a real person to me. It looks like a bunch of shadows. There is not enough visual information in Mary Moorman’s photo to make such a determination with any confidence.
I agree with Dale Myers’s analysis that a gunman in that location would have had to have been considerably elevated in order to have a clear shot at JFK’s limousine on Elm Street. But don’t take my word for it (or Myers’). Go to Dealey Plaza stand in the “Badgeman” location. Decide for yourself.
Given the nature of Kennedy’s head wound, the more likely location for a grassy knoll gunman, if there was one, was along the stockade fence on the Elm Street side toward the rear of the parking lot. And that is where S.M. Holland, one of the most credible eyewitness on the subject, heard a rifle report and saw smoke.
Needless to say, the fact that “Badgeman” is a figment of the imagination does not mean that JFK was not shot from the front.
The trajectory is all wrong, he would hit Jackie with any shot where the presdent is visible, also, how come no one saw him move from that position with a rifle ? Literally everyone was either looking there or standing near there.
I have been to Dealey plaza and stood there, the size works but if he pulled the trigger for the headshot it would have blown jackie away, also its more exposed then the Moorman picture makes it look, also, Zapruda, or anyone on the top area would have sen him. Contrary to ‘JFKsolved’ however it is the right height and size. Look at the images on google of people in that position.
Oswald said while he was still alive, “I didn’t shoot anyone” and then there was this photo, if no one sees people there, then what are they looking for? it’s easy to see a guy in a police uniform holding a rifle, yes I saw 3 men in that photo, anyone else?
If the audio evidence is credible and it is a stuck open mic on the police motorcycle then everything you need to know about a second gunman is right there.
I have been a musician and studio technician since 1974 and to put simply in layman’s terms here it is.
If a man is shouting to you 100 feet away, you will hear his voice pretty well, If a man is shouting you from 50 yards away then the chances are you will have to ask him to repeat himself “Say what” right? and the further away the man is the less you will hear him, The same goes for the gunman and the velocity of the shot, the further away it was fired from, the less you will hear it, the acoustic tests I have seen indicate different volumes so there was more than one shooter, Also a trained ear will tell you from which direction the shots came from, now assuming the recording was emanating from the motorcycle then there in lies your proof. We may never know who the shooters were but if you want to find out if there was a conspiracy then the acoustic evidence is irrefutable proof and there was indeed at least two to three gunman no question no matter how many FBI audio experts come forward, it’s common sense to anyone who’s ears are used to listening to tiny detailed audio nearly everyday.
I hope that helps and the layman’s language was ok?
If the audio evidence is credible and it is a stuck open mic on the police motorcycle then everything you need to know about a second gunman is right there.
I have been a musician and studio technician since 1974 and to put simply in layman’s terms here it is.
If a man is shouting to you 100 feet away, you will hear his voice pretty well, If a man is shouting you from 50 yards away then the chances are you will have to ask him to repeat himself “Say what” right? and the further away the man is the less you will hear him, The same goes for the gunman and the velocity of the shot, the further away it was fired from, the less you will hear it, the acoustic tests I have seen indicate different volumes so there was more than one shooter, Also a trained ear will tell you from which direction the shots came from, now assuming the recording was emanating from the motorcycle then there in lies your proof. We may never know who the shooters were but if you want to find out if there was a conspiracy then the acoustic evidence is irrefutable proof and there was indeed at least two to three gunman no question no matter how many FBI audio experts come forward, it’s common sense to anyone who’s ears are used to listening to tiny detailed audio nearly everyday.
I hope that helps and the layman’s language was ok?
I do believe there is something there, even though the original picture was taken from a politoid camera when blown up you can see a rough detail of a hair line and outline of someone. I truly believe that Jack Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy to remove a president who did not conform to “regular” politics. This world needs a bold leader like JFK. He will always be remembered as one of America’s best presidents. A life cut down far too short.
Robert
British Columbia
Canada
Jeff, I certainly agree with you about the credibility of Sam Holland as a witness.
‘Old Tramp’ Chauncey Holt said Charles Rogers, Roscoe White and Charles Harrelson ran to the pre-planned railroad car after shooting JFK. James Files said he ran the other way, just like your man in the hat. Holt mentioned that Lee Bowers stopped the railroad car from leaving.
The assassin on the Knoll is seen in the Betzner photo, not the Moorman photo.
He was not wearing a badge, he was not wearing a hat, he was not wearing a tie and he used a handgun not a rifle. And, as can be seen he is standing INFRONT of the fence. ( I will tell you why he was infront of the fence later)
All of those details can be seen in the Betzner photo.
Actually, it is the Betzner scan, not photo. Why scan?
The Betzner negative is lost. The HSCA could not find it. All we have today are scans made from the publication of the Betzner photo in the Novermber 1967 issue of Life Magazine.
Here is the grassy knoll crop of the Costella scan of the Betzner photo. The man in question is in the background inside the red ellipse.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Jt48xO3RMl8/Uh03_HNW5xI/AAAAAAAACO4/FhCPizwE-Nk/w800-h269-no/betznercrop800bmancircl.png
Here is a comparison between a Tony Marsh scan of the Betzner photo in Life and the Costella scan of the same photo.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Ln9y07UJGR8/Us2Z01bYsVI/AAAAAAAADAc/7VYXsrLzcRw/w1597-h905-no/compare_marsh_costella_scan2.png
And finally here is an animated gif in which the man in question is highlighted…
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-huqGdpxbM3w/Uh030GPYnaI/AAAAAAAACOg/3D_0ozMPHS0/w480-h360-no/bman.gif
I think you have been snookered by the embellished tale of gun disposer/spotter James Files, Mike Rago. Unlike numerous other JFK suspects, no one ever corroborated Files’ tale, and he named a bogus J.D. Tippit killer as well.
http://jfkplayersandwitnesses.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/the-mary-moorman-photo/
No. I discovered this fellow totally independent of anything James Files might have said.
And he and his location is corroborated by the testimony of Lee Bowers.
It is written about here…
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19298
In 1965, David Lifton identified #5 man in the Moorman photo. More confirmation: 10 of 12 photographic experts identified that the figure was a man without being told it was the Moorman photo. Three were employees of Graphic Arts Service of M.I.T. Another was supervisor of the UCLA biomedical lab. They each independently made signed statements. http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace../09/Kelin33/no_5.html
This claim from Marcus conflicts with the account I got from Gary Mack. He told me that in the 80s, when he and Jack White were working on the “Badgeman” issue, they carried the photo to MIT and Caltech.
Scientists at both places were unable to either conform not debunk the notion that this was a man.
Of course, for this to be a grassy knoll shooter, you not only have to show it’s a man, you have to show he was shooting.
Badge Man = Charles Frederick Rogers = Raoul from the MLK assassination
‘They were told that, without question, the photo showed a man firing a rifle. The next day, however, the chairman of the MIT department involved suddenly gave all the materials back to them and, with no explanation, told them the school would no longer participate in any study of the photo.’ p. 80 Crossfire by Jim Marrs.
Richard:
Where does that link say that MIT sponsored a study certifying Badge Man as authentic?
MIT determined that Badgeman was authentic: http://jfkplayersandwitnesses.wordpress.com/tag/badgeman/
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_2.htm
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/tag/badge-man-photo/
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwhiteJ.htm
I’m not sure what I see in the old B/W pictures, with the outline filled in it looks convincing. Jack White was a photography expert and I’m not. I’ve never thought the perpetrators would use a local cop for that most important shot. They would use a professional. Wearing a police uniform could provide cover escaping.
I can “see” a “gunman in a police uniform” and to his right , a much taller “man in a military uniform.” Evidence of a GK shooter and Gordon Arnold ? If anyone thinks that,they must explain also the “balding man in sunglasses” , just above the soldier . And the “giant poodle” , behind and to the left of the gunman. Next to that “poodle” I can “see” a Great Dane.
