Talk:Badge Man

message: 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.
<P>
<P>
Moorman #5 showing inverted shades displaying the evident damage to the head top and head rear of President Kennedy.
<P>
<P>
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.
<P>
<P>
The "badge man" cropped, contrasted and brightened only.
<P>
<P>
(left to right, and colorized) 
supposedly Gordon Arnold filming, 
"badge man" assassin,
the railroadman construction-hard-hatted accomplice.
<P>
<P>
The "badge man" assassin colorized.
<P>
Badgeman 18:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: # There is no reason to restore the old quotation marks.  See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Use_straight_quotation_marks_and_apostrophes.  
# It is rude to accuse another editor of vandalism over a content dispute.
# Your opinions on this McAdams person are irrelevant and do not belong in this article or in the edit summary.
# This is not the HSCA article and is not the place for their conclusions.
# 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)
thread_title:  Some notes on the latest revert 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question of POV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Badge man" image colorization 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is it, more or less. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Where is the "Badge Man in the photograph? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: I like it, Rjjiii (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory sentence

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion