Badge Man is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 5, 2023. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Gamaliel 00:57, 2 Dec 2004 (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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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:
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:
Thoughts? Should I open an Rfc on this? - Location ( talk) 15:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@ GA-RT-22: At the end of the following sentence...
...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 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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Badge Man is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 5, 2023. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Gamaliel 00:57, 2 Dec 2004 (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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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:
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:
Thoughts? Should I open an Rfc on this? - Location ( talk) 15:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@ GA-RT-22: At the end of the following sentence...
...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 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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)