Jack White was right to consider that Mary Moorman’s photograph might have revealed something.
He was wrong to defend the possibility when it was proven – let’s be kind – extremely unlikely.
I am headed to Dallas on Tuesday 11th and will take the time to see for myself but judging by the angle in relation to the Zapruder film I would agree the fatal shot came from further up the fence line.
what happened ????????????????????????????????? ANSWER PLEASE
I come down on the side of it not being a shooter–but not by much, actually. I think those who say it “just looks like a blob” may not be looking too closely, or in the right place. There’s a clear head shape, hairline, goggles, badge, and gun flash. The gun flash, however, make it a bit “too good to be true,” perhaps. Though Mary Moorman took the shot just as we believe the fatal gunfire came, capturing the flash would still be quite a stroke. I haven’t stood in Dealey, but some who have say that this place is too exposed. And it isn’t where the acoustic evidence pinpoints a front shot either. (By the way, I’ve always wondered–if the acoustic evidence is just an “audio artifact,” why does it fit perfectly in timing with the Z-film, and why does it point to the direction of the window at the right time and the direction of the head shot at the right time? THAT would be a stretch.)
Any photograph is an illusion of a moment in time captured when time cannot be captured. It can’t be put in a bottle. Motion pictures is an even more elaborate illusion that fools human eyes into believing they are seeing both time and motion captured.
Eugene Boone recently stated on TV that he ran into a porter cleaning one of 2 parked passenger trains in the rail yard behind the grassy knoll fence. Neither the trains, the porter or Boone appear in the Mary Moorman (Krahmer)photo yet they were all there 22 Nov 1963. When pointing out an image in a photograph as fact some people will see it & others would not see the ocean if they fell into it face first.
It is hardly a fact that there is not a person there. It is your opinion and nothing more.
I have to say the evidence for someone being in this particular photo looks (to me) to be rather thin.
It just looks like blobs which could be leaves of a tree.
I used to agree but to be fair the face size is right and there are what looks like muzzle flash, however, since there couldn’t have been a shot fired from this location( it would have hit Jackie) it is irrelevant. When ‘ theories’ are irrelevant because they do not affect any other aspect of the case they are probably bogus.
The Badgeman controversy, in my opinion, serves only one purpose and it’s not good. That is to strengthen the impression there is no point in studying the photographic record. Badgeman, I’ve always believed, is a stretch too far.
To my dismay, I read Jim DeEugenio recently on a blog saying that he doesn’t pay much attention to the photographic record.
I’m no photo analyst and I don’t know much about cameras; but I understand perspective and parallax. The photos and films contain a lot of information in my view. They reveal lies, for example.
One such lie is embedded in the inconsistency between the Z-film and the testimony to the HSCA by Louis Steven Witt, who claimed to be “Umbrella Man,” a real not a fanciful figure. Witt said he was walking down the grassy incline fiddling with his umbrella and never saw the shooting. The extant Z-film shows Umbrella Man standing near the limousine as it passes him, holding the umbrella over his head. There’s a lie somewhere in there.
it’s clear to see 3 men behind the knoll, people who believe one thing or another, it’s up to them, the way JFK reacted when being hit, proves the badge man to stand there, so Grodan Arnold said he was there, and also said he stood too close, he said he could not believe the photo showed him there,so yes there was a gun man there, justy my thoughts
Badgeman is a photographic artifact.
I feel that the theory, advocated by Sherry Feister and others, of a shooter somewhere between the South knoll and the Underpass explains the head shot better.
I urge everyone to use Google Maps Street View and virtually “stand” on Commerce St near the underpass, then look back up toward Elm Street. There is a bend in the street around the area of the head shot. You’ll get an idea of how the trajectory lines up better. JFK had his head leaning forward and to the left at the time of the head shot.
I don’t think badgeman is a photographic artifact. Disinterested experts who have studied the photo acknowledge that it does show a human figure who is facing toward the plaza.