It was this white shape that MACK claimed was examined extensively at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) by "varying the density and contrast levels." MACK stated that they found that the bright spot of light "has shape, form, and texture whereas the light area over Badge Man's left shoulder was nothing but clear sky through the trees." [140] In 1993, ITEK Corporation personnel used computer technology, including edge detection, to examine the same bright spot of light with the same results. [141] MACK later wrote: "This has all been done repeatedly by some of the sharpest people and equipment around. No one can identify for certain what the image is..." [142]
Indeed, the MIT experts were right. The bright spot of light is between MOORMAN's camera and the background foliage, although it is clearly not a "muzzle flash" or "smoke" as MACK and WHITE believe.
The idea that the "muzzle flash" or "smoke" might be a soda bottle has circulated before and MACK dismisses the notion. In a 2000 Internet message board posting, MACK wrote, "I've long been aware of the Coke bottle theory and the fact of the matter is that regardless what the Badge Man image may be, if not a person, it is not comprised of a pop bottle." MACK's reasoning is four-fold:
 |
(1.) The highlights seen in the NIX and MUCHMORE frames are not reflections off a soda bottle but "could just as easily be sunlight in the background or part of the Badge Man image. [143] |
|
As previously shown, triangulating the highlights seen in the NIX and MUCHMORE frames, as well as several others, proves that the highlights are not spots of sunlight in the background, as MACK contends, but are emanating from a point just above the corner of the concrete wall.
|
(2.) The bottle seen on the wall in Jim TOWNER's photograph appears to be half full, a photograph taken seconds later by Cecil STOUGHTON seems to show the bottle nearly full. [144] |
|
While the TOWNER photograph does show the soda bottle half full, the STOUGHTON photo is less definitive. The bottle is clearly visible in TOWNER because a man in a dark suit is seen passing behind it, providing good contrast. In the STOUGHTON photograph, the background of the area of the wall where the bottle should be located is busy with branches, foliage, and fence posts surrounding the southeast corner of the stockade fence. The image is also slightly blurred. Consequently, it is difficult to discern the bottle in the STOUGHTON photograph or exactly how full it is. In either case, the TOWNER photo alone proves that a bottle was present on the corner of the wall shortly after the shooting. The computer triangulation of a spot of light seen in various films exposed during the shooting proves that an object (believed to be the same soda bottle) existed at that location earlier.
|
(3.) When was the bottle placed on the wall? Josiah THOMPSON's interview with Marilyn SITZMAN clearly states that the black couple sitting on the nearby bench ran back into the pergola immediately after the first shot. That means neither could have run forward, left a bottle on the wall, and turned to go into the pergola. [145] |
|
Here, MACK's argument only serves to support the belief that the bottle was placed on the wall before the shooting, not after as MACK contends. But SITZMAN's account is actually a bit different than what MACK says. Here's what SITZMAN told THOMPSON in 1966:
|
MARILYN SITZMAN: "...there was a colored couple. I figure they were between 18 and 21, a boy and a girl, sitting on a bench, just almost, oh, parallel with me, on my right side, close to the fence..." |
|
|
JOSIAH THOMPSON: "Which direction was the bench facing when you..?" |
|
|
MARILYN SITZMAN: "It was facing towards the street... And they were eating their lunch, 'cause they had little lunch sacks, and they were drinking Coke. The main reason I remember 'em is, after the last shot I recall hearing - and the car went down under the triple underpass there - I heard a crash of glass, and I looked over there, and the kids had thrown down their Coke bottles, just threw them down and just started running towards the back...Either in the gap [between the stockade fence and the pergola] there or back in the alcove. I don't recall which way they went...I heard the bottles crash, and of course I looked that way, to my right, right away, and they were getting up and running towards the back..." [146] |
|
So, in fact, the young, black couple did not run back toward the alcove of the pergola until after the presidential limousine passed under the triple underpass, long after the last shot. In any case, SITZMAN didn't think they had left the bench, though she couldn't be sure that one or both of them hadn't been standing at the wall earlier.
|
JOSIAH THOMPSON: "Well, did you notice at any point whether either of these two moved up to the end of the, to the point of the wall?" |
|
|
MARILYN SITZMAN: "No. They may have. I don't know." |
|
|
JOSIAH THOMPSON: "Of course, you were looking at the parade at that point, and you wouldn't have seen what they did." |
|
|
MARILYN SITZMAN: "Yeah. I always have the feeling that they were still sitting on the bench, because when I looked over there, they were getting up from the bench." [147] |
|
Even if the young, black couple remained seated on the bench throughout the shooting, no one can be sure that they didn't place one of their Coke bottles on the wall earlier. Nor can anyone be sure that a completely different individual was responsible for placing the soda bottle on the wall. You'll recall that photographs and films show a black man joining two other men on the stairway landing just as the president's car approaches. This individual may be the same one identified as 'Black Dog Man,' who is seen near the corner of the wall, where the bottle was later photographed, just as the shooting began. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine just who was responsible for putting the bottle on the wall. But one thing is certain. Epipolar mathematics proves that an object like the soda bottle was present on the corner of the wall during and immediately after the shooting.
|
(4.) The MOORMAN picture does not show a bottle. The area is in sharp focus and would have revealed a bottle clearly if it had been there. [148] |
|
Not true. In fact, Abraham ZAPRUDER, who is at least eleven times larger than the soda bottle appears neither clear nor sharp in the MOORMAN photograph. ZAPRUDER also has the advantage of being photographed in a dark suit against the light backdrop of the pergola, a fact that should make Zapruder easier to discern. Yet, ZAPRUDER's image is indistinct and unclear.
A glass soda bottle photographed against the relatively dark, patchy background of foliage in shadow would, by comparison, be nearly impossible to discern. What might be easier to spot would be the interaction of any strong light source playing off the curved glass surfaces of the bottle. This fact is demonstrated through the use of other still photographs and film frames which, like the MOORMAN photograph, also fail to show a glass bottle sitting on the wall, but do show a spot of light emanating from that location. As I described earlier, triangulating this spot of light shows the source to be a point in space six inches above the top of the wall. Although no specific object can be seen in any of these images, it is reasonable to conclude that an object capable of reflecting or transmitting light exists at that location, regardless of the fact that the object itself is not evident.
|
